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

8. Question 6

Theme: Areas of research interest

Question 6: The government evidence needs are being captured as Areas of Research Interests within the Strategy. Do you think this is the right approach to take?

Introduction

The vast majority (60, 85%) of consultation respondents answered question 6.

The vast majority of respondents considered the ARIs model the right approach to take

Theme 1: Reasons for supporting the proposed ARIs approach

The vast majority (88%) of respondents (all respondent types) who answered question 6 expressed support in full or in principle for government evidence needs to be captured as ARIs. These responses acknowledged that the use of ARIs was widely accepted as a structured mechanism or framework in other government strategies.

Support for this approach was reflected in responses which said ARIs was a ‘sensible’, ‘sound’, ‘reasonable’ ‘helpful’, ‘progressive’ or a ‘useful’ way of articulating evidence needs which could then be met by aligning research investment and through commissioning research projects.

In their responses, these respondents felt ARIs would help:

• provide clarity, transparency, and ensure direct alignment between government/policy needs and research priorities and activity
• support systems thinking and strategic targeting – the nested hierarchy of Missions, Challenges, and ARIs would help to target resources at areas of greatest impact
• ensure alignment with good practice approaches used by other national and international funders and organisations
• support research providers to plan with greater certainty, minimise duplication of work, identify potential areas for collaboration and partnership, and support greater policy cohesion and alignment
• make the SRP more visible to the public, to the research community, and to wider stakeholders – and make it easier to communicate

“Formalising ARIs provides a transparent and predictable way to align research with government priorities. This clarity benefits all stakeholders - government gains assurance that critical evidence needs are addressed, while research providers can plan with greater certainty, align resources, and avoid duplication. It also makes the research programme more visible to wider stakeholders, who can understand why particular areas are prioritised and how they connect to national goals.” SRUC

“The ARI model provides clarity, focus, and provides a structured and transparent mechanism for aligning research commissioning with policy priorities. Capturing the proposed SRP activities in this way follows UK government practice for detailing research questions for policy and will allow ARIs to be mapped across to those published by other departments, directorates, and agencies to address duplication and identify potential areas for collaboration with other research providers.” Food Standards Scotland

Theme 2: While there was broad support for the ARIs, some concerns were raised about the approach

Many of the respondents (all respondent tpyes) who agreed with the use of ARIs, also raised concerns about the proposed approach. These considerations largely focused on ways to minimise risks and/or to avoid unintended consequences, and are described below.

First, respondents considered it important that the ARIs retained a degree of flexibility. Respondents said ARIs should be regularly refreshed and updated to reflect questions that emerged from the research or as understanding of the Challenges developed. They also said ARIs should be responsive to reflect new and emerging issues.

Wider support was expressed for ensuring:

• the ARIs were adaptive, dynamic and not defined too narrowly – to avoid constraining innovation, missing emerging issues, and to avoid rigidity
• the ARIs were outward-looking – to ensure ARIs remained connected to wider UK and international research agendas
• sufficient scope for horizon scanning – recognising that research has the potential to add value by identifying future challenges and risks in addition to current Challenges

Second, respondents emphasised the importance of the ARIs being informed/co-created by government policy and external experts, communities, industries, land managers and civil society (a bottom-up approach).

Respondents said that this would:

• ensure the ARIs reflect both national objectives and the practical knowledge within the sector
• ensure the process remains genuinely responsive to the realities faced by land managers and rural businesses, for example
• avoid a disconnect between policy ambitions on the one hand and what is achievable on the ground on the other

There was some acknowledgment in responses that co-creation was essential but that this could also introduce tensions and trade-offs. It was suggested that the strategy should be explicit about such complexities and build in processes at the outset to manage trade-offs transparently.

Third, respondents commented on the large number of ARIs identified in the draft strategy. Points raised included:

• whether too many ARIs could be perceived as a ‘wish list’ or lead to a ‘scattergun approach’ that lacked focus and a clear research ambition – a suggestion made was for a more structured delineation of a smaller number of research interests
• the importance of recognising trade-offs and setting clear principles for prioritisation when demands exceed resources – prioritisation and clarity on funding mechanisms and distribution for ARIs was considered important
• the potential overlap/links between ARIs and how these could be best addressed – suggestions included mapping ARIs across multiple Challenges to: facilitate a better level of cross-linkage between the different Missions and to provide guidance on which are the most important when developing research proposals; avoid silos; and better reflect overlapping themes

A small number of respondents said it would be important that an appropriate balance was struck between targeted research and ‘space for curiosity-driven innovation’. Responses mentioned that other funders, for example, the European Union (EU) Horizon Europe programme, balanced targeted calls with open, bottom-up research opportunities as a way to help identify novel and innovative approaches.

“Their scope is highly ambitious and prioritisation of the ARIs for funding in the SRP at an early stage beyond the consultation would be desirable. The ARIs are very variable in their nature and scope, as would be expected, but many overlap/link and a mechanism to network these at the tendering stage, prior to starting the work in the new SRP would be welcome.” Moredun Research Institute

“While ARIs are useful indications of what might be prioritised, they should not constrain the commissioning process into siloed thinking – ARIs must be connected, and not considered in isolation. Furthermore, the prioritisation within the ARIs will be important, especially in relation to funding distribution.” Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

Theme 3: Suggestions for how the ARIs approach could be strengthened

Many of the respondents who agreed with the use of ARIs identified ways that the approach could be further strengthened. The main points raised can be summarised as follows, namely:

• perceived gaps, areas of under-representation, and/or suggestions for where more explicit reference in the ARIs was considered important – this is covered in more detail at question 7 – comments in part reflected the specific areas of interest of particular organisations
• within the wider ‘multiple co-benefits’ section it was recommended that beyond economic benefits the ARIs should more explicitly capture the environmental, social, and societal impacts of research – and that a balance would need to be struck between economic opportunity and environmental and social benefits in this regard
• nature-based solutions – including calls to embed these more fully within ARI criteria to mainstream environmental resilience
• more explicit links to other Scottish Government policy frameworks – for example Community Wealth Building was explicitly mentioned in responses
• around terminology – a specific example is ‘Uniqueness to Scotland’ – this was considered ‘unclear and perhaps not useful in a scientific context’. A suggestion made was for this to be changed to ‘applicable to Scotland’ as very few of the pressures were considered unique to Scotland (for example, climate change, plant health, and restoring soils were mentioned) and that it would also be important to encourage opportunities to work with and learn from other countries
• further clarity was asked for on the criteria to be used to identify priority ARIs

Respondents who do not think this is the right approach

The remainder (12%) of respondents (primarily individal respondents) who provided a response at question 6 either:

• did not explicitly say in their response that they supported the ARIs approach – rather, they typically raised wider considerations for the Scottish Government as it looks to finalise the ENRA Strategy (points raised are covered in the narrative above, for example, siloed thinking, perceived gaps in the ARIs) or that ARIs was one of a number of viable approaches
• explicitly said they did not support the proposed approach (only two responses) – no common themes were identified from these responses