Improving Science-Policy Interfaces: Recommendations for JPI Oceans

The report builds on the outcomes of the first publication of the CSA Oceans Work Package 5. In this public deliverable, we aim to supplement the outcomes of the consultations to determine the current and future needs of policy makers and advisors from relevant international, European and national public bodies. We also discuss what actions JPI Oceans could do to add value to existing science-policy mechanisms. This is considered in the context of joint programming, and looks at how other similar organisations have been effective at adding value. Firstly, we explore five examples of science-policy mechanisms as case studies. The case studies were selected to demonstrate examples of best practice, including examples highlighted by stakeholders and other known mechanisms, to explore how they work and what makes them effective. The second section of this report investigates how new technology and methodologies could be useful in improving science-policy interfaces. This section contains a number of specific examples of existing projects that could be considered relevant or cutting edge, while they are not discussed in detail, links have been provided for further reading. There are several examples of ongoing work in individual Member States; these examples are mostly drawn from the CSA Oceans consultation exercise. The third section explores how JPI Oceans could act to improve science-policy interfaces. This section looks at the recommendations made by stakeholders and attempts to briefly summarise the context and identifies how JPI Oceans could add value without duplicating existing efforts in the field. In this section we also discuss how JPI Oceans could add value to the science-policy interactions in ten strategic areas identified by its Strategic Advisory Board (StAB). These areas were defined in a workshop held between CSA Oceans and the StAB in July, 2014

Getting the message across: biodiversity science and policy interfaces

Lettere En WysbegeerteSosiologie & Sosiale AntropologiePlease help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: [email protected]

Institutional dynamics of science-policy interfaces in international biodiversity governance

Descripció del recurs: el 01 setembre 2012En las últimas décadas, la comunidad internacional ha realizado un esfuerzo considerable en el campo de las ciencias y la política para contrarrestar la degradación y la pérdida de la diversidad biológica y de los servicios de los ecosistemas. Sin embargo, a pesar de estos esfuerzos, la diversidad biológica y los servicios ecosistémicos siguen degradándose y perdiéndose a un ritmo alarmante. Esta tesis se centra en la necesidad de mejorar las interrelaciones entre la ciencia y la política como un elemento crucial de la reforma institucional necesaria para hacer frente al estancamiento actual en que se encuentra la gobernanza sobre la biodiversidad y los servicios del ecosistema. La interacción ciencia-políticas es fundamental en el desarrollo de la administración medioambiental. Sin embargo, esta interacción se enfrenta a un reto creciente debido a la complejidad sin precedentes de los problemas actuales. La creciente conciencia de la importancia de las interrelaciones entre ciencia y políticas como elementos clave de la gobernanza medioambiental ha desencadenado una serie de reflexiones y debates relativos al diseño de unas relaciones entre ciencia y políticas más eficaces en los campos ya mencionados de la biodiversidad y de los servicios del ecosistema. Sin embargo, prevalecen diferencias significativas en la comprensión de lo que son y cómo funcionan estas relaciones, dónde y por qué fallan en la actualidad, y qué sería necesario hacer para mejorarlas. Esta divergencia obstaculiza las oportunidades de llevar a cabo las necesarias reformas institucionales de forma sustancial. En este contexto, los objetivos de esta tesis han sido (i) elaborar un marco teórico coherente de las relaciones ciencia-políticas que sea útil para el diseño y gestión de las mismas, (ii) analizar las deficiencias de las relaciones ciencia-políticas actuales en cuanto a la gobernanza de la biodiversidad y de los servicios del ecosistema, y (iii) explorar las necesidades y opciones que serían idóneas para mejorarlas permitiendo una gestión más eficaz de la biodiversidad y servicios ecosistémicos. Para alcanzar estos objetivos, la tesis se basa en el examen intensivo de tres casos prácticos que cubren la evaluación crítica de (i) el uso de la participación como un concepto importante en las relaciones ciencia-políticas en la gobernanza de la biodiversidad europea, en particular en lo que respecta a la Directiva sobre hábitats y aves (Birds and Habitats Directive), (ii) el papel del Órgano subsidiario de asesoramiento científico, técnico y tecnológico (OSACTT) como interfaz entre ciencia y política en la Convención sobre diversidad biológica, y (iii) el debate en torno a la plataforma intergubernamental cienciapolíticas que se establecerá ahora sobre biodiversidad y servicios de los ecosistemas (IPBES, por sus siglas en inglés). Los principales métodos de investigación aplicados son la observación mediante la participación en una amplia gama de acontecimientos y actividades pertinentes, y el análisis crítico del discurso de una gran cantidad de textos, debates y entrevistas relacionados con el objeto de la tesis. En ésta se describen las relaciones entre políticas y ciencia en términos institucionales, como una combinación de modelos cognitivos, estructuras normativas y derechos, normas y procedimientos que definen y promueven las prácticas sociales que relacionan ciencia y políticas, que asignan funciones a científicos, legisladores y otras partes interesadas y con conocimiento de estos temas, y que guían sus interacciones de acuerdo con determinados principios y objetivos. Se ha identificado una serie de desajustes críticos, lagunas y otras deficiencias junto con tres cambios retóricos importantes que han surgido en respuesta a dichas deficiencias. Lo que se requiere es la necesidad de (i) un cambio de una perspectiva global, de carácter universal, a una organización más flexible y policéntrica del establecimiento de políticas, (ii) un cambio de un modelo lineal dedicado a la resolución de problemas concretos a un enfoque más integrado, no lineal, de la ciencia para el desarrollo de políticas, y (iii) el cambio de un enfoque conservacionista y orientado a los resultados hacia uno más antropocéntrico y centrado en los factores causales en la gobernanza de la biodiversidad. En base a estas necesidades, lo que aquí se sugiere es el establecimiento de una red discursiva, dinámica y policéntrica de relaciones entre ciencia y políticas que abarque distintas regiones, sectores y escalas. Esta es una opción sobre la que actualmente se discuten la mayoría de sus elementos, está firmemente arraigada en las decisiones tomadas por la comunidad internacional o que podría basarse en procesos y programas que ya existen.Over the past decades the international community has engaged in considerable efforts in science and politics to encounter the degradation and loss of biological diversity and ecosystem services. Yet, despite these efforts, biological diversity and ecosystem services continue to be degraded and lost at alarming rates. This thesis focuses on the need for improved interrelations between science and policy as a crucial element of institutional reform necessary to address the current impasse of biodiversity and ecosystem services governance. Science-­-policy interfaces are critical forces in shaping the development of environmental governance. But their interactions are increasingly challenged by the complexity of today's problems in unprecedented ways. Growing awareness of the importance of science-­-policy interfaces as key elements of environmental governance has triggered a range of reflections and debate regarding the design of more effective science-­-policy interfaces also in biodiversity and ecosystem services governance. However, significant differences prevail in understanding what science-­-policy interfaces are and how they work, where and why they currently fail, and what would be needed to improve them. This divergence is impeding the opportunities to substantively engage with the necessary institutional reforms. In this context, the objectives of this thesis have been (i) to further develop a coherent theoretical framework of science-­-policy interfaces that is useful for the design and management of science-­-policy interfaces; (ii) to analyse shortcomings of a range of existing science-­-policy interfaces in biodiversity and ecosystem services governance; and (iii) to explore needs and options that would be suitable to improve them allowing for a more effective governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services. To reach these objectives, the thesis builds on the intensive examination of three case studies that cover critical assessment of (i) the use of participation as an important concept in science-­-policy interfaces in European biodiversity governance, in particular as regards the Birds and Habitats Directive; (ii) the role the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) as science-­-policy interface to the Convention on Biological Diversity; and (iii) the debate related to the now-­-to-­-be established Intergovernmental science-­-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The principle research methods applied are participant observation at a broad range of relevant events and activities, and critical discourse analysis of a wealth of related texts, discussions and interviews. The thesis describes science-­-policy interfaces in institutional terms, as a combination of cognitive models, normative structures and rights, rules and procedures that define and enable social practices interrelating science and policy, assign roles to scientists, policy-­-makers and other relevant stake-­- and knowledge-­- holders, and guide their interactions according to given principles and purposes. A set of critical mismatches, gaps and other shortcomings has been identified together with three major rhetorical shifts that have emerged in response. What is called for is the need to (i) a shift from universal globalocentric towards a more flexible polycentric understanding of policy making; (ii) a shift from a puzzle-­-solving linear model towards a more integrated non-­-linear approach of science for policy; and (iii) a shift from a conservationist and outcome-­-oriented towards a more anthropocentric and driver/pressure-­-oriented approach to biodiversity governance. Based on these needs, what is suggested here is a discursive, dynamic and polycentric network of science-­-policy interfaces reaching across regions, sectors and scales - an option of which most elements are either currently being discussed, are firmly rooted in decisions taken by the international community or could build on processes and programmes that are already in place

Marine biodiversity: A science roadmap for Europe

In the past ten years, Europe has made significant progress in marine biodiversity research and knowledge generation owing to strong support, funding, and coordination of research effort. However, there is still a major knowledge deficit and many of the important programmes and initiatives which have driven this progress have now ended. While biodiversity policy has also advanced, Europe has failed to achieve the biodiversity targets it has set itself. To meet these targets, effective science-based decisions and management will be necessary. This requires good science, strong European research collaboration, enhanced observing and research capacities, and effective science-policy interfaces

Report of the workshop on assessing governance in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem, Bangkok, Thailand, 28-30 October, 2014

The objective of the workshop was to begin a structured discussion on regional governance in the BOBLME, drawing on lessons from a region with similar issues, the Carribean. Conclusions were made about principles, regional governance arrangements, national-regional interface and national science-policy interfaces. Future work was also planned

Anticipation and Adaptation in Particulate Matter Policy: The European Union, the Netherlands, and United States

The evolution of particulate matter (PM) air quality policy in the European Union and in the United States between 1970 and the present has been atypical. The US government and the European Commission have mandated scheduled reviews of PM policy over the past three decades and have updated that policy to new scientific information on multiple occasions. The use of planned adaptation over such a long period and in this manner, as a means to deal with uncertainty, has not often been reproduced in air quality policy. Furthermore, particulate matter policy in the EU and US does not conform to the commonly held perception that the EU’s environmental policies are, by and large, more precautionary than the respective policies in the United States. The US decisions to adopt air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5, in 1987 and 1997 respectively, led those in the EU by approximately nine years. An analysis of the comparative stringency of the PM standards in the US and EU shows that the PM2.5 standard the US implemented in 1997 is more stringent than the standards that have been proposed in the EU by the European Commission and the European Parliament. In September this year, the US repealed their annual standard for PM10. Prior to that, however, the annual PM10 standard the EU implemented in 1999 was more stringent than the one the US adopted in 1987. The daily PM10 standards in the EU and US are of similar stringency. In the Appendix, these comparisons in stringency are discussed in more detail. The differences between the EU and US policies are remarkable because they are based on the same science and therefore reflect dissimilar processes of interpreting that science and the uncertainties inherent in it. The two cases themselves focus on the sciencepolicy interfaces for their respective governing bodies. The EU case also looks at the science-policy interface in the Netherlands. The US case also examines policies for sulfur dioxides that relate to the PM policies. The remainder of this summary discusses how characteristics of the science-policy interfaces may have led to the differences in outcomes

frame analysis in research and policymaking on climate adaptation

Due to the various stakes, values and views of social groups involved with climate change and adaptation, the process of developing the Dutch National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) needs to take a plurality of frames into account. The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) aimed to inform this process using frame analysis. However, researchers at PBL did not succeed in applying the method as planned. Over the course of the production of the NAS, the hegemonic science-risk frame, which focuses on quantitative identification and subsequent prevention of risks, emerged as the dominant frame. Our case analysis based on participant observation and interviews shows that, even when frame-reflection was explicitly aimed for, this happened to be downscaled, unwittingly, under influence of tensions, challenges and paradoxes encountered during the essential balancing act that characterizes complex science-policy interfaces. Roles, interaction processes, client needs, internal processes are dynamically shaping and shaped by institutionalised expectations over objectivity, independence, inclusiveness and effectiveness. We argue that what makes frame analysis worthwhile is not so much its presupposed power to lead to the adoption of a multiplicity of frames, but rather its ability to lead to a form of institutionalized critique that refuses to take automatic recourse to a dominant frame (e.g. the science-risk frame). Thus, frame analysis is a crucial instrument in performing the aforementioned craft of science-policy interfacing, and needs to be more firmly integrated into science-policy interfacing for this very reason

Synthesis about a collaborative project on “Technology Assessment of Autonomous Systems”

The project started in 2009 with the support of DAAD in Germany and CRUP in Portugal under the “Collaborative German-Portuguese University Actions” programme. One central goal is the further development of a theory of technology assessment applied to robotics and autonomous systems in general that reflects in its methodology the changing conditions of knowledge production in modern societies and the emergence of new robotic technologies and of associated disruptive changes. Relevant topics here are handling broadened future horizons and new clusters of science and technology (medicine, engineering, interfaces, industrial automation, micro-devices, security and safety), as well as new governance structures in policy decision making concerning research and development (R&D).Robotic systems, Autonomous systems, Technology assessment, Germany, Portugal

Process Management in Distributed Operating Systems

As part of designing and building the Amoeba distributed operating system, we have come up with a simple set of mechanisms for process management that allows downloading process migration, checkpointing, remote debugging and emulation of alien operating system interfaces.\ud The basic process management facilities are realized by the Amoeba Kernel and can be augmented by user-space services: Debug Service, Load-Balancing Service, Unix-Emulation Service, Checkpoint Service, etc.\ud The Amoeba Kernel can produce a representation of the state of a process which can be given to another Kernel where it is accepted for continued execution. This state consists of the memory contents in the form of a collection of segments, and a Process Descriptor which contains the additional state, program counters, stack pointers, system call state, etc.\ud Careful separation of mechanism and policy has resulted in a compact set of Kernel operations for process creation and management. A collection of user-space services provides process management policies and a simple interface for application programs.\ud In this paper we shall describe the mechanisms as they are being implemented in the Amoeba Distributed System at the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science in Amsterdam. We believe that the mechanisms described here can also apply to other distributed systems

The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment

The importance of health research utilisation in policy-making, and of understanding the mechanisms involved, is increasingly recognised. Recent reports calling for more resources to improve health in developing countries, and global pressures for accountability, draw greater attention to research-informed policy-making. Key utilisation issues have been described for at least twenty years, but the growing focus on health research systems creates additional dimensions. The utilisation of health research in policy-making should contribute to policies that may eventually lead to desired outcomes, including health gains. In this article, exploration of these issues is combined with a review of various forms of policy-making. When this is linked to analysis of different types of health research, it assists in building a comprehensive account of the diverse meanings of research utilisation. Previous studies report methods and conceptual frameworks that have been applied, if with varying degrees of success, to record utilisation in policy-making. These studies reveal various examples of research impact within a general picture of underutilisation. Factors potentially enhancing utilisation can be identified by exploration of: priority setting; activities of the health research system at the interface between research and policy-making; and the role of the recipients, or 'receptors', of health research. An interfaces and receptors model provides a framework for analysis. Recommendations about possible methods for assessing health research utilisation follow identification of the purposes of such assessments. Our conclusion is that research utilisation can be better understood, and enhanced, by developing assessment methods informed by conceptual analysis and review of previous studies