Commercial in confidence. To know more about this project please contact FRDC.

It is becoming increasingly important for Rural RDCs to continually monitor and evaluate the returns from RD&E investment, as government and industry require greater transparency and accountability of RD&E funds.

In addition to FRDC’s Statutory Funding Agreement requirements for valuing return on investment and use in its Annual Reports, impact assessments of FRDC’s RD&E investments are needed to inform:
– Future investment decisions
– CRRDC’s overall performance review of impact generated by RDCs
– Levy payers and government of the performance of investments.

GHD understands that the project will comprise two key components:
– An economic impact assessment of up to 20 research projects for the three-year period FY23/24, 24/25, and 25/26
– An individual and aggregated report of all assessed projects at the completion of assessments.

GHD notes that within this period the first five assessments for FY23/24 are required by June 2024 with the remainder of the projects, i.e. 10, due in September 2024. These assessments are required to be consistent with the CRRDC Guidelines for Impact Assessments. FRDC RD&E projects are to be assessed annually to meet Statutory Funding Agreement (SFA) requirements for valuing return on investment for use in FRDC’s Annual Reports and performance of FRDC’s investments.
In conducting the impact assessment project it will be important to note that one of FRDC’s key responsibilities is to ensure that research to assist management of fisheries and aquaculture resources is being undertaken to maintain ongoing sustainability. While the primary focus of these benefit-cost analyses over time has been economic impact, with references to environmental and social implications where appropriate, FRDC is increasingly interested in understanding the impact of R&D investments on environmental, social, and economic aspects more holistically.

In order to support a greater degree of systems thinking in its advisory committees, it is proposed to expose all committee members to the potential approaches to priority setting through a systems lens and benefits of these approaches, and then work with a subset of Research Advisory Committees [and possibly others] to test how bringing tools such as theory of change into their deliberations could assist them to deliver better designed priorities. Working specifically towards theories of change in the committee processes, at appropriate levels of complexity, is expected to provide (i) a context to making approaches of different committee members more explicit, (ii) a basis for better design logic, and (iii) a way of more readily communicating the committee's priorities. The focus of this approach on identifying and working back from ultimate objectives helps frame what may legitimately be narrow priorities in a wider analysis of system drivers such as incoherent policy environments or climate change and thus enable larger agendas to be built around such issues across FRDC. An explicit emphasis on barriers, enablers and assumptions, as well as what is necessary and sufficient to achieve the objectives, also provides a strong basis for evaluating progress and learning. Together these attributes are anticipated to achieve the intent of supporting better FRDC priority setting and increased impact for its stakeholders.