Authors: Sophie Miller, Kirsty Blackstock, and Kerr Adams
James Hutton Institute
What is this thing called a LPIP? What does it mean to join such a partnership? These questions ran through my head when joining the Scottish LPIP, FORTH2O, in November 2025. Almost a year on, we can look back and reflect on what we’ve learnt by asking our partners these questions.
The Forth local policy innovation partnership (LPIP) works with 90+ partners from across academia, government, policy, industry, community and voluntary sectors aims to create a more connected, resilient and equitable water system through the codesign of research and policy innovations. Having interviewed partners about their experiences, what follows are these reflections.
Most partners focused on increasing connection between key actors in the Forth basin, which will help to address the disconnect within policy silos, local authorities and catchment boundaries. Better connections should reduce duplication and advance progress. Increased connection can also enable private, third sector and local communities to inform multi-level decision making and sharing knowledge.
Whilst some felt the projects could be used to deliver ecological improvements, timelines for project delivery did not align with ecological timelines. Partners also hoped that the LPIP could help increase visibility of water, addressing how it is valued as part of policy and practice.
However, the variety of partners involved can also mean that people view the purpose of the LPIP differently. For one, they felt the LPIP was to promote water as a business opportunity and focussed on generating scientific data. For another, the project provided an opportunity to tackle awareness of, and solutions for, water scarcity. There were interesting differences between academic teams and other partners only engaged in specific projects, with academic teams interested in explored different perspectives and methodologies, whilst the project partners were focussed on their delivery. They tended to be less sure of how their contribution would fit with the wider whole.
Ironically, the LPIP should reduce duplication and fragmentation, but others felt the commissioning of multiple projects could increase these aspects. Whilst partners appreciated the relationships generated, the economic realities for partner organisations mean it will be difficult to maintain such connections with no follow-up funding.
These different perspectives influence how we might judge success, however, people’s stories tended to cover:
- Connections across actors and scales are created through an enduring network, unlocking new ways for working. Collaboration has been facilitated, addressing siloed working and leaving networks that exist for future.
- Water is part of multiple policy, practice and community agendas, utilising insights and relationships from projects and research outputs.
- Useful knowledge that can be accessed by all partners has been generated. For some, increased research capacity is a successful legacy whereas for others it would be using this knowledge to change policy or practice.
The comparison between these findings and the LPIP principles for successful partnerships suggest a further round of reflection could be fruitful as part of our legacy.
