Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund evaluation

Executive Summary

This report provides findings from a process and outcome evaluation of the Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund (KTIF) scheme which was part of the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) 2014-2020. KTIF aimed to 1) promote skills development and knowledge transfer in the primary agricultural sector; and 2) deliver innovative on-the-ground improvements in agricultural competitiveness, resource efficiency, environmental performance and sustainability.

The evaluation draws on different sources of data, namely interviews with eight stakeholders, the final project reports, and administrative and financial data. The evaluation covers the European Union co-funded period from 2014 to 2021. This period covers some legacy Skills Development Scheme (SDS) expenditure from 2014 to 2016 (this scheme was a precursor to KTIF), as well as KTIF expenditure from 2015 to 2021.

Overall, 70 individual KTIF applications were submitted by 32 different organisations. Thirty-nine projects were funded in total, making the overall acceptance rate 56%. Twelve funded projects focused on knowledge transfer, and 27 on innovation. A notable innovation project is the Monitor Farms programme which is subject to a separate external evaluation by the James Hutton Institute. The total EU co-financed budget for SDS (from 2014 to 2016) and KTIF (from 2015 to 2021) was £7 million. This is made up of a knowledge transfer budget of £3 million and an innovation budget of £4 million.

The application process was generally viewed as fairly difficult by participants albeit some noted that it is not “especially bad” relative to other applications. Difficulties were attributed to both the application form and the process being long. Participants found positives in the feedback process and especially welcomed the pre-application stage of sharing a draft application or having a conversation before final application submission. Limited application windows were mentioned as a drawback by half of the participants. This included both the funding notice periods (prior to funding rounds opening) as well as funding rounds being perceived as short.

The main reasons for rejecting applications included, for example: affordability and costs deemed to be too high; lack of focus or unclear aims; poorly written application (e.g. not in plain English); not meeting the KTIF criteria; key information missing (e.g. communications plan); and the idea not being developed enough.

Knowledge transfer events were delivered mainly as demonstrations, workshops, courses, webinars, and discussion groups, while innovation projects focused on the practical implementation of new products, processes or systems on the ground.

The evidence in final reports regarding outcomes was mixed in detail and depth. During the interviews challenges around M&E were discussed in relation to: 1) difficulties in capturing outcomes or measuring impact; 2) evidencing longer term change; and 3) the skills and resource required for M&E.

Nonetheless, the final reports provided details of various short to medium term outcomes, as well as potential changes that could materialise down the line. Six knowledge transfer project reports provided mainly survey evidence of improvements in knowledge, skills and/or confidence. Six projects reported survey findings showing self-reported behavioural and/or attitudinal changes (or intended changes). During interviews, the importance of peer to peer learning among farmers was discussed by participants.

Sixteen of the innovation projects reported evaluation findings. The evaluations used methods such as case studies, interviews, surveys, and focus groups. In the final reports various farm-level changes were recommended and the outcomes reported included, for example, cost savings, improved biodiversity, and improved animal health.

Some participants discussed the strategic focus and position of the KTIF in the broader context of the Scottish Government’s Vision for Agriculture, as well as the scope of the fund and what qualifies for funding. The participants discussed, firstly, their views around adopting a more strategic approach to what is being funded and, secondly, some questioned limiting the focus of the fund to primary agriculture.