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

5. Question 3

Theme: Overall strategy

Question 3: Do you support the proposals on delivering our investment, including the five key funding mechanisms and governance approach?

Introduction

The vast majority (54, 81%) of consultation respondents answered question 3.

The majority of respondents expressed some level of support for the proposals, but feedback was mixed overall

Theme 1: Reasons for supporting the five key funding mechanisms and governance approach

The majority of respondents (all respondent groups) were generally supportive of some aspects of the proposals on delivering government investment, including the five key funding mechanisms and governance approach. As examples, respondents noted that:

• the proposals offered a balanced mix of funding mechanisms – respondents were broadly supportive of funding mechanisms that enabled long-term strategic research which provided continuity and stability and built capacity, while also retaining flexibility to respond to emerging issues and changing demand
• many of the Challenges to be addressed through the Missions would require sustained investment and stable institutional partnerships
• funding mechanisms provided space to support innovation and impact – for example, the Impact Investment mechanism and Living Labs were mentioned across responses and were seen as a positive step to bridge the gap between research and real-world application
• governance structures were clear – the proposed governance arrangements were in the main viewed as robust, offering accountability and oversight through groups such as the Research Portfolio Board and Scientific Advisory Board

“The proposed funding mechanisms and governance arrangements are appropriate and well-aligned with the strategy’s ambitions. The balance of long-term strategic research, responsive funding, and impact investment supports both stability and agility.” National Sheep Association

“Yes, we support these proposals, which allow flexibility in funding longer term research alongside research that is required rapidly in response to urgent needs.” NatureScot

“FSS considers the five funding mechanisms to be well-structured to support both long-term strategic research and responsive, applied projects. They allow for a good balance between maintaining existing research with innovation and allowing flexibility to address emerging issue.” Food Standards Scotland

Theme 2: Concerns raised on the proposals, including on the five key funding mechanisms and governance approach

Whilst the majority of respondents were generally supportive, many raised points of concern about funding mechanisms and the governance approach.

Governance arrangements could be more streamlined

Some respondents (primarily Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise and other public bodies) felt the governance structure may be overly complex, and that multiple governance layers could slow decision-making processes. These respondents suggested that the proposed governance structure could be streamlined to reduce bureaucracy and enable faster responses to emerging issues.

“The governance is very top heavy, with no industry input even in the several layers indicated.” Individual respondent

“The proposed governance structure provides clear accountability on paper, but its similarity to existing arrangements raises doubts about whether it will be sufficiently agile and forward-looking. Multiple layers of boards and groups risk slowing decision-making and blurring responsibilities, particularly where oversight and delivery functions overlap. Unless streamlined, this could add bureaucracy rather than delivering the stronger integration the system requires.” The International Barley Hub

There could be broader stakeholder representation

Some respondents (mainly third sector organisations and other stakeholders) felt that the proposed governance lacked diversity and inclusivity. Respondents said there should be more meaningful involvement from the private sector, third sector and community voices to ensure decisions reflected a wider range of perspectives and practical realities.

Without this broader involvement, respondents were concerned that governance risked becoming too narrowly focused on government and research institutions interests. This could potentially result in decisions being taken that do not reflect local needs and industry and community priorities. Funding being open to a broader range of applicants, such as private and third sector organisations, could also broaden the range of potential research topics and development of solutions.

“Governance should include regional representation and community advisory panels to ensure responsiveness to local needs.” Bioregioning Tayside

“The governance model would benefit from including more stakeholder voices beyond academic and policy institutions, such as conservation groups, farmer associations, fishers’ cooperatives, or rural youth groups. Transparent evaluation criteria and independent oversight would strengthen public trust in the process.” Merman Conservation Expeditions Ltd

The funding mechanisms must be responsive

Some respondents (mainly third sector organisations and Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise) raised concerns that the funding mechanisms (particularly the Responsive Research Fund) should be responsive to shifting demand and emerging issues, and that if funding is slow or overly bureaucratic, opportunities may be lost. Responsive and agile funding mechanisms would allow research to respond to fast-moving challenges such as climate-related events, disease outbreaks or invasive species more effectively.

“Responsive research funding must be fast, light on bureaucracy, and open to unconventional applicants.” Merman Conservation Expeditions Ltd

“Current processes can be too slow to respond to urgent evidence needs such as climate challenges or disease outbreaks.” Historic Environment Scotland

Theme 3: Suggestions for improvement

Many respondents offered practical suggestions to strengthen the proposals on funding mechanisms and governance approach. These are outlined below.

Broaden access to funding

Some respondents (mainly other stakeholders) felt that efforts should be made to broaden access to funding to SMEs, startups and community led projects, for example. There were concerns that if these organisations were not represented then research could be overly academic and disconnected from real-world application and could reduce the overall pool of talent, miss new ideas, and may exclude entrepreneurial talent and local knowledge.

“To deliver the research priorities set out in this strategy, the programme would benefit from determining a pathway for community led organisations to participate as equal partners.” GrowGreen Scotland

“While the five mechanisms cover a useful range, from strategic research to responsive funding, there should be clearer routes for smaller, independent, or community-led organisations to access support. A more decentralised funding model would foster innovation at the grassroots and ensure broader geographic equity.” Merman Conservation Expeditions Ltd

Strengthen mechanisms for knowledge exchange and co-production

Some respondents (largely other stakeholders and third sector organisations) identified the need for improved opportunities for knowledge exchange and co-production across all funding mechanisms to ensure research is practical, relevant and can be widely adopted. They stressed that research should be co-designed with end-users and supported by platforms that enabled practical adoption of solutions. Mechanisms such as Living Labs were highlighted as vital for translating research into real-world impact.

“These proposals seem reasonable but would suggest an increased emphasis on ensuring that the knowledge gained from the research is adequately shared to encourage any appropriate changes in existing practice.” National Sheep Association

“Living Labs must involve delivery partners such as fishery boards and trusts, whose local data and management experience are essential for translating research into measurable outcomes.” Fisheries Management Scotland

Accelerated approval processes

A small number of respondents (mainly Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise) felt that there could be mechanisms to improve the approval time across all funding mechanisms, but particularly the Responsive Research Fund, to ensure responsiveness to changing demand or urgent policy needs. Faster decision-making was seen as essential to ensure research responds effectively to urgent evidence needs.

“Establishing a fast-track approval mechanism for responsive funding with decisions within weeks rather than months would mean Scotland remains agile in the face of rapidly evolving policy and environmental challenges.” SRUC