Advice PaperApril 2014

1

RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH STRATEGY FOR 2016-2021:a response to the Scottish Government’s consultation

(14–04)

Summary

• The Main Research Providers (MRPs) are adistinctive specialist resource and we supportthe Scottish Government’s proposal to continueto use them as the principal providers ofstrategic rural affairs and environment (RAE)research. To avoid the financial resource forthe delivery of the research strategy beingspread too thinly across a potentially broaderrange of topics, priority should be given tostrengthening those research areas in whichScotland already leads and those where it canfurther develop its capacity and expertiseto potentially excel in the future.

• The research strategy should be strengthenedby making it clear how it will integrate with, andsupport, relevant sectoral strategies. Thiswould help provide for a more coordinatedapproach.

• Whatever form the final research structuretakes, it will be crucial to ensure that thereis integration across the research themesand outcomes. There is a risk that theadministrative boundaries by which theScottish Government manages its businesscan result in a lack of policy connectivityand reduce opportunities for ‘win-win’outcomes that deliver on more than oneof the strategic priority areas.

• While there is already significant engagementbetween the MRPs and the HEIs, it will beimportant to ensure that the links betweenthem continue to be strengthened. We proposethat consideration should be given toestablishing formal engagement links betweenRESAS and the SFC. As part of this, RESAS andthe SFC could explore the co-funding of aDoctoral Training Partnership in the researchthemes covered by the strategy. The SFC wouldalso be well placed to assist the MRPs inleveraging funds from other sources, includingthe EU’s Horizon 2020 research programme.

• The operation of the Centres of Expertise (CoEs)should be kept under review. It is cruciallyimportant that they remain relevant and areable to look ahead to emerging futuredevelopments. A strategic approach should betaken to ensure closure of a CoE once it hasserved its useful purpose. This would helpensure that the limited resources can bere-directed to research collaborations that areconstituted to address the most pressing issuesfacing Scotland, now and in the future.

• The Strategic Partnerships were established inorder to enhance closer collaboration betweenthe MRPs, HEIs and business. To announce thatthe Strategic Partnerships will be phased outwithout a clear view of what will replace themindicates a degree of discontinuity that is ofsubstantial concern. Unnecessary disruptionand uncertainty should be avoided. As analternative model to the Strategic Partnerships,there would be logic in developing an approachsimilar to the Innovation Centres that are beingintroduced by the SFC.

2

Advice Paper 14 – 04

Introduction1 TheRoyal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), Scotland’s

National Academy, welcomes the opportunityto contribute to the development of the RuralAffairs and Environment (RAE) Research Strategyfor 2016-2021. In preparing this response the RSEhas drawn on expertisewithin its Fellowship in thosebroad areas of research covered by the strategy.This response comments initially on a number of keyissues. It then addresses each question in turn.The RSE looks forward to continuing to engage onthe development of the research strategy andwewould be pleased to discuss further any of thecommentsmade in our responsewith thosewithin the Scottish Government’s Rural andEnvironment Science and Analytical ServicesDivision (RESAS).

2 We recognise that the current consultation focuseson the high level vision and the key underlyingprinciples for RESAS funding of rural affairsand environment research for 2016-2021.Consequently we understand that the strategywill not detail how the RAE sciencewill bedelivered in practice.We assume that therewillbe further opportunity to commentmore specificallyon the science that will be undertaken throughthe programme, of which excellence should bethemain criterion.

3 TheMain Research Providers (MRPs) are adistinctive specialist resource andwe supportthe Scottish Government’s proposal to continue touse themas the principal providers of strategic RAEresearch. One of their great strengths is being ableto connect users to research output. It will beimportant to ensure that the RAE researchprogramme alignswith the financial resourcewhich is available to support it. To avoid theresource being spread too thinly, priority shouldbe given to strengthening those research areas inwhich Scotland already leads andwhere it canfurther develop its capacity and expertise topotentially excel in the future.

4 There is a risk that this leadership could be putat risk if the research budget has to be spreadover a potentially broader range of topics.Withinthe strategy document there is reference to theScottish Government’s intention to create a newfood body, Food Standards Scotland. However,it is not clearwhat implications, if any, this willhave for the RAE research strategy.Wewould be

concerned if itmeans that the available researchbudget has to be spread evenmore thinly than it is atpresent. Similarly, the RAE portfolio includesforestry but it is not clear how the research fundedby RESASwill linkwith Forest Research.

5 While the research strategy refers, for example, toclimate change imperatives and ecosystem services,theways inwhich the research strategywillintegratewith and support relevant sectoralstrategies is currently omitted from the consultationdocument.We are surprised that there is nomentionof theScottishGovernment strategies forBiodiversity,LandUse, ClimateChangeAdaptation, and Innovation.The RAE research strategywould be strengthenedbymaking explicit links to existing relevant strategiesin Scotland. This would help provide for amorecoordinated approach.

6 We recognise that the consultation is concernedwiththe future direction of the investment supporteddirectly by RESAS. However, it is regrettable that itdoes not reflect the efforts thatMRPs aremaking toleverage funds fromother sources, including theEU’s Horizon 2020 research programme. Indeed, wewould verymuch support greater collaborationbetween the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) andRESAS that assists theMRPs in accessingHorizon2020 funds.We return to this key issue of partnershipand collaboration in response to a number of theconsultation questions.

Responses to theConsultationQuestionsQuestion 1:Do the 2011-2016 strategicpriorities remain robust and relevant forthe period 2016-2021?It will be important to ensure that the specificcontributionmade by the RESAS investment inscientific research continues to underpin:

> Our rural communities and businesses;

> The productivity and profitability of our agriculturalsector;

> The sustainable use of our natural resources;

> The prevention and effectivemanagement andcontrol of animal and plant diseases;

> Our ability to respond effectively to global challengesincluding sustainable nutrition and climate change.

3

Advice Paper 14 – 04

Broadly speaking, the strategic priorities remainrobust and relevant. However, given the present needto continue the recovery and sustainable growth of theScottish economy, ‘Supporting innovation and theeconomy’ should be afforded greater priority in theresearch strategy. Aswe set out in our introductorycomments, the strategy needs to indicatemore clearlywhich sectors of the economy andwhich sectoralstrategies the research strategywill support. Theresearch strategy should be clear about theways inwhich business and socio-economic innovationwillbe facilitated to benefit the economy.

Policy and applied research in Scottish and internationalcontextsmust have strong scientific foundations.Wetherefore agree that there continues to be a need for thestrategic priority, ‘Supporting policy and practice’.

The strategic priority ‘scientific resilience’ is, in our view,overly restrictive as it could be interpreted asmeaningthatmaintenance of the scientific status quo is themostthat could be achieved.We recommend that this priorityshould be amended to reflect the ambition to enhanceScotland’s leadership in rural affairs and environmentalscience.

We therefore suggest that the priorities adopted for2016-2021 should be:

> Supporting innovation and the economy;

> Supporting policy and practice;

> Enhancing Scotland’s rural affairs and environmentscience base.

Question 2:Do these ‘enabling principles’set the right context or should additionalprinciples be adopted?One of the great strengths of theMRPs is their ability tomake the connection between research output and theuserswho put that research into practice. This includesopportunities for researchers and research users tomeet. Arguably, this interaction could be covered by theenabling principle of ‘Exchanging Knowledge’. However,this and the enabling principle of ‘Inspiring Innovation’are now a little dated in theway that they are conceived.It is nowwell understood that the process of successfultransfer of research into practicewithin the sectorssupported by the RAE portfolio has an essentialrequirement for the research output to be closely linkedwith the process of technological or business innovation.In essence the R&D output needs to be tailored tomeetthe innovation requirements of the sector.

In relation to the enabling principle of ‘MaintainingNational and International Capability’, we recommendthat the national and international dimensionswould bebetter served if theywere to bemade distinct principles.

National Capability would refer to the provision ofdatabases and other infrastructure that are needed tounderpin the research capacity in ScotlandwhileInternational Capability is the ability of Scotland to leadinternationally.We further suggest that the aspirationshould be to develop and expand these capabilitiesrather thanmerelymaintain them.

Question 3:Are the high level outcomessufficiently clear, if not, what changeswould you propose?

Question 4:Are the three broad themesidentified an appropriateway ofstructuring ourwork? If not, whatalternatives should be considered?Taking these questions together, the reference to theadoption of ‘systems thinking’ (section 7.3) is potentiallyvery important but there is a lack of detail as towhat thisis actually going tomean in practice. This part of thedocumentwould benefit fromamore explicit statementof what is being proposed.

The high level outcomes are not sufficiently clear and the‘complexity’ referred to in the bulleted section on page10 serves simply to highlight the challenges rather thanthe planned outcomes.

The three strategic research themes provide sufficientlybroad objectives to allow a fairly full range of policyoutcomes to be included in the programme. However,the structure of the outcomes is difficult to interpret interms of the programmes of work. For example, it is notclear to uswhy ‘Diverse and resilient energy supplychains’ has been included and it is difficult to envisagehow this will be addressed by the programme.We arevery surprised that there is no reference to crops underthe research theme, ‘Productive and Viable LandUse’.Indeed, crop research is notmentioned at all in thedocument. This is a significant omission that needs to beaddressed.

Whatever form the final research structure takes, it willbe crucial to ensure that there is integration across theresearch themes and outcomes. For example, ‘Healthyand sustainable diets’ should be closely linkedwith thefood production related outcomes.We are concernedthat administrative boundaries bywhich the Governmentmanages its business can result in a lack of policyconnectivity. This can be demonstrated by the fact thatthere is aScottishGovernmentDirectorate forAgriculture,Food andRural Communities and a separate one forEnvironment& Forestry. The current structures couldinhibit the achievement of a joined-up approach andreduce opportunities for ‘win-win’ outcomes that deliveronmore than one of the strategic priority areas.

4

Advice Paper 14 – 04

Question 5:Howcan the SGmaximise thebenefits of on-going investment in theMRPs to build and benefit from theconnectivitywith thewider science base?TheMRPs are a distinctive specialist resource andweagreewith that they should continue to be used as theprincipal provider of the programme. There are alsomany links between theMRPs and thewider sciencebase in theHEIs (and importantly in industry). Thewayinwhich linkswith HEIs can be encouraged is by thecreation of joint appointments and by the secondmentof staff for periods between institutions. Allied to this,RESAS could consider collaborationwith the SFC toexplore the co-funding of a Doctoral TrainingPartnership in the research themes covered by thestrategy. Aswell as expanding the relevant skills base,this would facilitate greater partnershipworkingbetween theMRPs and theHEIs and, crucially,betweenRESAS and the SFC.

Wewould also encourage the Scottish Government tothinkmore creatively about theways inwhich theMRPscould harness other UK-wide funding and partnershipopportunities. Unlike theHEIs, currently themajority ofthe non-universityMRPs (i.e. the JamesHutton Instituteand theMoredun) are not eligible to apply for ResearchCouncil funding. This is despitemany of the areas fundedby the Research Councils being directly relevant to themand the fact that theMRPs possess the high-qualityresearch capacity required.

Question 6:What are your views of theperformance and operation of the CoEs todate; are there any additional areas thatwould benefit fromsuch support?The virtual Centres of Expertise (CoEs) are conceptuallyvery sound. They provide ameans ofmaking connectionsbetween theMRPs, HEIs, policymakers, industry andother research users in the following areas of high policyimportance:Water, Climate Change, and Animal DiseaseOutbreaks.

We recognise that the operation of the CoEs continuesto evolve and that theymust be kept under review,particularly in terms of their purpose, objectives,leadership and the level of investment. It is cruciallyimportant that they remain relevant and are able to lookahead to emerging future developments. The CoEsshould be considered as non-permanent ‘task and finish’structures rather than continuing indefinitely. A strategicapproach should be taken to ensure closure of a CoE

once it has served its useful purpose. This would help toensure that the limited resources can be re-directed toresearch collaborations that are constituted to addressthemost pressing issues facing Scotland, now and in thefuture.

The Scottish Governmentmay alsowish to considerwhether there is an opportunity to form collaborativeCoEswith the other devolved administrations in the UK.Given that those areas considered to be of high policyimportance in Scotland are likely to be similarlyimportant to the other devolved administrations, theremaybeefficiency gains to bemade from joint approaches.

In terms of consideringwhether Scotland can learn frommodels adopted elsewhere, we commend to the ScottishGovernment the Australian Government’s CooperativeResearch Centres (CRC) programme1. This supportsindustry led research partnerships between publiclyfunded researchers, business, and the community toaddressmajor long term challenges.

Question 7:Do you agreewith the SGsproposal to end support for the SPs andto explore alternativemechanisms tostrengthen engagement between itsinvestment in research and the businesssectors it aims to support?

Question 8:Do you have any proposals forhow the research portfolio can better linkto the business community to deliver thedesired outcome?Taking these questions together, section 8.2.4 of thestrategy is very unsatisfactory. The StrategicPartnerships presently encompass amajor part of theRAE programmewhich is of relevance to rural industriesand businesses. To announce that the StrategicPartnershipswill be phased out without a clear viewof what will replace them indicates a degree ofdiscontinuity that is of substantial concern.

It is insufficient to indicate that ‘alternativemechanisms’will be explored. There needs to be a clear statement inthe strategy of whatmechanisms are going to replacethe Strategic Partnerships and a clear timetable for theirintroduction. This timetable should be designed toprovide continuity of workingwithin the ongoingprogrammes, so avoiding unnecessary disruption.

1 https://www.crc.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

5

Advice Paper 14 – 04

The Strategic Partnershipswere established to provide amechanism to enhance closer collaboration between theMRPs, HEIs and business in the key sectors of animalscience and food and drink science.We believe that theStrategic Partnershipswould have benefitted fromgreater articulation fromRESAS as to how they shouldoperate and on the reporting structures employed. TheScottish Government should also not lose sight of thefact that the Strategic Partnership for Animal Science inparticularwas successful at leveraging funds fromothersources.

As an alternativemodel to the Strategic Partnerships,therewould be logic in developing an approach similar tothe Innovation Centres that are being introduced by theSFC. These have a clear industry-led aspect to thedevelopment and strategicmanagement of theprogrammes of work.

Question 9: Is the purpose and value ofunderpinning capacity sufficiently clear,if not how can it be improved?Yes, the purpose and value of underpinning capacity issufficiently clear. However, it will be essential to ensurethat investment in underpinning capacity at theMRPs notonlymaintains but provides for expansion of capacityacross the sector. Opportunities for leveraging fundingfromother sources should certainly be explored.

Question 10:Do you have any viewsregarding the performance and use of theContract Research Fund, including how itcould be improved?The Contract Research Fund serves a useful purpose byenabling the commissioning of short termpolicy ledresearch projects and also to enable co-fundingwithother bodies such as the Research Councils. In order tofurther develop Scotland’s RAE science base, it shouldbe exploredwhethermore innovative use could bemadeof the Contract Research Fund in order to leverage fundsfromother sources.

Question 11:Could the overall deliverymodel be further simplified in awaywhich still enables SG tomeet itsstrategic priorities for the portfolio,if so how?There is a need to ensure that the RAE programmealignswith the financial resourcewhich is available tosupport it. To avoid the resource being spread too thinly,priority should be given to strengthening those researchareas inwhich Scotland already leads andwhere it canfurther develop its capacity and expertise.

Question 12:Do you have specificsuggestions as to how theRESASresearch strategy can contribute tothe delivery of the objectives of theCAMERAS (CoordinatedAgendaforMarine, Environment andRuralAffairs Science) partnership?It will be important to ensure that there is synergybetween the RAE research strategy and the CAMERASinitiative. Aswe indicate in our answer to Q.11, it will notbe possible to support everything that RESAS andCAMERAS partnerswouldwish to. It will be a case ofidentifying shared priorities and nurturing those areasof research inwhich Scotland already excels andsupporting thosewhere Scotland could potentially leadin the future.

Question 13:Do you have any suggestionsfor developing the partnershipwith otherresearch funders?Given the extreme pressures on staff resourceswithinthe Scottish Government, one approach to consider is theappointment of a short-termpart-time secondee (withexperience of workingwith other funders) to workwithScottish Government officers and colleagues in otherresearch funding bodies to develop a paperwhichexplores the opportunities for co-funding.

Question 14:Do you have any particularsuggestions as to howgreaterengagementwith theHEI sectormightbe achieved?While there is already significant engagement betweentheMRPs andHEIs, consideration could be given to theMRPs holding open days so that they can demonstratewhat they have to offer to HEIs. This would seem to be away of bridging the gap between theMRPs and theHEIs,help clarify the RAE science landscape and provideadditional opportunities to discuss possiblecollaborations.

Aswe have indicated already, it will also be importantthat engagement betweenRESAS and theHEI sector isstrengthened.We propose that consideration should begiven to establishing formal engagement links betweenRESAS and the SFC.We believe that SFCwould beparticularly well placed to assistMRPs in accessingEuropean sources of funding.

6

Advice Paper 14 – 04

Question 15:Are the research outputsfrom theRESASportfolio of researchreadily accessible or can this be furtherimproved, if so how?We recognise that the previous research strategy put alot of emphasis into ensuring that the research outputsfrom the RESAS portfolio are publicly accessible.Efforts in this regard should continue.We note that theKnowledge Scotlandwebsite2 is a freely accessibleresource for policymakers, practitioners andwiderstakeholders that is focused in the food, health,environment and rural sectors underpinned by theRESAS research programme.

Question 16: Is the current performancemanagement approach fit for purpose orcan it be improved, if so how?It is difficult to comment on this because up-to-dateinformation and analysis of the performancemanagement system is not provided in the consultation.

2 www.knowledgescotland.org/

Additional Information andReferencesAdvice Papers are produced on behalf of the RSECouncil by an appropriately diverseworking group inwhose expertise and judgement the Council has confidence. This Advice Paper has been signed off bythe General Secretary.

In preparing this Advice Paperwewould like to draw attention to the following RSE responseswhich arerelevant to this subject:

• The Report of a Joint Royal Society of Edinburgh and Scottish Environment LINKDiscussion Forumon The Future of Scotland’s Biodiversity (December 2013)

• The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s response to the Scottish Government’s consultation onPlanningScotland’s Seas – Scotland’s National Marine Plan (November 2013)

• The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on The 2020Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity (September 2012)

• The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s response to the Scottish Government consultation on A Land UseStrategy for Scotland (December 2010)

• The Royal Society of Edinburgh’s response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on A CoordinatedAgenda for Marine, Environment and Rural Affairs Science (CAMERAS) (March 2009)

Any enquiries about this Advice Paper should be addressed to the RSE’s Consultations Officer,WilliamHardie (Email: evidenceadvice@royalsoced.org.uk)

Responses are published on the RSEwebsite (www.royalsoced.org.uk).

Advice Paper (Royal Society of Edinburgh) ISSN2040-2694

TheRoyal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) is Scotland’sNational Academy. It is an independent bodywith amultidisciplinary fellowship ofmen andwomenof international standingwhichmakes it

uniquely placed to offer informed, independent comment onmatters of national interest.

The Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland’s National Academy, is Scottish Charity No. SC000470

7

Advice Paper 14 – 04