Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture research strategy 2027-2032: consultation analysis

14. Question 12

Theme: Routes – Decision Support, Living Labs and innovation

Question 12: Is the innovation approach well designed? How can it be improved?

Introduction

The majority of all consultation respondents (44, 63%) answered question 12.

The vast majority of respondents said the innovation approach could be improved

The vast majority of respondents identified ways in which the proposed innovation approach could be improved or further strengthened in order to make it more inclusive, dynamic, and impactful.

Theme 1: Stakeholder input and market steering must be sufficiently embedded as part of the innovation approach

Respondents reiterated the critical importance of fostering genuine stakeholder input, partnership working and collaboration as part of the innovation approach. These respondents frequently said that all relevant stakeholders (including practitioners, end-users, and industry and commercial stakeholders) should be meaningfully included from the start to:

• foster co-development and co-design opportunities from initiation and throughout the lifecycle of innovation projects – to ensure the process remains grounded in real-world needs and delivers practical solutions, and to share experiences and learning (for example, peer learning, knowledge exchange opportunities, and encouraging open innovation)
• foster more interdisciplinary collaboration, including dedicated resources and space and time to allow this to happen
• enable more cross-sectoral innovation and linkages, including drawing on approaches to innovation in other sectors
• encourage more cross-border collaboration beyond Scotland

Suggestions included for example, the need for structured advisory, training, and co-development opportunities, peer-to-peer learning and mentoring, advisory panels, on-farm workshops, as well as dedicated resources and capacity building support.

Strengthening capacity-building mechanisms was considered vitally important. For example, fellowships and secondments that embed researchers within commercial/ policy settings and bring industry staff into research environments. Respondents also emphasised further investment in skills, training and advisory support as many of the intended adopters (for example, land managers, farmers, SMEs, and communities) may lack the skills, confidence, or resources to make use of new technologies.

“Farmers should be involved in setting research priorities, shaping project design, and evaluating outcomes - not just as participants, but as equal partners. This could include establishing farmer advisory panels for each major innovation project, holding regular on-farm workshops to test and adapt new ideas, and ensuring feedback loops so that farmer experience directly informs project adjustments…Co-design should reflect this by including a range of voices - small family farms, new entrants, and those in remote areas - not just the not just the most visible or well-connected businesses.” National Sheep Association

“Innovation must be delivered through partnerships with existing industry and commercial expertise. In the absence of such expertise it is essential that support is provided to researchers and institutes in receipt of funding to enable them to develop commercialisation plans. It is unreasonable to expect researchers to become developers and innovators without giving the space and support to do so.” Individual respondent

“Our network, including our newly expanded advisory panel, should be a useful resource to create the cross-disciplinary engagement that is needed for uptake of innovations. We would, as above, stress the need for dedicated resources to connect across sectors and stakeholder interests, and time to develop the relationships that enable co-design and co-delivery.” ClimateXChange

It was suggested that the innovation approach could be improved by providing increased opportunities and support for ‘grassroots and community-led innovation’ to ensure the innovation approach was firmly ‘rooted in lived experience.’

“Supporting peer-to-peer learning and mentoring (as demonstrated by Community Woodlands Association’s recent work establishing group to group and peer to peer mentoring schemes). Creating innovation pathways that include community groups as originators, not just end-users. Communities with agency will contribute more significantly to work.” Community Woodlands Association

Theme 2: Innovation must be understood in the broadest sense

Respondents said that innovation was often viewed in the context of technological advances and breakthroughs but emphasised that the innovation approach ‘must go beyond technology’. Respondents said that innovation should be more broadly defined within the research strategy and should recognise social and advisory innovation as ‘equally important’ alongside technological advances.

Respondents called for the innovation approach to be more explicit that innovation encompasses not only technological advances but also social, organisational, and advisory innovations such as:

• behavioural, organisational, and community-led change and solutions
• new methods and techniques, rather than just new technology
• new products, processes, business models, and system design
• new ways of working, new advisory models, and social innovations that enable behaviour change

“Recognising the full spectrum of innovation will ensure that ENRA supports outcomes that are not only commercially viable but socially embedded and environmentally sustainable.” SRUC

Theme 3: Ensuring closer alignment with the wider ‘innovation ecosystem’

Respondents highlighted that the final strategy should ensure the innovation approach does not duplicate existing mechanisms, and that efforts are taken to develop stronger formal links and partnership opportunities across the wider innovation ecosystem. Respondents said this was important at a Scotland and UK level, for example, with enterprise agencies, innovation centres, Innovate UK, and investors.

Closer alignment with the wider innovation ecosystem was considered vitally important to:

• support innovation, scaleup and market penetration – taking ideas through to adoption
• achieve best value
• ensure alignment with other forms of funding for innovation and unlock and leverage public and private sector investment
• facilitate the crossover of technologies from one sector to another
• maximise impact

Further, it was suggested that the strategy outlined ‘no single point of leadership, leaving scope for duplication and lack of coordination.’ Respondents said a clear governance structure may be needed (such as an Innovation Leadership Group) to coordinate efforts across Living Labs, MRPs, enterprise agencies, and industry.

To avoid duplication of effort it was suggested that there would be a need to ‘provide something currently missing from the innovation landscape in Scotland.’

“Care needs to be taken not to duplicate existing mechanisms (Regional Development Agencies, Innovate UK, UK Agri-Tech etc.). An oversight board with links to technology transfer practitioners, investment partners, innovation centres, enterprise agencies and industry stakeholders should be formed to drive this funding scheme forward to achieve maximum impact.” Moredun Research Institute

“Strengthening links between the ENRA innovation mechanisms and Scotland’s wider innovation ecosystem (for example, enterprise agencies, investors, SNIB and regional growth initiatives) would support scaling of research outputs and accelerate adoption. Opportunities such as cross-sector secondments, shared training, or innovation fellowships could help connect researchers and practitioners more directly, enhancing delivery and uptake.” SEFARI Directors Executive Committee

“Food innovation hubs developed by UKRI have been popular but all are in Southern England. Wales has something similar, but Scotland is missing this from the funding ecosystem and could really benefit small/medium enterprises in Scotland.” Rowett Institute

Theme 4: Ensuring clear pathways from innovation to scale

Respondents said it would be critical that the innovation approach ensured stronger mechanisms to move research from ‘theory to practice’ and clearer pathways and routes from ‘innovation to scale’ ‘or ‘broad sectoral adoption’. They said this would avoid a risk that innovation remains fragmented or localised and delivers an increased emphasis on the scaling up of successful work ‘already happening on the ground.’ These respondents emphasised the importance of bridging the gap between promising ideas and pilot/demonstration projects tested in real-world contexts, and real-world practical solutions and impact (delivering real system change).

Providing increased opportunities to support early testing in real-world settings and creating clear routes to scale successful innovations was also emphasised as vitally important. As discussed in the previous chapter, support was expressed for the role of Living Labs within the research strategy and were seen as a way to ensure wider and faster adoption.

There were calls to further develop the ‘commercialisation pathway’ – these responses noted the important role of developing stronger links across the wider innovation ecosystem but equally mentioned the need for:

• ‘specific financial levers’ (such as seed and match funding, post-pilot finance, innovation grants, venture investment, procurement pilots, targeted incentives) or ‘dedicated funding and policy initiatives’
• long-term funding aligned with innovation cycles (that is, move beyond fixed short funding cycles), including more flexible, responsive research funds and mechanisms to enable both planned and opportunistic innovations to thrive, recognising that innovation-derived impacts may only emerge over a decade or longer
• ensuring sufficient flexibility in financial assistance – for example, capital expenditure to purchase items of equipment, materials, expertise, backroom costs, testing and analysis
• ensuring there no unintended barriers to access and collaboration on other funding sources (for example, aligning funding opportunities with Scottish Funding Council funded innovation centres)
• streamlining funding processes – making application and reporting procedures simpler and faster to attract more innovators, especially smaller organisations
• innovation-friendly procurement schemes
• industry-led programmes

Respondents said such mechanisms and levers were required to support the full pipeline from pilot to widespread adoption and to accelerate uptake and market entry.

Responses which called for clearer pathways from innovation to scale were also framed in the context of allowing ‘space for failure’ and ‘iterative feedback loops’ and learning. This would allow for adjustment as part of the innovation process or refinement of technologies and practices ensuring lessons inform next-phase research.

“While pilot- and demonstration-focused activity is critical, the strategy would benefit from explicit mechanisms that support the transition of successful innovations into widespread adoption (including funding for scale-up, capacity building and supply-chain engagement).” Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

“We have a concern that the ARI approach may lead to a scatter-gun, diluted innovation portfolio unless efforts are made to deliver cohesive, cross-cutting innovation. The current design lacks sufficient emphasis on policy-driven/relevant exploratory, higher-risk research that are the cornerstones for longer-term Innovation breakthroughs.” James Hutton Institute

“The utilisation of Living Labs to demonstrate approaches at scale should enable faster adoption. It is not clear how these are to be funded and there is the risk that this will reduce the overall research funding. It would be beneficial to include the enterprise community in the thinking of how to maximise benefit and scale outputs to commercial level.” Scottish Water

In finalising the innovation approach it was considered important that robust metrics for success were defined. Ideas for metrics included the number of innovations adopted at scale, levels of private investment leveraged, or demonstrable reductions in emissions and inputs. Respondents also said that planned exit or scale-out pathways were important ‘so resources are focused’, to assess whether ‘innovation is delivering the desired impact’, and to maintain accountability.

Further, there was also acknowledgement within responses of the potential for conflict between ‘commercialisation of innovations and the provision of open data from publicly funded research’ which would need to be explored further.

The majority of respondents identified positive aspects of the innovation approach

A majority of consultation responses felt there were positive aspects of the proposed innovation approach. This was reflected in those responses which said things like ‘the innovation approach is well conceived in principle’, ‘it provides a strong foundation’, ‘it’s promising’, or ‘the focus on innovation is welcome’, as well as in those consultation responses which simply said ‘yes’ the innovation approach is well designed.

Theme 1: Reasons for expressing support for the innovation approach

The main reasons for expressing this viewpoint included that these respondents said that the proposed innovation approach:

• has sought to learn from previous experience of commercialisation of research
• recognises innovation (in addition to impact) as core or central to delivering the five Missions and strengthening Scotland’s economic competitiveness
• aims to deliver and expand innovation pathways, reduce barriers to uptake of innovations and support their adoption and commercialisation
• provides a structured opportunity to accelerate translation of research into practice or into practical solutions with real-world applications
• encourages new ideas and technologies to address environmental and agricultural challenges – provides a mechanism for piloting new ideas and testing novel solutions under real-world condition
• would ensure a strong partnership focus and promote collaboration – they further emphasised that external partnerships would be key to ensuring successful innovation can scale

A small number of respondents felt the innovation approach was unclear

A (very) small number of respondents (organisation respondents such as Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, other scientific organisations), also noted in their response that the design of the innovation approach was unclear. These respondents would welcome more details on how it would work in practice.