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

Executive summary

Introduction

This executive summary presents the key findings from the independent analysis of responses received to the Scottish Government consultation on the draft Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (ENRA) Research Strategy for 2027-2032.

The ENRA Strategic Research Programme (SRP) is a large-scale, multidisciplinary portfolio of research. The programme is structured in five-year cycles to enable long-term strategic research. In preparation for the next cycle, the Scottish Government is reviewing its current approach and has developed a refreshed strategy that builds on progress achieved and which also evolves and responds to the changing context.

The public consultation invited comment on the strategic direction including on the proposed approach and priorities for the coming five-year cycle.

Consultation respondents

A total of 70 responses were received and included in the analysis. The vast majority of responses (84%) were submitted by organisations, including Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, other scientific organisations, third sector organisations, other public bodies, and other stakeholders. The remainder (16%) of responses were submitted by individual respondents, including from individual academics.

Key findings

Analysis of the responses showed strong in principle support for the strategy’s proposed outcome‑focused approach, built around five core Missions and associated Challenges. Respondents viewed the new approach as timely, coherent, and well aligned with Scotland’s environmental and rural priorities. They noted that it provides a structured framework capable of linking research investment to real‑world impact. Many highlighted the value of the theory of change in strengthening implementation pathways and ensuring a clearer line of sight from research to outcomes and impact.

Though, this support was frequently caveated. Respondents emphasised the need for stronger integration across Missions to avoid siloed delivery, duplication, or missed opportunities or synergies. They emphasised the importance of embedding whole‑systems thinking, ensuring that social, cultural, ecological, and economic dimensions are fully integrated, and recognising the interdependencies and trade‑offs inherent in addressing complex environmental and rural challenges.

A recurring theme across consultation responses was the need for clearer definitions and more precise framing of the Missions and Challenges.

Respondents cautioned that vague or overly broad terminology (for example, ‘regenerative agriculture’, ‘Living Labs’) could hinder effective engagement, delivery and monitoring. They also identified some gaps and omissions, calling for stronger alignment with wider Scottish Government policy frameworks, greater visibility of global frameworks, and more explicit attention to under‑represented ecosystems for example, freshwater, marine, and coastal environments. Additional areas highlighted for stronger emphasis included skills development, place‑based innovation, community stewardship, and the transformative potential of technologies such as Artifical Intelligence (AI).

Respondents raised concerns about funding sufficiency, prioritisation, and delivery mechanisms. They questioned whether resources would match the ambition of the Missions, how Challenges would be prioritised, and whether governance arrangements would be agile enough to respond to emerging issues and opportunities. While respondents supported the need for robust governance, they cautioned against overly bureaucratic monitoring and reporting frameworks and emphasised the importance of clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and metrics, and transparent reporting.

Across the consultation questions, respondents emphasised the critical importance of meaningful and genuine community and stakeholder involvement. They advocated that communities must be equal partners from the outset, with research grounded in real‑world contexts and co‑produced with those directly affected. Participatory research, non‑traditional data collection, and Living Labs were seen as essential mechanisms for ensuring relevance, ownership, and impact.

On the question of whether the strategy will secure the best research and scientific evidence from the best providers, most respondents felt it had strong potential to do so. Many highlighted the proven track record, expertise, and international reputation of the Main Research Providers (MRPs) and Centres of Expertise. However, some respondents also expressed concerns that an over‑reliance on MRPs could limit innovation, exclude alternative research providers, or reduce the diversity of expertise needed to address Scotland’s complex challenges. They expressed support for a more open, competitive, and inclusive model that enables universities, Non-Govenrmental Organisations (NGOs), small and medium enterprises (SMEs), citizen science networks, and independent researchers to contribute meaningfully.

Respondents also encouraged the Scottish Government to draw on lessons from previous SRP cycles to retain what worked well and to support continuous improvement. They called for stronger support for exploratory and higher‑risk research, more collaborative and cross‑sector models, and mechanisms that enable research to leverage additional funding from UK and international sources.

Innovation, open science, transparent data‑sharing, and improved data integration were highlighted as essential enablers of impact. Finally, respondents emphasised the need for stronger internal coordination across Scottish Government to ensure that evidence flows consistently into policy and that knowledge exchange is systematic rather than dependent on individual relationships.