Arctic Connections: policy framework evaluation

Conclusions and recommendations

Introduction

The evaluation has considered a wide range of secondary and primary evidence to determine the effectiveness of the Arctic Connections Policy Framework (ACPF) and Arctic Connections Fund (ACF). This chapter draws out conclusions from the research, before setting out a suite of recommendations for future Arctic-focused activity, either through a refreshed ACPF, or through a new policy framework or strategy.

Conclusions

The ACPF, together with the ACF, has achieved a lot in its duration. From a Scottish perspective, it has made real headway, but in recent years, there appears to have been a shift away from this policy area in Scotland. Since the ACPF was launched, there has also been a significant shift in the geo-political context in which the ACPF was originally established.

The ACPF successfully raised Scotland’s profile internationally, enabling participation in events on Arctic themes and issues, and fostering para- and soft diplomacy. The Framework presented Scotland as a credible and proactive partner, and enabled Scottish Government representatives to access senior Arctic stakeholders, which was particularly valuable post-Brexit. The ACPF also increased awareness and engagement with Arctic issues across Scotland, expanding participation amongst Scotland’s universities and increasing membership in UArctic. Through these networks and attendance at events, the spread of connections across Arctic partners has widened Scotland’s international network thematically and geographically, supporting delivery of Scotland’s International Strategy.

Over three years, the ACF supported 31 projects across three funding rounds, totalling £280,000. Projects spanned education, research, culture, and climate change. Project outputs included educational resources, workshops, exhibitions, digital platforms, and cultural exchanges. Many projects achieved more than their original objectives and expectations, fostering long-term partnerships and securing follow-on funding. These projects have given young people in Scotland and from the Arctic an opportunity to experience other regions and cultures and take part in a range of activities and development opportunities that they would not otherwise have had access to.

ACF-funded projects significantly raised Scotland’s international profile and strengthened multilateral understanding of Arctic and Scottish issues. They also supported Scotland’s leadership on Arctic themes like climate change and rural development, and contributed positively to Scotland’s soft diplomacy and international reputation.

The majority of project partners continued Arctic-related activities beyond the life of their projects: ACF activities and outputs were leveraged as a springboard to secure over £887,000 in follow-on funding from major bodies such as the British Academy, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) in Canda, and Horizon Europe.

Though the ACPF and ACF have achieved a great deal, this was not without its challenges.

For ACF projects, the paperwork associated with applications was seen by some project leads as disproportionate to grant size, favouring academic institutions over smaller third sector organisations. Limited follow-on support, lack of facilitated networking and post-project engagement also reduced opportunities for collaboration and visibility. Seasonal challenges, cultural factors, and compressed delivery windows caused delays to some projects. Academic timelines also conflicted with funding cycles.

A key challenge in ACPF delivery was lack of understanding amongst partners of governance arrangements. Shifting priorities, including domestic pressures, reduced budgets, and geopolitical changes contributing to Arctic security tensions, have led to a shifting policy focus for the Scottish Government and consequently diminished visibility for Scotland.

Some of the achievements delivered by the ACPF and ACF will be sustained. The findings suggest that the most lasting legacy will be at operational level, between Scottish universities and other organisations and their project partners in the Arctic. This is through networks, continuing relationships and research collaboration, where ACF project partners are continuing to work together and maintaining collaborative partnerships and reciprocal working arrangements.

Whilst the framework initially provided Scotland with visibility and influence during a turbulent geopolitical period, sustaining these achievements requires renewed commitment and clarity of purpose. With a refreshed focus, Scotland could continue this progress in Arctic diplomacy. Reduced visibility and prioritisation of relationships could undermine the efforts and achievements of the ACPF.

Recommendations

At the time of writing, the policy cycle has concluded after five years, and therefore, these recommendations are to be considered for future planning regarding the ACPF.

Recommendation 1: Long term commitment

The ACPF and the ACF achieved a great deal and established Scotland as a credible and important partner in the Arctic region and on Arctic issues. The scope of the evaluation did not include an assessment of value for money and so we cannot comment on the returns achieved for the spend. For any future, similar policy, consideration should be given to having a longer-term vision and commitment so that the achievements and progress made are built on and not lost. This would add value and ensure the benefits are built on and retained.

Recommendation 2: An interim evaluation

Linked to Recommendation 1, it is recommended that in the future, there is an interim review and evaluation to inform decision making at an earlier stage and assess whether, in this case, the ACPF is delivering against its objectives and benefitting Scotland, and if any adjustments are needed to maximise outcomes and impacts. This would form the basis of deciding if the ACPF should be renewed and the future of the ACF.

Recommendation 3: Understand regional governance

In order to maximise influence and impact, it is important that the ACPF (or anything similar in the future) spends time mapping regional governance and understanding who the key actors are, where and how decisions are taken, and how the region works in practice. This would mean that Scotland is better placed to influence and build a longer term, more effective strategic relationships within what is a complex and evolving region.

Recommendation 4: Clarity of purpose

A key learning point from the ACPF for future policy frameworks for the Arctic or other region-based strategies, and its supporting team, unit or office, is to clearly define its roles and responsibilities, and how it interacts with other Scottish Government teams. Clarifying the purpose of the ACPF or a successor framework will help to differentiate its purpose and sphere of operation, and relationships with, or modalities between, other Scottish Government teams both in Scotland and overseas.

Recommendation 5: Trade and exporting

The ACPF consisted of a range of policy areas and issues that Scotland shares with other Arctic and Sub-Arctic regions. This was effective and ensured that Scotland could demonstrate a sound rationale for its presence at key events and in Arctic fora. The ACPF did not include any trade-related objectives for example export, imports, and foreign investment. In any future similar framework, it may be worth considering including some component of trade which would provide an economic driver and allow economic benefits to be demonstrated. This may in turn ensure a longer-term commitment to the policy and framework.

Recommendation 6: Proportionate application process

Whilst it is important that there is a robust application process, and care was taken to try to achieve this in the ACF, going forward there may be scope to further streamline the application requirements to more closely reflect the scale, risk and value of the project. This would help to remove barriers for smaller and third sector organisations. One example to consider may be to include a short expression of interest form for potential applicants to complete. This would allow for a first stage sifting leading to a shortlist of projects invited to submit a fuller application. Larger beneficiaries from previous years could offer to support bids from small third sector organisations in subsequent funding rounds as part of social value commitments.

Recommendation 7: Enhancing access to ACF for the third sector

In developing any ACF successor, consideration should be given to how more third sector organisations can be encouraged and support to apply, over and above actions as part of Recommendation 6. This may require capacity building and support to identify and engage with Arctic partners, such as a small ‘seed’ fund to help them resource bid preparation, linking them with previous, successful applicants, as set out in Recommendation 6.

Recommendation 8: Networking for ACF projects

Organisations delivering ACF projects would benefit from formal networking opportunities to share experience and knowledge and learn from each. This would involve the entire cohort across all funding years. Networking would help to promote good practice and innovation, build and maintain partnerships for future collaboration, and help deliver strategic coherence and potentially interconnected projects.

Recommendation 9: Understanding the Arctic region

An unanticipated challenge faced by ACF beneficiaries was the impact of seasons and weather conditions in Arctic regions. The practicalities of engaging Arctic partners and communities should be built into funding and delivery timeframes to allow for weather events and conditions in Arctic areas that can make communication difficult and slow progress of projects. This should also be clearly articulated to potential ACF applicants and provision made to respond flexibly.

Recommendation 10: Incorporate Arctic into relevant policies

In the immediate future, Scotland may not have a specific Arctic Policy or dedicated team. However, consideration should be given to how Scotland can retain its presence in the Arctic and continue to contribute to, and benefit from knowledge-sharing, innovations and solutions to common issues. This will have to recognise the changed context in many Arctic regions and the current security tensions. In the absence of a standalone Arctic Strategy, relevant policies and strategies such as energy, rural development, and remote and rural health and care, could reflect the geographical links with Arctic Regions and proactively look to and engage with Arctic regions around these issues.