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

Conclusions and Lessons Learned

This report has provided a process and outcome evaluation of KTIF which was an SRDP 2014-2020 scheme. Chapter 1 provided an overview of the scheme and its position within the wider CAP context. Chapter 2 discussed the methodology and explained the different sources of evidence used, namely: interviews with stakeholders, final project reports, and administrative and financial data. Chapter 3 covered the evaluation findings with regard to the application process; finances; project delivery; project outcomes; and strategic focus. It also provided an overview of JHI’s evaluation findings on Monitor Farms.

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 focus on the primary agricultural sector was challenged by some interview participants who would like to see the scope broadened out in the future. There was agreement among the participants that funding provided by KTIF is especially important in the context of the Agricultural Reform Programme (ARP) as the ARP’s success relies on innovation and knowledge transfer.

Overall, 70 individual applications were submitted by 32 unique organisations. Thirty-nine KTIF projects were funded in total, making the overall acceptance rate 56%. Out of these 39 funded applications, 12 were knowledge transfer and 27 were innovation projects. As there were 16 knowledge transfer and 54 innovation applications, the overall acceptance rates were 75% and 50% respectively.

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

Interview participants mentioned hearing about the fund through various channels such as social media, word of mouth, Scottish Rural Services and Payments website, and via Scottish Government channels. Some suggested the fund could be promoted more widely (e.g. via Scottish Enterprise or Public Contracts Scotland) so a more diverse audience, including SMEs, could be reached.

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. Nonetheless, participants acknowledged that, as public finances were concerned, the process needed to be suitably robust. Participants found positives in the feedback process and especially welcomed the pre-application stage of sharing a draft application or having a chat before 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 applications were considered and scored by the Project Assessment Committee (PAC). The group was made up of members both internal and external to the Scottish Government. Those participants who had been members of the PAC highlighted the benefits of having multiple viewpoints in the room when making decisions. One participant characterised the decision making as “quite obscure” and called for more steer on what kinds of project proposals the committee was especially interested in. One participant called for improved guidance for applicants, as the group had to often go back to applicants and ask for more information or to clarify issues.

Based on interviews and the PAC documentation, 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.

Some final project reports discussed how the need for the project was identified. For knowledge transfer projects this included: an industry/stakeholder call for action; identifying a gap in the market; responding to and drawing on existing evidence; and addressing the Scottish Government’s priorities. For innovation projects this included: requirement for improvements in farm management or practices; drawing on scientific and other evidence; industry/stakeholder call for action or farmer inquiries; addressing the Scottish Government’s priorities.

During the interviews, participants shared their positive experiences and views of the advisory and support services provided by RISS in relation to, for example, building networks and helping with the KTIF pre-application stage. Three participants called for a more joined up approach between research, advisory service and innovation support on the one hand, and innovation support and knowledge exchange on the other. Another participant wanted to see FAS more linked up with networks at a UK and EU level. One participant highlighted FAS’s role in disseminating and communicating insights from KTIF projects.

Main dissemination methods mentioned in the final reports and in the interviews included, for example, social media, traditional media (e.g. newspaper articles), podcasts, press releases, videos, and webinars and other presentations. Two participants highlighted the skills required for effective communication and dissemination, and the importance of considering different audiences’ needs was highlighted by one participant. The role of the EIP in disseminating findings was raised in four interviews.

Knowledge transfer events were delivered mainly as demonstrations, workshops, courses, webinars, and discussion groups, while innovation project delivery mechanisms included introducing a particular practical approach or tool at farms and investigated what the economic, social, practical, health, etc. effects of this were or would be.

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 hypothetical 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 such as drying off cows without antibiotics; moving cattle as opposed to the straw/fodder; and practicing ‘mob grazing’. The outcomes reported included, for example, cost savings, improved biodiversity, and animal health. Conducting a traditional evaluation was not suitable for some projects due to those projects’ nature (e.g. ones focusing on data gathering).

Out of the six participants who were asked if the programme provided good value for money, five said yes. The justifications included spreading resources wider; helping industry and stakeholders work together; work would have not happened without the funding; and that funding was provided for more grassroots initiatives.

Some of the participants discussed the strategic focus on scope of KTIF and argued that a more strategic approach to what is being funded should be adopted in order to help achieve the SG’s broader agricultural vision and objectives.

Finally, key findings from an external evaluation of the Monitor Farms were provided. The findings cover key themes such as leadership, engagement, new practices and virtual interaction.

Lessons learned

This section draws together specific lessons learned from across the report.

Key lessons learned include:

• Promoting the fund more widely to capture a more diverse audience, especially SMEs. This could be done by making use of Public Contracts Scotland or the Scottish Enterprise, for example.
• Reviewing the application form and process and shortening these where possible while still adhering to necessary audit standards.
• Ensuring enough notice is given before funding rounds open as well as ensuring rounds stay open for long enough so that everyone has an opportunity to apply (quick turnarounds were said to hinder smaller organisations which have more limited time and resources to dedicate to applications).^[14]
• Reviewing the guidance and considering if any information is missing or could be expanded on. Need for (more) guidance on e.g. dissemination, lead partner selection, and partnership agreements were mentioned by participants.
• Continuing to offer applicants the opportunity to seek feedback before submitting the final application to ensure the project is eligible and suitable.
• Ensuring the rationale and need for the project is clearly articulated at application and evaluation stages, and that evidence of collaboration and broader stakeholder buy-in and support is evident.
• Considering 1) the overlaps and intersections of any future local innovation and advice support services, and identifying opportunities for greater joining up of services; and 2) how support services can be further linked up to UK and EU level innovation and knowledge transfer networks.
• Acknowledging that successfully communicating results and key messages demands relevant skills and developing a clear communication plan is important to the successful dissemination of results. It is therefore important to ensure individuals with relevant skills are represented in the project team and enough time and resource are committed to communication planning.
• Making use of farmers in project communications and dissemination to support peer to peer learning.
• Reviewing the M&E approach to KTIF projects – this includes revisiting the guidance so it is relevant and proportionate, and clearly states and explains what will be required and what support is available.