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

3. Question 1

Theme: Overall strategy

Question 1: The research strategy outlines a new outcome focused approach with five core Missions and a set of corresponding Challenges. Do you think this is the right approach to take?

Introduction

The vast majority (67, 96%) of all consultation respondents answered question 1.

The vast majority of respondents considered this the right approach to take – but in the main caveated their response

Some respondents who answered question 1 were fully supportive of a new outcome focused approach for the ENRA Research Strategy with five core Missions and a set of corresponding Challenges. This viewpoint was mainly expressed by organisation respondents (all organisation sub-groups and primarily other stakeholders).

The majority of respondents (across all organisation sub-groups) were broadly supportive of a new outcome focused approach for the ENRA Research Strategy but caveated their response in some way.

Theme 1: Reasons for supporting a new outcome focused approach

The vast majority of consultation responses (all respondent types) which expressed support broadly confirmed that this would be an ‘entirely appropriate’ approach to take or would be a ‘step in the right direction.’ The new outcome focused approach was considered a ‘timely’ and ‘forward-looking’ development. Further, it was noted in these responses that the theory of change used to support delivery could ensure the SRP has a ‘clear route to implementation and impact.’

These respondents typically identified a common and consistent set of reasons for why they supported a new outcome focused approach. The points raised included that respondents said it:

• provides a strong, structured organising framework for the ENRA Research Strategy
• reflects the complexity of Scotland’s environmental and rural challenges and has the potential to bring greater coherence to research and policy
• closely aligns research investment with real-world impact, policy priorities, and interdisciplinary collaboration
• promotes systems thinking and co-production, strengthens linkages and integration, as well as mobilises expertise across different sectors
• allows for potential synergies with United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and Horizon Europe

“We fully support the interdisciplinary, outcomes focused approach for the new research strategy, which will help to strengthen linkages across the portfolio and promote the systems thinking that will be needed to maximise policy impact in relation to the core Missions identified.” Food Standards Scotland

“The proposed approach provides a strong framework, with five well-defined research Missions that align with major policy priorities and set out the programme’s overarching goals. By funneling these Missions into Challenges and then ARIs, the programme establishes an appropriate level of granularity while preserving coherence across the structure. The adoption of a theory of change adds further rigour, enabling the creation of clear, testable, and impactful objectives.” The International Barley Hub, based at The James Hutton Institute

“The selection of the core Missions and their strategic interlinking set a helpful basis for an approach that prioritises effective outcomes in alignment with wider National Performance Framework aspirations. In doing so, this reduces the potential for relevant research activity being disjointed or insular over the five-year period covered by the new strategy.” Built Environment Forum Scotland

Theme 2: The broad support expressed for a new outcome focused approach was often caveated or conditional

As noted above, much of the support expressed by all respondent types was caveated (or conditional) in some way. These respondents felt the new approach could be further strengthened or enhanced and/or considered it equally important that any potential risks associated with a new outcome focused approach were identified and mitigated.

Sub-themes that emerged from across these responses included:

• embedding strong links across and between the Missions
• defining and delivering Missions
• addressing perceived gaps and omissions
• funding, prioritisation, and delivery issues
• ensuring genuine community and stakeholder involvement

Embedding strong links across the Missions

First, respondents including Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, other scientific organisations, and other public bodies said that steps should be taken to ensure a ‘holistic’ approach, or ‘systems-thinking’ lens or ‘strong interlinkages’ were fully embedded between all the Missions.

Generally speaking, they said it would be vitally important to better reflect the interconnected or interdependent nature of the Missions and associated set of Challenges in the final ENRA Research Strategy. They said this approach could help ensure:

• the Missions did not become fragmented and siloed, in particular for cross-cutting and interdisciplinary research projects
• ‘best-value’ in the use of research funding
• maximise ‘interdisciplinary benefits’

Respondents said it would be important to ensure social, cultural, and ecological dimensions were more fully integrated into the strategy’s Missions. It was suggested that ‘conceptualisation could be framed in a wider context’ and that the research programme would need to look ‘holistically across the Missions’, with stronger emphasis than the previous research programme on developing cross-cutting research projects.

A related point raised by these respondents was the need for mechanisms to identify and address potential duplication, minimise any trade-offs and resolve policy conflicts in a way that did not undermine effective delivery of the outcome focused approach.

“A number of the Missions cover similar and overlapping challenges and therefore some of the ARI will intersect across different Missions, which could risk duplication if links are not made explicit.” Food Standards Scotland

“Recognising that there are overlaps and synergies across the five core Missions and ensuring as far as possible that the research commissioned under one Mission should also contribute to the others.” Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)

“Adopting a Missions focus is a commendable approach to take, but the wording of the five Missions does not recognise the trade-offs between them. For example, there are risks that “Building a Circular economy” will compete with “Delivering sustainable and regenerative agriculture and food systems”. While adoption of a “whole system approach” is mentioned separately, this is not reflected in the wording of the Missions.” Stapledon Memorial Trust

“These linkages should be captured within the research framework and not treated as competing priorities.” British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Defining and delivering Missions

Other suggestions made by respondents to strengthen the Missions included, for example:

• the need for clear and well-framed definitions and outcomes to avoid any confusion, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation – that is, the Missions should not be ‘too ‘vague or generic or ‘too open-ended’ in order to be ‘fully useful’. For example, the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ was frequently mentioned as needing clarified and having greater specificity
• refining and expanding the proposed Missions and Challenges as currently framed in the draft strategy – for example, SEPA suggested that ‘minimising pollution’ could be added to the wording of the Restoring nature and protecting our environment Mission, that ‘water scarcity’ could be specifically referenced in the context of the Climate positive and resilient landscapes Mission, and that ‘forestry cuts across’ all of the Missions and should also be considered
• suggestions for what research could be prioritised across the Missions – for example, Quality Meat Scotland suggested the strategy should prioritise research that ‘quantifies carbon sequestration in grazed grasslands, providing robust evidence of the positive contribution of well-managed livestock systems to Scotland’s net zero targets’ within the Delivering sustainable and regenerative agriculture and food systems and Delivering climate-positive and resilient landscapes Missions

Addressing perceived gaps and omissions

Second, respondents (all respondent types) considered there to be some notable gaps or omissions in the draft strategy and/or identified aspects which they felt could have a stronger focus or benefit from having a more prominent emphasis or integration within the strategy. A few specific examples mentioned in these consultation responses are provided below.

Respondents felt there could be strengthened alignment/links and more explicit reference to how the five core Missions would help to support wider Scottish Government policy objectives. This was considered important to minimise the potential for disconnect between the overall intended impact of the programme and focus of the research. For example, Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and adaptive reuse policies, Land Use Strategy, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), Agricultural Reform Route Map, Fairer Duty Scotland, Scotland’s Landscape Charter, Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, Good Food Nation, Scotland’s Population Health Framework were all mentioned in responses.

Respondents considered it important to frame the strategy more explicitly in a global context to ensure Scotland’s contributions are globally recognised, that research activity was not insular, and that ‘opportunities are not missed’ – frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), One Health, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and planetary boundaries were mentioned, for example.

Respondents suggested that the Scottish Government could consider specific additions to address the perceived ‘omissions’ or ‘under-represented ecosystems’. Examples were: skills gaps and training; freshwater ecosystems and river catchments; marine and coastal ecosystems; supporting place-based regenerative practices and community-led stewardship; seafood and aquaculture; bioregional adaptation pathways; animal welfare; and the historic environment.

Further, respondents said there could be more explicit reference to aspects that underpin or would enable the effective and successful delivery of the Missions. For example, skills and training, practice-based mechanisms, place-based approaches to innovation were all mentioned in consultation responses.

It was suggested that the transformative role of technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be more explicitly integrated within the strategy to ‘ensure Scotland remains competitive.’

Respondents also made suggestions for additional Missions and/or Challenges (see page 15).

Funding, prioritisation, and delivery issues

Third, respondents (including Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, other scientific organisations) raised several points that have been thematically grouped under the sub-theme of funding, prioritisation, and delivery.

Questions were asked around whether the Challenges would be prioritised, weighted, or ranked in some way. There were also calls for sufficient flexibility and agility to respond to new Challenges, emerging issues and fundamental scientific (and technological) developments as they arise over the delivery period.

Further clarity was requested on funding availability: to ‘match the ambition’ set by the Missions and associated set of Challenges; given that ‘some Challenges and ARIs would feed into more than one Mission’; to ‘build capacity’ for interdisciplinary and cross sector research and innovation; and to help ‘overcome scalability challenges’ (for example, Living Labs and pilot projects may struggle to expand without dedicated support).

A range of points were raised by these respondents, in particular Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, on the need for clear and strong governance and reporting arrangements to enhance delivery transparency and to avoid a siloed approach, dilution of messaging, slow delivery, or duplication across Missions.

For example, these respondents said:

• governance and reporting arrangements should support collaboration between scientific disciplines – and seek to ensure all relevant parties were involved in the design, execution and reporting of research projects within the ENRA SRP
• Missions should be defined in SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) terms – they also called for measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and clear metrics of success/ impact
• they had concerns that the proposed impact framework could become ‘overly bureaucratic’ – support was expressed for an approach that aimed to minimise the administrative/ resource burden of outcome monitoring and reporting
• it was unclear how outcomes and impacts would be captured, monitored, and compared when they ‘fall under multiple Missions’

“Introducing a Mission dedicated to underpinning science would increase agility, enabling rapid response to new pressures. Investment in foundational capabilities - omics, imaging, genetics, biological technologies, data science, and methods development -would ensure Scottish research remains adaptable in times of upheaval, as illustrated by the global pandemic of the early 2020s.” The International Barley Hub, based at The James Hutton Institute

“Strong governance is required to ensure cross-fertilisation across Missions and Challenges and the avoidance of silos, although we note this has potential to be associated with a significant burden of monitoring and reporting. Under the current SRP projects are driven by deliverables that encourage a predefined linear path – if Missions and Challenges are to be interconnected then effort and resource need to be committed to allow projects to make connections in a flexible manner over the course of the project. This is something that would have helped the current programme.” Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutions (SEFARI) Directors Executive Committee

“There is also a need to maintain research capacity to be ready (and to anticipate) events by maintaining a broad base of expertise and skills which may lie outside immediate policy needs. Our concern is that if the strategy becomes too focused on current policy demands it becomes reactive, missing the bigger picture or the ability to horizon scan to anticipate the next challenges. Thus, we would argue that missions and challenges need to dynamically adapt to events that happen.” Rowett Institute

Ensuring the genuine involvement of communities and stakeholders

The involvement and active participation of communities from the outset, as ‘equal partners’, was considered important by all respondent types to help achieve meaningful impact. Respondents said delivery must be ‘genuinely co-produced’. Related points raised were around ensuring strong connections between research and practical application and the grounding of Missions in practice and in real-world contexts.

Respondents also expressed support for promoting participatory research approaches and non-traditional data collection to help foster public ownership, improve research relevance, and maximise opportunities for research to influence government policy.

“We note that involvement of communities, as equal partners, is important for their unique understanding, practical application, and innovation. This will need a distinct change in how communities are involved at the outset, and how they can actively participate including collecting data to ensuring equity of power and relevant research.” GrowGreen Scotland

“Strengthening interdisciplinary and practice-based collaboration will be essential for ensuring that science translates into outcomes that are workable and impactful across Scotland’s rural and environmental sectors…The approach is very outcome-driven overall, which is appropriate, but we need to ensure that all of the stakeholders are properly served by the approach, not just policy.” SEFARI Directors Executive Committee

“This practice-based link is fundamental to the success of outcome-focused Missions, providing a feedback loop that connects research with farmers, land managers, rural communities, and industry partners. Key to this approach is the development of Living Labs and lighthouse farms across multiple scales, which provide a direct bridge from research on SRUC’s own labs/experimental facilities/ farms through to delivery with end-users through industry and farmer networks. These Living Labs enable experimentation, co-design, and knowledge exchange in real working environments, strengthening the pathway from science to impact.” SRUC

Respondents who were unsure about the new outcome focused approach or who were not supportive

A (very) small number of respondents, primarily individual respondents, were unsure about a new outcome focused approach, and even fewer said they were not supportive of the proposed approach.

The points raised by these respondents have largely been covered in the sub-section above but included:

• perceptions of omissions and/or gaps in the ENRA Research Strategy – for example, the practical needs of the food producing or land managing interests in Scotland, and marine health, were mentioned
• concerns around whether there would be sufficient funding to deliver on all five Missions and the associated set of Challenges
• further clarity on how any trade-offs between the Missions would be resolved, and how potential synergies would be maximised

There was also (limited) negative feedback provided by these respondents on the consultation document, both in terms of its length and the language used within it.^[2]