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

Evaluation Findings

This chapter will discuss the key findings from the evaluation. The chapter will consider the following areas:

• Application process
• Financial information
• Project delivery
• Project outcomes
• Lessons learned

In addition, key findings from an external evaluation of the Monitor Farms (an innovation project) are included.

Application process

Who can apply?

The knowledge transfer component of KTIF is aimed at supply-side bodies, such as training providers, as the fund is intended to respond to the training needs of farmers and crofters as represented by relevant organisations and bodies.

In order to be eligible for KTIF funding, organisations applying to KTIF must be able to demonstrate that the staff intended to deliver the training are suitably qualified. The training events themselves must be group initiatives aimed at promoting knowledge exchange or skills development in the primary agricultural sector, filling a gap in existing training provision or providing a new approach to training provision where existing approaches have been unsuccessful.

In terms of innovation, eligible applications included collaborative projects involving public and/or private sector organisations or bodies involved in the delivery of innovative projects (including pilot projects) designed to benefit the sustainability of the agricultural sector.

Such collaborations (or "Operational Groups") might, for example, include farmers, researchers, consultants, facilitators, advisers, NGOs and businesses involved in the agriculture sector working collectively on a project.

On a project level, for knowledge transfer projects, the level of funding was set at a maximum of 75%, and applicants needed to secure 25% of the funds from elsewhere. For innovation projects, KTIF provided funding for 100% of project costs.

Number of applications and types of organisations applying

During the EU co-financed period under the SRDP 2014-2020, a total of 39 KTIF projects were funded. Of these, 12 were knowledge transfer projects and 27 were innovation projects and. During this time period, 70^[2] individual applications were submitted. The overall acceptance rate was therefore 56%.

A total of 16 individual knowledge transfer applications^[3] were submitted during the time period. As 12 of these were successful, the overall acceptance rate for knowledge transfer projects was 75%.

A total of 54 individual innovation applications^[4] were submitted during the time period. As 27 of these were successful, the overall acceptance rate for Innovation projects was 50%.

Overall, 32 unique organisations submitted applications. The most common type was a ‘company’ (ten), followed by ‘charity’ (eight). Sixteen unique organisations were successful in their funding applications. Of these, charities and co-ops were the most successful organisation types awarded funding (four each). The types of organisations applying as well as the types of organisations successful in their funding applications can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Types of organisations that applied and were awarded funding

Organisation type	Number applying	Number awarded funding
Company	10	3
Charity	8	4
Membership organisation	5	2
Co-op	4	4
Academic institution	2	1
Public body	2	2
Social enterprise	1	0
Total	32	16

Process of applying for KTIF funding

The latest version of the KTIF application form asked for the following information:

• Applicant’s details and supporting documentation (e.g. contact details, VAT and Business Reference Numbers)
• Project details

For project details, applicants were asked to identify whether the project was knowledge transfer or innovation. For innovation projects, applicants were required to list operational group members/delivery partners, and provide the total number of group members by organisational type (NGOs, research institutes, farm businesses, SMEs, advisers, others).

Further details required for the projects included:

• Project name
• Start and end dates
• Description of what the project seeks to achieve, why, who will be involved, how project will be delivered, what is expected to be delivered, and what the anticipated benefits will be.
• Key objectives
• Justification for funding
• Detail of how outcomes are innovative or provide knowledge transfer/skills development
• Anticipated legacy benefits and benefits to the wider agricultural community
• How project will meet the Scottish Government’s rural priorities (see section on aims of KTIF)
• Evidence to demonstrate value for money
• Project timescales, milestones and targets/measures of success
• Costs broken down by cost types given (e.g. venues, materials, speakers, publicity) and funding sources
• Project management and delivery arrangements, including qualifications
• Project governance arrangements (where more than one entity is involved)
• Plans for monitoring and evaluation
• Description of lead organisation and its track record of successful project delivery
• Dissemination plans
• Location of project
• Summary of supporting documentation

Applicants could also submit additional information sheets for any further information they wanted to share with the assessment panel. Annexes to the application form provided details of ineligible/eligible costs; the Scottish Government’s rural development priorities; and offered space for applicants to list details of delivery partners.

Figure 1 on the next page explains the application process. As can be seen from the diagram, potential applicants had the opportunity to receive informal feedback before submitting their final application. While some applications were rejected (see section on rejections), others were given the possibility to amend the application and resubmit. As it was explained by one of the participants (interview 8, internal, member of the PAC): “if the PAC [Project Assessment Committee]^[5] thinks there is merit then we can go back. But there is also a stage before the PAC where applicants can speak to the KTIF team and informally say what they’re thinking of doing, which is quite useful.”

There have been various iterations of the application form – the main changes between versions have included: separate breakdown of proposed budget by cost type, a separate communications plan, status of organisation/business, VAT number, BRN number, details on contact details, justification as to why the project needs funding, provided word limits, improve description of what is being sought under each question, location of project and participating businesses and declaration details updated.

Source: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund - Full guidance

Figure 1 plain text

shows the application process which starts from writing a short summary of the project and getting informal feedback. Next an application form is completed, followed by informal feedback, and the application is submitted. The Project Assessment Committee then meets and either: 1) notifies of success, issues an approval letter, and the project starts; or 2) notifies of rejection and provides feedback, and there is a possibility to amend and resubmit the application.

Promotion of the fund

During the interviews participants were asked how they heard about the call for applications. The following sources were mentioned:

• Scottish Government communications channels, e.g. press release, emails to stakeholder groups.
• Different organisations sharing details on social media.
• Word of mouth, e.g. from colleagues.
• Scottish Rural Services and Payments website.

While some participants felt there was enough promotion of the fund, others said it could be promoted more widely in order to reach a more diverse audience and capture more SMEs. Promoting the fund through Scottish Enterprise or Public Contracts Scotland (PCS) were mentioned as specific examples.

Experience of applying for KTIF funding

During the interviews, participants generally viewed the application process as fairly difficult. This was attributed to both the application form and the process being long (though one participant noted the form had been shortened in later funding rounds); having to provide ‘more and more information’; and needing the required skills and resources to write the application. However, there was acknowledgement and understanding that from audit and public finances point of view the process needs to be robust and run well. Three participants noted that, in the greater scheme of things and relative to other funding applications, the KTIF application was not “too bad”, not “especially bad”, or not “unusually difficult”. One participant characterised the application form as “light touch” and that often there are “a lot more hoops to jump through with an application”.

One participant (interview 7, previously internal,) brought up the issues of guidance, and said they did not think appropriate guidance for applicants was in place. They noted that things like project plan requirements, intellectual property rights dissemination, lead partner selection, and partnership agreement were not covered in the guidance. Further, they noted there was scope to learn from European counterparts’ best practice.

The feedback process was viewed positively by many participants. One participant noted their organisation submitted a draft application for comment prior to the full application, and another participant (interview 6, external, funding recipient) noted the KTIF team’s availability to chat to applicants before the full application was submitted (which they themselves took advantage of). Both welcomed these opportunities as they helped to ensure that the planned project meets the needs of both the funder and the applicant, and overall this saves time and effort for the applicant as they can better understand what the funder is looking for. As one participant put it (interview 3, external, funding recipient): “Just because you've been turned down once doesn’t mean you can’t come back the following round and re-jig your application and try again.” The “quite detailed feedback” was noted and welcomed by a participant (interview 3) and another (interview 5, external, funding recipient) said the feedback has been “unusually open actually” and their organisation was able to, on the back of the feedback received, reapply and secure funding.

Four participants mentioned limited application windows as a downside. This included the funding notice periods (prior to funding rounds opening) as well as funding rounds being short. This was seen to hinder smaller organisations especially who have more limited time and resource to dedicate to applications, as well as applications where additional funding (25% for knowledge transfer projects) needed to be secured. Therefore having more notice or longer lead-in times was seen as helpful. One participant (interview 8) noted that issues such as confirming budgets, receiving Ministerial approval to proceed with funding rounds, and ensuring enough time is available for assessing applications can cause delays and lead to truncated timelines.

In terms of eligibility, one participant (interview 6, external, funding recipient) questioned why the fund was only open for primary agriculture and said they would “absolutely change that” in the future by broadening out the scope of the fund (see also section on strategic focus and scope of KTIF). They explained: “…the way CAP is organised, it only accepts primary production which is problematic as a lot of the change we need is around shorter supply chains and getting farmers more of the value of their produce, and so getting farmers to collaborate on supply chain initiatives is important. If you are only allowed to talk about the stuff that you do in the field, but you can’t talk about adding value to it, it restricts artificially the sort of projects you can do.”

Award process and criteria

The applications were considered and scored by the Project Assessment Committee (PAC). The remit of PAC was:

• To consider and determine applications for assistance under KITF, including the level of grant and any conditions to be imposed; and
• To monitor operation of the Scheme and consider any adjustments needed to achieve its objectives more effectively.

PAC was made up of members both internal and external to the Scottish Government. Internal members included the non-scoring secretariat, and members from across Rural Payments and Inspections Division (RPID), Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services (RESAS), Digital and Information Services Division (ISD), Climate Change Policy, Livestock Policy and the Scottish Rural Network. External members came from Sottish Enterprise, Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society (SAOS), NatureScot, National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS), and Soil Association Scotland. The group usually met quarterly to score and discuss applications (and any other KTIF related business). A conflict of interest process was in place – at the start of the meeting the Secretariat would ask members to declare any conflicts. Where PAC members had a conflict of interest, it was recorded in minutes, and they would excuse themselves from the meeting and not score the application in question.

Each PAC member (excluding the non-scoring secretariat) scored the applications individually, and brought their scoring sheets to the next PAC meeting. Each member’s scores carried an equal weight. The applications and scores were discussed at the meeting and any comments or feedback was agreed. A singular consolidated assessment sheet was prepared for each project and this would have the final total average score (made up of average scores for each of the criteria).

Applications could be scored provisionally, and the Secretariat would then ensure feedback, changes and conditions requested by the PAC were met by the applicants before funding was finally awarded.

The possible scores were as follows:

• 0 – The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.
• 1 – Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.
• 2 – Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but a number of shortcomings are present.
• 3 – Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, with any shortcomings being minor or inconsequential.
• 4 – Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well.

The criteria against which applications were assessed against were as follows:

• Degree to which the project proposals will contribute to one of the undernoted objectives:
  • Enhancing competitiveness and enhancing viability in agriculture.
  • Restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystems dependent on agriculture.
  • Improving water and/or soil management.
  • Pollution prevention and control.
  • Promoting resource efficiency and supporting a shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture.
• Degree to which project outcomes will contribute towards a) fostering skills and/or knowledge transfer or b) innovation in agriculture/crofting in Scotland
• Reasonableness of costs – encompassing assessment of both the necessity of cost components and magnitude of cost components.
• Affordability relative to available budget.
• Durability and degree to which the project outcome(s) will benefit the wider agricultural community.
• Governance arrangements and ability to deliver the project successfully.

In order to pass, applications needed to achieve a total average score of 18 or over.

Experience and views of the award process and criteria

Some of the interview participants were members of the PAC at various stages of the scheme. During the interviews two participants highlighted the benefits of having different viewpoints in the room at PAC meetings where applications were discussed and scored. As one participant put it (interview 3, external, PAC member), “somebody might be coming at [the application] from a different point of view. They might see greater value or spot something that you haven’t spotted within an application or just be coming at it from a different perspective”.

While saying the KTIF committee does a good job, one participant (interview 1, external, not a PAC member) characterised the process of decision making as “quite obscure” and that the “panel is not very transparent about how decisions are made”. To improve things, the participant would like there to be a more explicit steer of “’we are looking for KTIF project proposals in these areas because these are issues that we have identified as being relevant where we need to make investments’, rather than it being ‘have an idea and we’ll score it’”. Consequently, they would like to see “a more open books type process” with expressions of interest invited, followed by “brokerage and negotiation” to talk about the ideas. For broader context, some steers were given when funding rounds were advertised, for example for the January 2020 funding round when applicants were invited to focus on the theme of “restoring, preserving and enhancing biodiversity, habitats and ecosystems dependent on agriculture”.

Another participant (interview 7, previously internal, PAC member) discussed how the PAC had to often go back to applicants to ask for more information or to clarify issues, which “meant that the decision the PAC makes on a Monday might be irrelevant or overtaken by events on by Thursday” – this in turn is seen to sometimes hamper “the confidence that the PAC had in its ability to make decisions”. The participant noted that more clarity and improved guidance – both for applicants and PAC members – from the Scottish Government was required.

In terms of the criteria, while one participant (interview 3, external, PAC member) noted the criteria are “pretty good”, there is scope to think how some criteria might be differently weighted over others to make sure future projects “contribute to the Scottish Government’s objectives around emissions reduction, around biodiversity gain”. One participant wondered “whether [the criteria] should be weighted, maybe” but noted on balance “that makes it more complicated” (interview 8, internal, PAC member).

Another participant (interview 4, external, PAC member) commented there should be a more explicit split between knowledge transfer and innovation projects as they should be “looked at in in entirely separate ways with different funding model and a different evaluation model as well” (evaluation here referring to the criteria used to assess applications).

Rejections

An application was rejected if it scored under 18 points. Based on comments from the PAC, the main reasons for rejecting applications included:

• Affordability and value for money issues – costs deemed too high and/or not justified (e.g. high day rates)
• Unclear objectives, aims, and/or outcomes; lack of focus
• Poorly written application (e.g. not clearly presented, not in plain English)
• Lack of innovation

Some applications were also deemed ineligible and were therefore not scored. The main issues identified by the PAC with these kinds of applications included:

• Applied under the wrong route (e.g. applied as innovation when knowledge transfer would have been more appropriate)
• Proposed (innovation) project not satisfying the innovation requirement
• Proposed project deemed as research rather than knowledge transfer/innovation
• Proposed project seen as a commercial venture and therefore outwith KTIF criteria

During the interviews, participants noted the following issues leading to rejections:

• Applicants had seemingly not read the requirements or guidance closely enough. While the application may be of high quality or it presents a good idea, it does not meet KTIF criteria.
• Key information missing – for example, communication plans.
• What is proposed is an individual commercial venture rather than something that benefits the wider farming community.
• Application is for an academic research project.
• The idea is not developed enough.

Example projects

This section will provide four examples of KTIF funded projects in order to give a sense of the types of initiatives delivered. More projects and outcomes achieved are discussed in the project outcomes section.

Example knowledge transfer projects

Future Farming Scotland (FFS) was a knowledge, skills and innovation programme for farmers and crofters across Scotland interested in using sustainable management practices for productive and profitable farming and land use. It was managed and delivered by Soil Association Scotland, and ran from September 2015 to October 2018.

FFS involved the delivery of knowledge transfer and skills development events such as farm-based ‘walk-and-talk’ events and interactive workshops. The emphasis was on low-input and low carbon farming practices focusing on soil, nutrient and grassland management, animal health and productivity, woodland creation and management, and organic farming techniques. FFS also delivered field labs which brought together small groups of farmers with a researcher or facilitator to trial sustainable solutions for overcoming practical challenges in the field. Over 1,200 farmers, crofters and other land managers participated in FFS events and activities across Scotland.

Crofters and Smallholders Skills Boost, managed by the Scottish Crofting Federation, was a training project addressing the lack of non-accredited vocational training in the Highlands and Islands. The project ran from 2016 to 2019, and aimed at increasing primary agriculture skills and improve viability of crofting agriculture providing associated economic, social and environmental benefits to rural communities. The project reached over 1,600 participants in just under 1,800 training days.

The project was made up of various elements: Access to Crofting courses offered an introduction to Scottish agriculture; Bitesize Skills courses covered practical one day vocational training courses in primary agriculture; woodland courses were delivered in association with the Woodland Trust Scotland; and Township Training events focused on cooperation and knowledge transfer among crofters and smallholders.

Example innovation projects

The ParkLife project aimed to empower the farming and crofting communities to take a leadership role in managing its environmental resources for the benefit of biodiversity. The project ran between March and December in 2020 and was managed by the Shetland Agri-Environment Group. The project focused on trialling farmer participation in the monitoring of breeding waders and their habitats.

The Shetland Islands are home to high numbers of breeding farmland waders the Islands provide quality habitats to these birds. The maintenance of these habitats relies on continued active and positive land management. A group of ten land managers was contracted, trained, supported and rewarded to carry out environmental monitoring on their own land during the wader breeding season. They recorded bird data and a series of habitat attributes including vegetation length, ground wetness and plant diversity. Soil sampling and earthworm counts on survey sites were conducted by project staff.

The project supported the creation of a Wader Grassland scorecard that measures habitat quality and incentivises beneficial management practices. The leaflet ‘Farmland waders in Shetland – A best practice guide for farmers and crofters’ was also produced and widely distributed in local agricultural community.

PRRS Elimination in Pigs on the Moray Coast was a collaborative project by Scottish pig industry stakeholders to develop a plan to progress control of the PRRS virus in Scotland. The project ran from the summer of 2019 to the end of 2020. PRRS virus causes a spectrum of problems from abortion and stillbirth to pneumonia in growing pigs, and therefore causes widespread impacts on welfare of the herd, productivity and efficiency.

The funding was used to support a coordinated pilot project focusing on the Moray coast region. PRRS positive units were identified and producers were invited, with their vets, to participate in a series of meetings to progress control. Support from pharmaceutical companies made it possible for the project to subsidise testing on these units to inform decision-making and to determine the success of control strategies.

Alongside this collaboration with producers, work got underway to raise the profile of biosecurity as a vital factor in disease control. A workshop event was held in October 2019 to bring together representatives from the pig sector and allied industries such as haulage, processing, government agencies and assurance schemes. This meeting heard from researchers and veterinary surgeons and provided a platform for discussion between the various stakeholders. A follow-up event took place in May 2020 and presented producers with veterinary insights into on-farm biosecurity.

Financial information

This section provides details of the KTIF budget and expenditure during the SRDP 2014-2020 programme period.

Budget

The total SRDP 2014-2020 budget was around £1.3 billion. The total budget for KTIF from 2015 until the end of EU co-financing in 2021 was £7 million.^[6] This is made up of a knowledge transfer budget of £3 million and an innovation budget of £4 million. The KTIF budget therefore makes up around 0.6% of the entire SRDP 2014-2020 budget.

Expenditure

The KTIF expenditure for Measure 1 (KT) and Measure 16 (Innovation) were reported in the Annual Implementation Report (AIR) each year. The AIRs were submitted to the EC and the expenditure figures were reported in Euros. The expenditure figures used to populate the AIRs were originally collated in Pounds Sterling, these figures can be seen in Table 2. These figures include legacy Skills Development Scheme expenditure, and all figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Table 2 : Total KTIF expenditure by year (2014-2021)^[7]

Year	KT expenditure (£)	Innovation expenditure (£)		All expenditure (£)
2014 & 2015	606,7199	225,700	832,418
2016	249,979	234,207	484,186
2017	391,620	479,284	870,904
2018	504,3022	520,367	1,024,669
2019	539,035	647,208	1,186,243
2020	308,592	899,306	1,207,898
2021	294,541	593,052	887,593
Total	2,894,788	3,599,124	6,493,913

The total and average grant awards, spend, and underspend for the 39 innovation and knowledge transfer projects funded under KTIF during the EU co-financing period are shown in Table 3. All figures are rounded to the nearest pound.

Table 3 : Expenditure for 39 KTIF projects during EU co-financing period (2015-2021)

Type of project	Total grant awards (£)	Average grant award (£)	Total spend (£)	Average spend (£)	Total underspend (£)	Average underspend (£)
Knowledge transfer	2,412,100	201,008	2,212,743	184,395	199,358	16,613
Innovation	3,544,316	88,268[8]	3,440,902	86,223[9]	103,414	4,924
All projects	5,956,416	123,870[10]	5,653,645	117,225[11]	302,771	9,175

The reasons for any underspend (as reported in final project reports) for innovation and knowledge transfer projects included, for example, fewer in-person visits, meetings or events than expected (or none at all) due to Covid-19 restrictions; less or no travel costs claimed (due to Covid-19 restrictions); catering not required; and expenditure for certain pieces of work or other expenses was lower than originally costed for.

On a project level, for knowledge transfer projects, the level of funding was set at a maximum of 75%, and applicants needed to secure 25% of the funds from elsewhere. For innovation projects, KTIF provided funding for 100% of project costs.

Project delivery

Mainly drawing on the project reports, this section will consider what was delivered and for whom, what topics/issues were covered, and numbers of participants and organisations involved. It will also consider how issues and needs were identified, and how any findings or knowledge was communicated.

It should be noted that the delivery of many projects coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, there were various challenges around having fewer on-farm meetings and demonstrations than planned, and having to move various events and engagements online.

Identifying ideas and project planning

Not all project reports explicitly outlined how the need for the project was identified. From the ones that did, the following rationales were explicitly (or implicitly) mentioned.

For knowledge transfer projects, the need for a particular project was identified by:

• Acknowledging an industry / stakeholder request or call for action (e.g. potato growers’, merchants’ and processors’ call for improving the viability of the sector).
• Identifying an existing gap in the market (e.g. lack of non-accredited vocational training in the Highlands and Islands) or identifying a perceived gap in knowledge (e.g. how to successfully manage grass across the season) or skills (e.g. farmers’ understanding of using technology in farming).
• Drawing on existing evidence (e.g. known benefits of agroforestry to environment and business versus survey respondents flagging the need for more information on agroforestry).
• Addressing Scottish Government priorities (e.g. the importance of biodiversity restoration, preservation and enhancement to net zero and nature restoration objectives).

For innovation projects, the need for a particular project was identified by:

• Acknowledging that market or economic pressures require improvements to be made in farm management or practices (e.g. volatility of milk markets and prices and the potential introducing lean management principles could have in responding to these issues at farm level; straw price increases leading to difficulties in hauling bedding material from East to West, and therefore the need for alternative materials).
• Drawing on scientific and other evidence which point to a known problem, issue or solution (e.g. the inherently slow rate of genetic improvement in dairy cattle on the female side; global research consensus on positive associations between intramuscular fat and eating quality traits; the promise of using crushed basic silicate rock to capture and store carbon; the maintenance of breeding farmland waders’ habitats relies on active and positive land management).
• Acknowledging an industry / stakeholder request or call for action (e.g. industry highlighted financial vulnerability of beef suckler herd to severe weather events and the need for long term solutions).
• Receiving a direct query from farmers on a specific issue (e.g. requiring a reliable method of providing, traceability, provenance and assurance for the gluten free oat crop that they grow).
• Addressing Scottish Government priorities (e.g. improving farm management decisions to address outcomes in SG’s Climate Change Plan).

The interview participants also reflected on how a need for a project was identified. This process included, for example:

• Noticing related events and initiatives across networks and partners taking place, and wanting to deliver something more joined up.
• Thinking about what behaviour change needs to be encouraged or what information they wanted to share or what kinds of things they wanted to showcase.
• Getting feedback from farmers via existing networks and discussion groups – and then keeping a list of topics that were of interest.
• Drawing on own organisation’s existing strategies, objectives or priorities.
• Making use of existing knowledge from previous research or work. For example, designing a follow-up project that will address the gaps and barriers identified through previous work.
• Having informal discussions with other stakeholders (especially those with links to farmers on the ground) and coming up with ideas through these.
• Running an initial event on a topic and due to high attendance noticing there is appetite for further engagement.

One participant (interview 8, internal, PAC member) noted that sometimes the farmer or industry buy-in was not evident in applications – which is notable as innovation projects are “supposed to be farmer led or industry led and sometimes it doesn’t feel like that”. Rather, the participant noted that a proposal would be put forward by a research body, for example, with an intention to recruit participants subsequently. However, if there was to be a more collaborative approach from the start, it would be easier to “hit the ground running” as the right people are already involved and broader buy-in is secured.

Advisory and support services

Some participants made reference to various support services during the interviews, notably the Rural Innovation Support Service (RISS) and the Farm Advisory Service (FAS).

RISS was an initiative helping farmers, foresters and crofters find practical, sustainable solutions to everyday challenges affecting their business. RISS was funded by the Scottish Rural Network and was led by Soil Association Scotland. If an idea was deemed appropriate for support, RISS would provide a facilitator from a partner organisation who, in turn, would bring in group members with expertise in research, legal, supply chain, or technological matters, for example. RISS would support with the development of a project plan with a view to apply for funding (via KTIF, for example) or to get started on the project. RISS was also subject to a Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme funded case study.

FAS provides information and resources aimed at increasing the profitability and sustainability of farms and crofts. Grant support, events and a range of articles, videos and publications form the core of this service which is designed to provide integrated advice for farmers and crofters across Scotland.

During the interviews, participants shared their positive experiences and views of the advisory and support services. One participant (interview 2, external) reflected on their experience of RISS facilitation around an oilseed rape project where farmers where able to speak to processors and feed companies as a result of the innovation support. They said: “just those industry networks linking in with innovation networks and farmer networks have been more joined up, which is useful”. Another participant (interview 3, external) noted the importance of supporting advisory services, knowledge exchange and skills development if we are to achieve the transformation outlined in the Scottish Government’s Vision for Agriculture or emission reduction targets. It was also pointed out (interview 7, previously internal) that many projects had gone through RISS before coming to KTIF, and that were ultimately funded – “that just illustrates the fact that preparation, pre-application is really important and having some sort of pipeline is even more important, particularly if you want something that’s reasonably coherent and fit for purpose”. Further, having this pipeline meant proposals had “greater credibility”. For context, while there will likely be RISS projects that contributed to elements of subsequent KTIF projects, the number of projects which were first supported by RISS and then by KTIF is seven.

Participants also shared criticism around the delivery of the support and advisory services. One participant (interview 1, external) did not think outsourcing innovation support was a good approach; rather, they would like to see this “held at senior level in policy” as “we need to see what Government is wanting to do here, what are we trying to innovate”. For them this would also help ensure the “three legs of the same stool”, namely research, advisory service and innovation support, would not be seen as separate things, and that innovation support would be seen as core to change. It was also pointed out that the “knowledge exchange, innovation and advisory landscape should be mapped out a lot better and they should be interlinking” (interview 4, external). Similarly, another participant (interview 2, external) flagged the importance of having a joined up approach:

“I think it's valuable for innovation support to sit integrated or alongside the knowledge exchange bit because they feed into each other so well (…). In the case of RISS the people that were doing a lot of the KTIF and knowledge exchange work were also the people that were delivering RISS groups as well and doing that innovation brokerage and so quite often there's a lot of overlap in the individuals and organisations that provide it so it makes sense for it to be integrated so that it's sort of joined up. So that would be the way that I would do it rather than having them totally separate. I'm all for joining things up as much as possible.”

The joined up approach was also raised in relation to FAS and UK and EU networks by one participant (interview 3, external):

“…we also talked about how far FAS can be better linked up to the innovation networks at a UK level and also at an EU level (…). We get the benefit as an organisation from these EU networks and I think the more the Scottish Government can be linked in with those UK and EU level the better as far as we are concerned. That’s something that can be thought about in the future.”

This joining up was seen to extend to the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture (ENRA) Strategic Research Programme (SRP) as one participant (interview 4, external) highlighted the importance and value of linking the SRP into the advisory, innovation, and knowledge exchange sphere as well.

One participant reflected further on FAS and what its scope is (interview 6, external). Firstly, they noted that as FAS is an advisory body and not a training provider, there is a gap where more practical activities and courses are needed (and where KTIF can help). Secondly, they noted getting pushback from the SG around e.g. community training: the participant said that while the SG argues the need for community training should be fed back so that FAS could do it, the participant would rather see more money going into KTIF for this purpose because it “was much more community based and what I would call rural development”.

Looking to the future, one participant (interview 7, previously internal) reflected on scope of KTIF and argued for it to extend beyond farm production:

“…the Innovation Support Service started off focusing on supply chains and ended up identifying stuff that was looking at farm businesses, so tourism diversification, I think tourism, skills training, all these things. It started identifying ideas and potential projects that were on those things. (…) But again because of the limitations of KTIF they couldn’t go through the KTIF route because it wasn’t about farm production. So it meant that even though they were farmers and they were farm businesses they couldn’t apply because it wasn’t about food production. It’s slightly odd. But it just meant that again we were maybe slightly missing a trick in terms of understanding the opportunities that Measure 16 provided for in the programme.”

Further, the participant would like to see more focus on “from farm to fork” and an advisory service “that is servicing the needs of the farm business and the associated supply chains as much as possible”.

Knowledge transfer project delivery

The knowledge transfer events involved, for example, demonstrations, workshops, courses, webinars, and discussion groups. In general the aims were to increase awareness and understanding of the topics and issues, improve the knowledge base, promote specific practices, improve farms’ and crofts’ profitability, sustainability, productivity and performance, and enable the adoption of e.g. new technologies. The events were aimed at and attended by groups such as farmers and crofters (including specific types of farmers/crofters, e.g. dairy, potato), land managers, co-op managers and staff, and those working in agri-food services and businesses.

The topics covered included:

• Sustainable agriculture and land use (e.g. soil, nutrient, grassland management; woodland creation and management; animal welfare and nutrition; organic farming)
• Nature friendly farming and biodiversity (e.g. non-chemical control of pests, habitat creation, beekeeping)
• Business viability and sustainability (e.g. reducing feed costs, use of genomics, capacity building, benchmarking)
• Use of innovative technologies (e.g. smart sensor technology)

Table 5 shows the number of training days delivered, as well as the number of participants in trainings broken down by Focus Area.

Table 4: Number of training days and number of participants in trainings by Focus Area^[12]

Indicator	Focus Area	2014 & 2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	Total
Number of training days	2A	11,865	3,932	1,418	125	1,492	712	354	19,898
Number of training days	4	0	0	0	19	342	228	237	826
Number of training days	5B	0	0	0	0	372	6	227	605
Total number of training days	2A, 4, 5B	11,865	3,932	1,418	144	2,206	946	818	21,329
Number of participants	2A	8,933	2,887	946	1,318	1,826	977	434	17,321
Number of participants	4	0	0	0	300	363	340	572	1,575
Number of participants	5B	0	0	0	0	502	166	431	1,099
Total number of participants	2A, 4, 5B	8,933	2,887	946	1,618	2,691	1,483	1,437	19,995

Source: Annual Implementation Report 2023, available on request

Innovation project delivery

The delivery of the innovation projects took different forms. Most projects involved introducing a particular practical approach or tool at farms and investigating what the economic, social, practical, health, etc. effects of this were or could be. Examples include testing the use of woodchips as animal bedding; reducing the use of antibiotics in dairy cows through the practice of selective dry cow therapy; and introducing and testing existing sensor technology. The general aims of the projects included, for example, improving farm/croft profitability, efficiency and productivity; reducing costs; enabling and supporting farmers/crofters to introduce new techniques, tools or technologies; and providing tools to benchmark performance or improve farm/croft management practices.

Project participants included, for example, arable and livestock farmers; vets; abattoirs; retail partners; scientists; and land managers. The innovation projects covered issues and topics such as:

• Animal welfare, including e.g. pig health, treating/preventing mastitis in dairy farms
• Environmental improvements such as reduction of carbon emissions and increased biodiversity
• Use and development of software and technology
• Soil health
• Meat quality
• Genetic improvements in e.g. female dairy cattle

Table 6 shows the number of projects supported broken down by Focus Area and year. Table 7 shows the number of partners in operational groups by member type, broken down by year.

Table 5: Number of projects supported by Focus Area

Indicator	Focus Area	2014 & 2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
Number of projects supported	2A	0	3	3	3	1	9	19
Number of projects supported	4	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Number of projects supported	5B	0	0	0	1	0	6	7
Total number of projects supported	2A, 4, 5B	0	3	3	4	1	16	27

Source: Annual Implementation Report 2023, available on request

Table 6: Number of partners in operational groups by member type

Indicator	Type of member	2014 & 2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	Total
Number of partners in groups	Advisors	0	4	14	3	0	39	60
Number of partners in groups	NGOs	0	8	2	3	0	24	37
Number of partners in groups	Research institutes	0	2	3	4	0	17	26
Number of partners in groups	SMEs	0	0	2	2	4	15	23
Number of partners in groups	Farm holders	0	0	22	2	5	173	202
Number of partners in groups	Others	0	1	0	2	1	19	23
Total number of partners in groups	All member types	0	15	43	16	10	287	371

Source: Annual Implementation Report 2023, available on request

Communications during and after project delivery

Various dissemination methods were mentioned across the final project reports. The main communication methods and avenues used to promote the projects and share insights and findings included:

• Use of social media channels, e.g. Facebook, Twitter (now called X)
• WhatsApp groups, online forums
• Traditional media – e.g. articles in newspapers and magazines, interviews on the radio
• Podcasts
• Press releases
• Development of short videos and films to showcase project findings, agricultural processes, etc.
• Articles in newsletters (e.g. SAOS, RISS, FAS, NFUS)
• Sharing materials on websites, e.g. case studies, news articles, videos
• Webinars (often recorded and made available for viewing) and in-person or online workshops
• Conference presentations

During the interviews participants discussed their experiences of and ideas for communication and research dissemination. Similar communication methods to those listed above were mentioned across the interviews, especially press articles, podcasts, videos, social media, and websites.

The challenge of doing communications well was raised by participants. Two participants discussed the skills required: one (interview 2, external, funding recipient) noted they had a communications manager from a non-farming background who “wasn’t shy about asking all the stupid questions” and as a result was able to use storytelling in a more people-focused way, making the information more accessible. The other (interview 4, external, not a funding recipient) explained their communications person used to be a journalist for 20 years and therefore had the expertise to “package up very dry results” in a more interesting way for wider consumption.

The first of the two participants above (interview 2) also explained their organisation sought to upskill farmers themselves in social media, public speaking, and making videos. They viewed this as beneficial as farmers telling and sharing their own stories was seen as more powerful than organisations doing it. They noted that farmers delivering the messages would lead to other farmers taking them on board. The importance of considering different audiences’ needs was also highlighted by another participant (interview 3, external, funding recipient): whether speaking to MSPs or the Cabinet Secretary, or disseminating findings to farmers, it is important to think of “more creative ways where you can make sure that the outcomes are being disseminated to a wider audience” and this goes beyond “sticking it on your website or putting it in a press release”. They also noted the usefulness of farmers creating short videos of five minutes or less to share their practices or what they have learned – the viewing figures suggested that these types of media were reaching a sizeable audience (although it cannot be known exactly who the audience is). Indeed, one participant (interview 8, internal) reflected on the difficulties of capturing and measuring the impact of communications and dissemination.

The importance of communication plans for KTIF applications was brought up by participants. As noted in the section on rejections, missing communication plans were one of the reasons flagged by participants leading to rejections. As one participant (interview 3, external, PAC member) noted, the PAC “make[s] sure there’s a solid plan in place for disseminating findings from each individual project”. Another participant (interview 5, external, not a PAC member) noted that there is a lack of consideration given to communication plans in general among researchers and consultants who are more focused on the other elements of work.

One participant (interview 7, previously internal) said they did not think learnings had been disseminated to the wider farming community, and flagged the lack of clear KTIF guidance on dissemination of results and promotion of work done as one cause for this. They questioned whether dissemination is something that should be expected from the funded groups themselves – or, if it is indeed an expectation, they said that there needs to be a support mechanism in place (in particular RISS and SRN were mentioned as having a role “to make sure that communication is operating the way it was intended”). Another participant (interview 2, external) noted that the Farm Advisory Service (FAS) is “quite effective” in what they do in communication and dissemination. For further discussion on the advisory and support services, please see the relevant section.

The European Innovation Partnerships (EIP) and their role in dissemination were discussed in four interviews. As noted in KTIF guidance, KTIF is aligned with the EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability. The EIP aims to promote a faster and wider transposition of innovative solutions into practice, and create added value by enhancing the uptake and effectiveness of innovation-related instruments. Appropriate learning outcomes from supported projects will be communicated through the EIP network. One participant (interview 7, previously internal) noted that dissemination and reaching out to potential partners elsewhere in the UK and EU “didn’t happen in a way” (no further detail was given). Another participant (interview 2 external) noted that while at the European level there are websites and hubs for information, those “stories don’t always trickle down through the partners to reach the people on the ground”. Two participants mentioned what they saw as the negative impacts of Brexit and discussed the challenges this posed to European collaboration and being plugged into relevant networks.

Project outcomes

This section reports key findings on knowledge transfer and innovation outcomes achieved. The final project reports as well as the stakeholder interviews are drawn on as data sources. Challenges around monitoring and evaluation are also discussed.

Knowledge transfer outcomes

Nine knowledge transfer projects reported running a post-event or post-activity survey for participants while one project reported gathering participant feedback. Three of these nine projects also ran a follow up survey six months after the events/activities, and two of the nine projects conducted interviews in addition to the surveys.

There was no set methodology for conducting project level evaluations, so each funding recipient decided on a bespoke approach to reporting any achievement of outcomes. Therefore, no direct comparisons can be drawn across the reports. Most project reports do not give information on respondent numbers, questions asked, and other key survey information. Two projects included external evaluations. As a reminder, knowledge transfer projects aimed to promote skills development and knowledge transfer in the primary agricultural sector.

Six projects reported findings on improved knowledge, skills and/or confidence:

• Future Farming Scotland aimed to encourage and support the adoption of low-input and low carbon land management practices, and deliver a range of benefits for farming and the environment. While percentages were not given, the final report noted survey results indicate marked increases in participants’ self-reported knowledge, ability/skills and confidence.
• Strategic Potato Farm Scotland aimed to provide a range of KE and KT opportunities for those in the potato supply chain to view and learn about innovative technologies and research findings, and consider these for commercial integration. The project reported 94% of respondents saying their technical knowledge had improved, and 89% respondents reporting they had increased their knowledge through farmer to farmer learning.
• Crofters and Smallholder Skills Boost aimed to enhance skills development and knowledge transfer for crofters and smallholders living in the Highlands and Islands. The project reported, for example, that 98% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they now have a better understanding of small-scale crofting agricultural production; 90% agreed or strongly agreed they have gained croft land management skills; and 95% agreed or strongly agreed have learned a new skill.
• Farming with Nature was designed to work with farmers, crofters and environmental practitioners to support nature friendly farming by integrating profitable agricultural production with biodiversity and ecosystem service objectives. A follow-up survey of 19 participants asked to what extent their participation in the event(s) had increased their knowledge, ability/skills and confidence to undertake sustainable land management (on a scale from 1/none to 5/high). Participants reported average scores of 3.6 for knowledge, 3.1 for ability/skills, and 3.3 for confidence.
• Farming for the Future was designed to support farmers and crofters interested in productive and profitable farming and land use by using low-input and sustainable approaches to build financial and environmental resilience in a changing climate. In a follow-up survey of 65 participants, 64 respondents reported that participation in the event(s) had a big or some impact on their knowledge to undertake sustainable land management. The vast majority also reported the same for ability/skills and confidence with less than five respondents reporting no impact or leaving the response blank.
• Grass to Milk Organically aimed to support members of the co-operative ‘Scottish Organic Milk Producers’ in their understanding and confidence in the management and utilisation of pasture in their organic dairy farming production systems. In a survey all respondents said they had gained a ‘significant’ amount of new knowledge (as opposed to ‘none’, ‘a little’, or ‘it’s been revolutionary’). Ninety percent of respondents said they were ‘significantly’ more confident in asking their cows to produce milk from grazed grass (with 10% saying they were a ‘little’ more confident).

Six projects reported findings on behaviour and attitude change (or intended change) among event participants:

• Future Farming Scotland reported that a survey was undertaken six months after an external review of the project, and found that 89% of respondents had either implemented or intended to implement sustainable land management practices as a result of participating in the project.
• Strategic Potato Farm Scotland reported 85% of respondents saying they made improvements to increase efficiency.
• Farming with Nature reported that immediately after the events 82% of the 19 respondents indicated they considered making changes as a result of attending the event. According to the survey data, 77% of respondents said they felt more positive and more inclined to address farming and biodiversity on their own farm/holding.
• Immediately after the events, 85% of respondents indicated they would consider making changes as a result of the Farming for the Future event. In the follow up survey of 65 respondents, over 85% said that, where relevant, participation in an event had motivated them to adopt more sustainable practices around soil, crop and grassland management, and animal health.
• Grass to Milk Organically reported that before the project was initiated more than half of respondents were neither actively monitoring or managing grazing on a frequent basis, with some not managing it at all. At the end of year three, all respondents were frequently or ‘religiously’ (survey wording) managing their grazing platform.
• Agroforestry in Action’s aim was to increase awareness and understanding amongst farmers, crofters and other rural stakeholders of the opportunities for agroforestry in Scotland and its benefits for productive and sustainable farming, resource efficient land management, nature and a safe climate. In a post-event survey 80% of respondents said they will look at the potential for agroforestry or farm woodland creation on their agricultural holding.

A common positive outcome reported in many of the final reports was the creation of networks and/or connections with key stakeholders as well as the creation of peer networks among farmers and crofters.

During the interviews, six participants discussed the importance of peer-to-peer learning among farmers. Farmers’ preference of learning from other farmers and seeing how new tools or approaches work in practice was highlighted by participants. Further, as one participant noted (interview 1, external), knowledge transfer is critical to improving productivity and general wellbeing, and has a social support function as well. The potential knowledge transfer outcomes or impact identified by participants during interviews included increased awareness and knowledge, attitude and behaviour change, and intention to change or learn more. Participants also acknowledged the challenges in evidencing and capturing outcomes (see section on M&E challenges).

In terms of ensuring outcomes are maximized, one participant (interview 5, external) suggested a “secondary scheme” whereby successful innovation projects could qualify for follow-up knowledge transfer funding so that innovation could be rolled out more widely. Another participant (interview 4 external) discussed the importance of a skilled facilitator to successful knowledge transfer as, in their experience, having an experienced facilitator running the event was key.

Innovation outcomes

Similar caveats identified in the section above apply here with regard to the final reports and data. Most of the 27 innovation projects reported findings from evaluations (16 in total). The evaluations used methods such as case studies, interviews, surveys, and focus groups.

For some projects, traditional evaluations were not suitable as the projects aimed to collect data to, for example, gain a better understanding of an issue (e.g. improved understanding of conditions that impact on the incidence of pleurisy) or to test a novel system (e.g. testing the use of genomic analysis of maternal DNA to optimise traceability or predict performance of offspring).

It is not possible to report all outcomes from the final reports here, but some examples are highlighted below. As a reminder, the aims of the innovation element of KTIF were to improve competitiveness, resource efficiency, environmental performance and sustainability. A recent EU CAP Network report presents EU-level findings from a study looking at outcomes achieved by EIP-AGRI operational group projects under the CAP.

Many of the innovation projects recommended certain changes at farms in order to meet, or work towards, the innovation aims. Some of the final reports highlighted farmers’ intended or actual changes, for example:

• Reducing Antimicrobial Use in Scottish Dairy Farms reported that by the end of the project, 15 out of the 17 participating farms were drying off over 50% of their cows without antibiotics, representing a cost saving to the businesses. This follows the recommendation that the most cost-effective way of preventing new udder infections during the dry period is to minimise the risk by using a teat sealant and to pay careful attention to hygiene during drying off. While there is a place for antibiotics, they should not be used routinely.
• East/West Beef Grazing explored the potential of moving the cattle as opposed to the straw and fodder to assess if there were environmental, animal health and economic benefits to be gained. The three case studies reported all six farms involved in the pilots of wintering hill cattle from the West on drier arable land in the East of Scotland repeated the process the following winter due to the success of the pilot. Following the pilot, all farmers reported an increase in farmland birds during the wintering period (around the sileage and cereal stubbles). The farmers saw lower outlays on bedding, feed and labour. While climate change impacts are hard to measure, the report considers the likely difference between moving the cattle or wintering it at home in the West. For example, it is estimated total haulage can be reduced by about a half in out-wintering cattle in the East.
• Feasibility of Using Woodchip Bedding for Livestock in the West of Scotland looked at the practice of using woodchips, wood fines and/or sawdust as animal bedding as an alternative to hauling straw from East to West. In the case studies it is noted that the trial farmers continue to use the product post-trial, and they found the alternative bedding to be more cost effective the more local it is. The report notes there is potential for reduced carbon emissions as road haulage of taking straw from East to West would be reduced and there was potential to improve the organic matter content and health of soils by using wood-based farm yard manure which in turn could improve carbon sequestration in soils. Further long-term soil testing would be required to investigate this potential.
• ParkLife Biodiversity Management focused on trialling farmer participation in the monitoring of breeding waders and their habitats among a group of ten land managers. In their post-project interviews, several participants expressed an interest in improving their land for the benefit of waders as a result of taking part in the observations.
• Farming for Biodiversity focused on the practice of ‘mob grazing’ – a type of rotational grazing – to improve biodiverse habitat within enclosed farmland. Altogether 12 farms took part in the project. In the case study, a farming couple discuss their implementation of mob grazing and agroforestry, and the benefits of it. These include, for example, flexibility with paddocks, diversification of plants coming through as the canopy is naturally lifted, and outwintering the cows last.
• Scottish Organic Canola (SCOCAN) sought to demonstrate the viability of growing organic canola (oilseed rape) under Scottish conditions in order to open up a new source of income for farmers and processors. All five farms that were involved in the project were growing crops in the next season as well (some in larger areas), including those who had previously experienced crop failure. The project team had enquiries from around 15 farmers with an interest in growing organic oilseed rape, and five additional farmers were willing to try growing the crop in their farms. The 40 tonnes of organic canola produced by SCOCAN farmers was bought by the processor at a price of £900 per tonne. By comparison, conventional oilseed rape price in Scotland was (at time of reporting) at around £350 per tonne.
• Feeding for Fertility in the Suckler Herd investigated the nutritional status of suckler cows over the 2020 calving period through metabolic profile (MP) testing, and whether that could be linked to subsequent fertility. Out of the 12 farmers taking part, 50% made changes to nutrition based on the MP tests pre-calving; and 60% made changes to nutrition based on the MP test results post-calving.

During the interviews participants reflected on what innovation actually entails. The key elements raised included not knowing the answer before you start but working it out along the way (interview 1, external, Director at a charity), and the novelty of the project, rather than “banging away at the same research” (interview 5, external, Commercial Manager at a research institution). Participants also highlighted that “it’s a broad church what innovation comes under” (interview 8, internal) and that “innovation is not just technical, it’s social” (interview 7, previously internal) – while the “techy stuff” is a feature of course, social entails “shifting business culture and behaviour” and “getting businesses to think differently about what they do and how they do it”.

Two participants highlighted the importance of making mistakes (interview 1, external, Director at a charity) – as one of them put it (interview 4, external, Policy Manager at a membership organisation): “They’re not afraid to fail and failure should be built into any of these programmes because otherwise if as a person who had received funding for these things, you had to demonstrate success to your funders, which are the Scottish Government, so sometimes you weren’t taking the risks that you should take that would really, properly drive innovation.” What is also important is the freedom to “try and test whether [new ideas] would work or to scale them up”. As one of the participants noted (interview 5, external, Commercial Manager at a research institution), generally in the funding landscape (including other Scottish Government funding) there is a tendency to issue “a very prescribed specification of things that they [funders] want done”. They said they are not aware of other funding opportunities where you have more freedom to try out a concept or idea.

Perceptions of value for money

At the outset it is important to note that this evaluation did not involve a formal economic assessment (e.g. cost-benefit analysis) of the KTIF scheme. Rather, this section reports on participants’ perceptions of KTIF’s value for money (VfM) that were shared during the interviews.

Out of the six who were asked if the scheme provided good VfM, five said yes. The justifications for their answers included:

• “I think having it spread out to other organisations in that way rather than it just being Scottish Government delivering the same work I think is more useful because then it helps those organisations work together and support the industry as well as just – you know, if it was only funnelled through Scottish Government and one delivery provider. So I think that way of doing it is useful (…).” (Interview 2, external, Project Manager at a charity)
• “I think our experience of it is yes [good value for public money] because these are things that we wouldn’t have been able to do otherwise. We’ve been, I guess as an organisation, quite reliant on this social funding, it’s only in Scotland where we don’t have as much unrestricted income so for us these things wouldn’t have happened otherwise. So that in itself I would suggest... and given that some of the figures I’m quoting back to you about the impact that these projects have had and the impact on individual farmer behaviour change then I would suggest that that has been a useful use of public money.” (Interview 3, external, Head of Policy at a charity)
• “Yes, I’m not sure if it would be deemed that there is a conflict between what … well not a conflict, that’s the wrong word, but duplication of public funding in that we have the Farm Advisory Service which has a lot of money and then we have Knowledge Transfer which is a separate thing. But I would argue that we do need the Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund because this is about funding more grassroot initiatives. I mean the Farm Advisory Service is good, I’m not knocking that at all, you know, it’s a good initiative and it can be used for the sort of wider advisory stuff that is necessary for the whole industry. (…) But from our point of view, you know, we’re a grassroots organisation, we’re working directly with crofters and Knowledge Transfer, well like I said there is always much more interest in it that we can actually provide, so you know I would say there is without a doubt a need for it.” (Interview 6, external, Chief Executive at a membership organisation)

One participant, who saw KTIF as good VfM pointed out that it is difficult to evaluate the impacts and consider what changes will endure in the long-term (interview 1, external, Director at a charity; see also the next section on M&E challenges). However, they concluded that while it is hard to know the impacts “I think it’s a relatively small amount of public money that can potentially have impacts years down the track. But, only if you do it right.”

One participant (interview 7, previously internal) did not directly answer whether KTIF was good VfM. They noted that the knowledge exchange element had “probably done what it says on the tin”. They posed the question of what KTIF was for – whether it is a strategic intervention, a traditional challenge fund, or a mixture of the two.

Another participant (interview 4, external, Policy Manager at a membership organisation) discussed the meaning of VfM more generally, considering a scenario of “if we had 1,000 people turn up to a meeting and they cost £1 per head, that was fantastic but I would rather have ten people turn up to the meeting and each of those ten people change and make a big, significant change that diffuses out to the wider community”. They therefore emphasised the importance of reflecting on how VfM is measured and how value is demonstrated. For this participant, value was closely tied to delivering the relevant policy outcomes.

Finally, one participant (interview 2, external, Project Manager at a charity) reflected on the big differences in fees and day rates provided by organisations applying. While they conceded that “different organisations have different level of running costs” and these should be considered, there was nonetheless “quite a difference in for example in facility or day rate”. It was suggested that a cap could be introduced for these types of costs, or “on the amount that is reasonable to pay for X or Y or speaker”.

Challenges in monitoring and evaluation

During the interviews participants highlighted various challenges with monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Firstly, participants spoke of the difficulties in capturing outcomes or measuring impact in relation to e.g. dissemination or communications activities, recommended behaviour changes, or knowledge exchange between farmers.

Secondly, it was pointed out that what matters is the change or impact still visible years down the line and not just six months after the project. The limitations of output indicators (e.g. number of people attending events) communicating meaningful information was highlighted by two participants, and one of them (interview 1, external, Director at a charity) concluded that “more work on outcomes” is needed because if you count outputs “but there’s not much sophistication about outcomes, what difference did any of that make”.

Thirdly, skills and resource is required for conducting evaluations, and one participant suggested that future schemes could provide evaluation support staff for evaluation framework design and secondary evaluation.

Strategic focus and scope of KTIF

Interview participants discussed the strategic focus and position of 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.

Firstly, four participants called for a more strategic approach to what is being funded to be adopted. This requires a proactive approach, more staff and budget, and involves “policy people to sit down and say ‘okay, so where, to deliver on our agriculture vision, where do we need more innovation, change and skills development, so how should we focus KTIF for the next five years in delivering that’” (interview 1, external, Director at a charity, not a member of PAC, not a recipient of funding). Another participant (interview 2, external, Project Manager at a charity, member of PAC, recipient of funding) called for “less emphasis on topics that are about intensive agriculture and more focus on the topics that are low input, regenerative, agroecology, biodiversity”.

Similarly, another participant (interview 3, external, Head of Policy at a charity, member of PAC, recipient of funding) called for the prioritisation of projects contributing to emissions reduction and biodiversity gain objectives. This then means “we’re really focusing hard in on those and funding the projects that are really going to make a difference, make a material difference to some of those objectives set out in the vision for agriculture” and that “projects that are being supported by public money are delivering something towards those objectives for greater public good”.

One participant (interview 7, previously internal, member of PAC) emphasised the need to have a clear vision whereby the constituent parts all work towards the same goals: “you're only going to [make things happen] if you're being strategic in your interventions and you're not giving a wee bit of money to some group to do something and another bit of money for somebody else to do something. They all need to connect and they all need to be part of a bigger piece”. The participant argued there is a need for a strategic framework within the agricultural knowledge and innovation system in Scotland to help “figure out what interventions look like”. They suggested that the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) approach might be useful vehicle for thinking through the strategic questions and the role of all the different actors in agriculture and beyond (researchers, economic development agencies, businesses etc.) who can enable and support innovation.

The possibility of taking a flexible and strategic approach to targeting KTIF was highlighted in one of the interviews. The participant (interview 8, internal, member of PAC) noted that towards the end of the programme a specific type of project had not been funded until then, “so they switched focus to that and wanted applications for that specifically” therefore identifying “particular areas of interest or ones that haven’t been getting that many applications before and try increase them”.

Secondly, as previously mentioned in the section on experiences of applying for KTIF funding, KTIF’s focus on primary agriculture was questioned during the interviews. As noted there, one of the participants (interview 6, external, Chief Executive at a membership organisation) explained the importance they saw in achieving shorter supply chains, for example. They went on to say that “if you’re going to get farmers to change towards more climate nature friendly ways of farming, part of that is about making their products more attractive to the market, but there’s also then opportunities for them to be adding more value at the farm or selling direct or being part of processing networks.”

The same participant went on to discuss a popular training course they had organised without KTIF funding and reflected that the course could not have been running “under the KTIF funding because KTIF introduced this strange idea that training could only be for primary agriculture” which in their view “seemed to be shooting ourselves in the foot really”. They also felt there was mixed messaging with “one part of the Scottish Government are saying, ‘Yes, we need to promote this, you know, it’s a diversification, it’s the way forward for food’ and another part of Scottish Government that has the control over a funding stream says, ‘No, no we’re only going to use the money from primary agriculture’”.

Another participant (interview 7, previously internal) expressed similar views. They began by explaining an example from Germany where rules around fertilizer use near rivers had changed, and the farmers had to switch to a different variety of wheat that was not as productive. They collaborated with millers and bakers to develop a new environmentally friendly brand. The participant argued that while this was about the supply chain, the ultimate beneficiary was the producer. They went on to say that “the producer is shifting their production and if you're going to shift production you want to know that there’s a market for it, otherwise what’s the point in investing in that product”. They concluded that “if you’ve got parties that are concerned with something beyond purely agricultural, that becomes problematic, particularly for KTIF, and that again is because the innovation bit was maybe too narrowly defined or misunderstood”.

Monitor Farms

Monitor Farms was an Innovation initiative^[13] funded under Measure 16 of the SRDP 2014-2020. The aim of Monitor Farms was to help improve Scottish farm businesses’ productivity, profitability and sustainability. As explained by Flanigan and Hardy (2021) in the final evaluation report of the Monitor Farms:

The Monitor Farm programme is a type of group extension to encourage uptake of best practice and improve profitability and sustainability by the farming sector. The programme involves hosts opening up their farm to their peers – the ‘community group’ – with visits approximately every two months over a three-year period, organised and coordinated by a facilitator. It is founded on the principle of ‘farmer led, farmer driven’ and together farmers decide what changes will be made on the Monitor Farm to improve profitability over the course of the programme. Monitor Farm Scotland is based on a model used in New Zealand and was set up in 2003, to improve profitability of Scottish farms and help them become more market-focused in the wake of the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis. The Monitor Farm selected is usually a ‘typical’ farm for the area in terms of type, productivity, and profitability and it is intended that it be reflective of conditions and challenges faced by farmers in the area. Each meeting focuses on a topic and experts are often invited to speak, along with practical activities where possible.

An independent evaluation was undertaken by researchers in the James Hutton Institute. The research focused on two Monitor Farms located in the Lothians and Morayshire, and the findings are based on observations and interviews conducted across the three-year Monitor Farm programme period (2017-2020) and a virtual workshop conducted one year after the programme concluded (in April 2021). The findings were presented in an interim report, in the final report, and in a summary report.

As outlined in the summary report, the key findings and recommendations included:

Demonstrating and developing leadership

• Effective leadership shown by host farmers, mediation and support provided by facilitators, and engagement by community members are essential for on-farm demonstration to build capacity, challenge norms, and support change in the farming sector through peer-to-peer learning.
• Our findings indicate that hosts’ willingness to share information, practices, and experiences (including successes and failures) is vital and we recommend that these characteristics should form the basis of demonstration host selection.
• We propose that facilitation skills are more important than detailed subject knowledge in the recruitment of facilitators for future demonstration programmes and events.
• We recommend demonstration organisers supply clear description of the facilitators’ role, supported by training and mentoring where necessary, to ensure that expectations are understood, and new capacity is built to support the farming sector.
• We recommend priority investment in the formation and nurturing of farmer ‘management groups’ in future programmes to provide a clear connection between the farming community and event organisers.
• We recommend a review of support measures and funding for groups and networks seeded during demonstration programmes, to safeguard and enhance social and community capital in the in the period after demonstration programmes end.

Demonstrating and developing engagement

• A key role for facilitators is to ensure that farmers are participants and not just spectators at demonstration events.
• We recommend an approach to demonstration that places dialogue and interaction at the forefront of the process.
• We recommend that time be strategically built into event programmes, including transitions and refreshment breaks between sessions to prioritise and enable knowledge exchange and support deeper learning.
• Our findings indicate that the value of conversations over tools should be acknowledged in the context of business benchmarking groups, and we recommend improved engagement with farmers to support alternative solutions in situations where technical problems arise.
• The value of engagement and interaction in on-farm demonstrations, including dialogue with peers and hands-on and practical demonstrations, is something that cannot be replicated through virtual means, and we recommend that on-farm demonstration and learning re-commence post-Covid 19 alongside virtual means familiarised during ‘lockdown’ and social distancing interventions.

Demonstrating and developing new practices

• Our research confirms that hands-on and practical demonstrations were the most memorable and impactful delivery means for participants, and we recommend that these are given precedence in future programmes.
• We recommend that the collaborative approach adopted in the Lothians be replicated in different regions and scenarios in future demonstration projects. We also recommend future programmes initiate and support increased cross-site visits and/or virtual networking to encourage cross-fertilisation of ideas and sharing experiences across the national network.
• We recommend a review of programme length and format to support interaction with trials initiated in the context of programmes at a stage results can be assessed.

Demonstrating and developing virtual interaction

• Extended access to learning and trial results can be achieved using virtual demonstrations, including live streaming, recorded material, or virtual tours.
• An online virtual farm tour is being developed collaboratively with farmers from both community groups to facilitate ongoing learning, illustrate the impact and legacy of the Monitor Farm programme, and act as a hub for knowledge exchange.
• The tour will show trial results from the two Monitor Farm projects along with other changes attributable to the Monitor Farm programme.