methodological framework for the systematic identification

June 2017

A project for the European Commission, Directorate-General

Environment

Final Methodological Framework

June 2017 Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited, UK

in association with: Milieu Limited, Belgium

ALVA, Research & Consulting

Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging issues for the

environment Service Contract No.: 070203/2016/736533/SER/ENV.A3

June 2017

Methodological Framework for the systematic i Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment

Contract title: Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging risks to the environment

Service Contract No.: 070203/2016/736533/SER/ENV.A3

Contracting organisation: European Commission, Directorate-General Environment

Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited (CEP)

Contact details: Head office: Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London,

SE1 7QY, UK Contact: Ric Eales Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cep.co.uk

Contact details for this contract:

Contact: Owen White (Project Manager) Tel: +44 (0)117 230 8700 or +44 (0) 117 315 5214 Email: [email protected]

Partner organisations: Milieu Ltd - Law & Policy Consulting Address: Chaussée de Charleroi 112, Brussels 1060, Belgium Contact: Tony Zamparutti ALVA, Research & Consulting Address: Rua Professor Aristides Amorim Girão, 51, 3510-049 Viseu

- Portugal Contact: António Alvarenga

Report details: Report title: Methodological Framework for the systematic

identification of emerging issues for the

environment

Date issued: 9th

June 2017

Version no.: 1.0

Author(s): Owen White (CEP); Tony Zamparutti (Milieu); Paula Orr

(CEP); Rolands Sadauskis (CEP); Liza Papadopoulou (CEP);

Robert Pederson (Milieu)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cep.co.uk/

mailto:[email protected]

June 2017

Methodological Framework for the systematic ii Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment

Contents

1. Introduction and foundations ......................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction and structure of this document ......................................................................... 4

1.2 Rationale and context ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Aim, objectives and added value ............................................................................................ 6

1.4 Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 6

1.4.1 Defining emerging environmental issues and risks ........................................................ 6

1.4.2 Defining other key terminology ...................................................................................... 8

1.5 Focus and scope ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.5.1 Conceptual scope of the methodological framework .................................................... 8

1.5.2 When is an issue considered to be ‘emerging’? ............................................................. 9

1.5.3 Environmental sectors and topics ................................................................................... 9

1.5.4 Geography and time ..................................................................................................... 11

1.6 Actors and audiences ............................................................................................................ 12

1.7 Development through a pilot and learning-by-doing ........................................................... 13

2. Methodological framework – outline of the system .................................................................... 14

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Principles of operation .......................................................................................................... 14

2.3 System governance and institutional roles ........................................................................... 14

2.4 Procedural overview and system flow-chart ........................................................................ 16

2.5 System processes and activities ............................................................................................ 16

2.5.1 Step 1: Information gathering and scoping .................................................................. 19

2.5.2 Step 2: Sense making and selection .............................................................................. 21

2.5.3 Step 3: Characterisation ................................................................................................ 22

2.5.4 Step 4: Validation .......................................................................................................... 24

2.5.5 Step 5: Outputs and communication ............................................................................ 25

2.6 Emerging risk assessment and management ........................................................................ 26

3. Setting up the system: the pilot phase and beyond ..................................................................... 28

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Key steps ............................................................................................................................... 28

3.3 Piloting the framework ......................................................................................................... 28

3.3.1 Setting up the pilot ....................................................................................................... 29

3.3.2 Topic for the pilot .......................................................................................................... 29

3.3.3 Pilot approach and key issues for the steps .................................................................. 30

June 2017

Methodological Framework for the systematic iii Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment

3.3.4 Reviewing the pilot and preparing a roadmap ............................................................. 31

3.4 Options for the level of activity for the framework .............................................................. 31

Annex 1: Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................... 34

Annex 2: Review of existing methods and approaches ........................................................................ 41

June 2017

Methodological Framework for the systematic 4 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment

1. Introduction and foundations

1.1 Introduction and structure of this document

This document is the final report of a project1 to support DG Environment and the Environmental

Knowledge Community (EKC)2 which had the general objective to devise a methodological

framework for the identification of emerging risks to the environment, such that timely and effective

policy action at EU level can be considered.

Through the course of the research and consultation undertaken during the project, it became

apparent that the appropriate focus and therefore title of the methodological framework should be

on the identification of emerging issues rather than emerging risks. This is described in more detail

in section 1.4 and reflected in the report title and other references to the methodological

framework.

This document is divided into three sections:

1. Introduction and foundations

Which sets out the foundations by describing: the rationale and context for the establishment of

a methodological framework for the detection of emerging issues; the aim and objectives of the

framework; how emerging environmental issues are defined in this context (see also Annex 1,

glossary of terms); the proposed focus and scope of the system, describing when an issue is

considered to be ‘emerging’ and which sectors and topics are to be considered in the

framework; and, who the key actors in and audiences for the framework are.

2. Methodological framework – outline of a system

Which builds on the foundations in Section 1 and describes principles of operation, suggested

governance and institutional roles, before setting out a procedural flow chart and description of

the proposed key methodological steps. Each methodological step includes information on the

roles of different actors and key sources of information and expertise.

3. Setting up the system

Which describes what activities may be required to establish the system described in Section 2,

including through a pilot phase to test key elements of the system. Recognising that strategic

decisions will need to be taken regarding the development of the system, this section also

proposes three illustrative options for implementing the system with different levels of activity.

1.2 Rationale and context

Priority Objective 5 of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP)3 established the need to

improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment policy, to ensure, inter-alia, ‘that

(by 2020) the understanding of, and the ability to evaluate and manage, emerging environmental

and climate risks are greatly improved’.

1 Service contract: ENV.F.3/SER/2016/0004

2 The EKC is a partnership between DG ENV, DG CLIMA, DG RTD, EEA, JRC and EUROSTAT, and was established

to strengthen the knowledge base for the 7th

EAP, including the management of emerging issues 3 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a

General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’

June 2017


Responding to Objective 5 of the 7th EAP, in 2015 the EKC endorsed a Roadmap which set out the

basis for cooperation to strengthen the generation and sharing of knowledge on the environment,

including the objective ‘to strengthen the Commission's capacity to anticipate emerging issues,

including through foresight tools as well

as to monitor and identify opportunities

and complex risks and foresee their

impact on environment and society’.

The need to identify and respond to

emerging issues is highlighted by, for

example, the Late Lessons from Early

Warnings reports published by the

European Environment Agency (EEA) in

20024 and 20135 (see box).

Many processes and activities exist within

and outside the Commission that

consider aspects of the detection and

assessment of emerging issues, including

established risk assessment and

management procedures in existing

environmental policy areas, initiatives

such as the emerging risks unit at the

European Food Safety Authority6, and

committees and working groups including

the Scientific Committee on Health,

Environmental and Emerging Risks

(SCHEER)7 at DG Health and Food Safety.

However, no systematic and participatory

(including across institutions) approach

exists that seeks to detect and prioritise

emerging issues of potential relevance to

the EU environment and environmental

policy.

Following the mandate on risk established by the 7th EAP, DG Environment has developed a review

of existing approaches to the management of risk and uncertainty in EU environment policies and

organised high-level workshops with Commission and external experts to discuss the added value of

a system for the identification of emerging environmental issues.

Following these activities, in 2016, a project was commissioned to support DG Environment and the

EKC in the development of a methodological framework for the identification of emerging issues for

the environment. This report and the description of a methodological framework it represents is the

final deliverable of this project, which has been developed through: desk-based research into

4 EEA (2002) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue

report No 22/2001 5 EEA (2013) Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report No 1/2013

6 See: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/emerging-risks

7 See: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer_en

Late lessons from early warnings Summary: Case study –

The use of PCE in mains water pipes

During the twentieth century PCE (perchlorethylene) was

widely used as a chlorinated solvent for processes such as

dry cleaning, metal degreasing, printing and medical

applications, for example for the treatment of hookworm.

Scientific research identified potential hazards such as

poisoning associated with PCE use in the workplace,

usually involving effects on the central nervous system

and liver damage, although the threshold at which such

damage first occurred was unclear.

PCE began to be used to produce plastic linings for

drinking water distribution pipes in the USA in the 1960s

and 1970s. Many early warnings suggested the need for

caution in introducing PCE based mains pipe linings.

However, this new and relatively untested type of pipe

was used in over 700 miles of New England's water

distribution systems, until it was discovered in 1976 that

PCE had been leaching into the water from the pipe lining.

The resulting widespread contamination still requires

remediation today.

The pipe manufacturer was apparently not aware of or did

not investigate the medical literature on PCE. As

information was available, the principal reason seems to

be that nobody required it. The main lesson of this case

study is that mechanisms are needed to ensure

information about exposure and effects is produced,

shared and publicised.

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/emerging-risks

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer_en

June 2017


existing relevant processes and activities (see Annex 2); bilateral consultations with EKC and external

experts; a brainstorming event; and a project workshop which brought together Commission and

external experts to discuss a draft version of this methodological framework.

1.3 Aim, objectives and added value

Building on the objectives of the 7th EAP and EKC roadmap, as well as discussions with experts8 the

overall aim of the methodological framework for the systematic identification of emerging issues for

the environment is:

To identify, characterise and assess emerging issues that may represent risks or

opportunities to Europe’s environment, and to communicate these results to policy-

makers and other stakeholders, encouraging appropriate and timely action to be taken.

Ultimately the aim is to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to prevent or

effectively manage emerging risks, and to ensure that opportunities are identified and

exploited.

The objectives of the methodological framework are to:

Establish a system, including clear procedural steps for the detection of emerging issues,

their assessment and prioritisation such that emerging risks and opportunities are identified.

Set out a systematic framework to bring together existing knowledge, expertise and

practice within the EKC related to emerging issue detection, assessment and management.

Establish a process for the involvement of relevant institutions, experts and information

sources outside the EKC.

Characterise detected issues, providing information that can support their further

consideration within appropriate agencies or institutions.

Communicate emerging issues to policy makers and risk managers in a timely manner so

that they are able to decide what action needs to be taken.

Once established the framework is intended to become a self-sustaining ‘system’ with a clear

operational structure, roles and responsibilities.

The added value of a participatory and systematic approach to the detection and prioritisation of

emerging environmental issues is that such a system is designed to collect and structure evidence

and provide it to decision makers to support them in making early decisions.

1.4 Definitions

1.4.1 Defining emerging environmental issues and risks

The aim of the methodological framework is to detect and prioritise emerging issues that may

represent risks or opportunities for the environment. While the methodological framework itself

does not seek to assess or manage emerging risks, a definition is important to provide a context for

the detection of issues and their prioritisation.

A broad literature review found no single accepted definition of 'emerging risks’. This partly reflects

the use of the term in different contexts and disciplines. As risks can emerge from different sectors

and sources, an all-encompassing definition may be neither realistic nor useful.

8 Discussions have included bilateral telephone interviews with EKC experts and others with knowledge of

emerging issue and risk detection and management, a project brainstorming on 1st

December 2016; and a project workshop on 4

th May 2017

June 2017


The review and expert discussions that have supported the development of this methodological

framework suggest that the system should make a clear distinction between ‘emerging

environmental issues’ and ‘emerging environmental risks’9, and that the focus of activity within

the system will be on the detection and characterisation of emerging issues, which are then

prioritised, characterised and communicated to relevant policy makers and stakeholders to consider

what further action may be required.

For the purposes of the methodological

framework we propose the following

definitions:

An emerging environmental issue10 is defined

as being something potentially in or affecting

Europe’s environment that is not yet known

and potentially needs to be considered, or

something that is already known but is either

changing, or due to new understanding, needs

to be investigated further. Emerging

environmental issues are those for which

currently available data and information is not

yet sufficient to conduct comprehensive risk

assessment or predict future development11 12.

An emerging environmental risk or

opportunity is understood as a potentially

new risk or opportunity resulting from an

entirely new emerging issue with potentially

significant and/or very uncertain effects on

the environment, and known issues where public perception and/or their understanding indicates

significant new risks or opportunities.

In this context: risks would have potential negative effects on the environment (and/or on the need

for environmental responses, i.e. EU policy); and opportunities could have positive effects on the

environment (e.g. via greater resource efficiency) or on environmental policy (e.g. new monitoring,

management or other tools). These definitions are intended to represent a degree of flexibility in

interpretation, as a rigid definition and framework would be inappropriate for the subject of

emerging issues and could present a barrier for their inclusive identification13.

9 This approach reflect that taken by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in their emerging risk activity,

as described in: Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification (EFSA, 2012) 10

An ‘issue’ in this context is defined broadly to include topics, developments or trends in developments 11

Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2009) Emerging Issues and the Role of the SCENIHR Position Paper 12

North Carolina University Institute of Emerging Issues webpage: https://iei.ncsu.edu/emerging-issues/ (accessed 09/03/2017) 13

This reflects the experience of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCHENIR, 2012)

There is increasing recognition of the need to

understand and effect change in socio-technological

systems so that we are able to address key drivers of

environmental change and realise goals such as a

resource-efficient or circular economy. However

such large-scale changes can also represent

Systemic Risks that are complex and driven by

multiple casual factors often with multiple indirect

and direct interdependencies leading to a high

degree of uncertainty. Systemic risks can result in

total system collapse, where tipping points in a

system can create cascade failures resulting in large-

scale shocks.

The methodological framework does not explicitly

address or seek to identify systemic risks (or issues),

but it will be important for DG Environment to work

with EKC partners, in particular the European

Environment Agency who are seeking to improve

the knowledge base for understanding and

responding to systemic environmental risks.

https://iei.ncsu.edu/emerging-issues/

June 2017


1.4.2 Defining other key terminology

Throughout this report reference is made to numerous types of approach and activity, for example

‘(early) signals’, ‘horizon scanning’, or the use of ‘expert panels’. A glossary of key terms is included

in Annex 1, which draws on existing definitions from European Commission and other sources (e.g.

OECD and the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)).

1.5 Focus and scope

A known problem with emerging issue detection or horizon scanning systems is that they can easily

become overwhelmed with information. It is important to set a clear focus for what the system will

consider in terms of sources of emerging issue and types of emerging risk and opportunity i.e. issues

emerging from where and what type of risks or opportunities they represent.

1.5.1 Conceptual scope of the methodological framework

The focus of activity within the framework will be on the detection of emerging issues, their

categorisation and prioritisation, and the referral of prioritised issues to appropriate institutions

and/or stakeholders to consider what action may be required, see Figure 1. It is therefore proposed

that the assessment and management of specific risks and opportunities is completed outside the

system following referral within institutions with appropriate technical knowledge and the ability

and/or remit to respond. A detailed flow chart of activity within the system is presented in Figure 2

(see sub-section 2.2).

Implementation of the methodological framework will need therefore to establish meaningful

communication with appropriate DGs, policy units, and external institutions such that identified risks

and opportunities can be referred to.

Figure 1: Conceptual overview of the methodological framework

June 2017


1.5.2 When is an issue considered to be ‘emerging’?

The proposed methodological framework is intended to detect and enable the prioritisation of

emerging issues that may pose risks to or opportunities for the environment. Various factors may

lead to an issue being considered as emerging in a particular institutional or sectoral context. In the

context of the methodological framework, for an issue to be considered as emerging, the following

categorisation is proposed:

Completely new: based on available information the issue appears to not have been

previously identified as an issue for the environment in the EU, there is limited relevant

scientific research or understanding, and no institutions are known to be assessing or

seeking to manage the issue. Issues like these could emerge from, for example, new

products, consumption patterns, social developments, and technologies with uncertain

impacts.

Known but new to EU policymakers and the EKC: there is a body of existing knowledge

related to the issue and/or evidence that the issue has been identified by institutions

outside the EKC, however the issue is new to EU policymakers (i.e. there is no existing

European policy, or the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the issue) and EKC

partners have not sought to assess or manage the issue.

Known to EKC, but controversial or uncertain: the issue has already been identified by one

or more EKC partner as being of potential relevance to the environment, however there is

high uncertainty about the potential implications (e.g. the use of geo-engineering) and/or

the scientific understanding of the issue is controversial or contested (e.g. nanomaterials or

pharmaceuticals in the environment).

Known to EKC but changes to understanding, exposure or perception: the issue has already

been identified by one or more EKC partner as being of potential relevance to the

environment, however, new scientific understanding of the potential impacts, increased

exposure and/or changes in public perceptions mean that the issue requires additional

attention.

Note, where issues are detected within the system for which there is evidence that they are already

being regulated or managed within European policy and related risk management, these will not be

considered for further characterisation or prioritisation within the system.

1.5.3 Environmental sectors and topics

The methodological approach (see Section 2) proposes the use of an issue characterisation template

to collate and present key information on identified and prioritised emerging issues. This approach

depends on a common understanding of the categorisation of emerging issues and environmental

areas where impacts (risks, opportunities) may be seen14. This is a means by which emerging issues

can be categorised and either proposed for further consideration or archived for future review (see

Figure 2).

14

In horizon scanning this is generally known as the scan-field or scan topics, and sets out under what headings / in what topics a system or process will seek information weak signals.

June 2017


Categorising weak signals of potential emerging issues

Based around the established STEEP15 categorisation (of environmental or other change) it is

proposed weak signals (see box below) detected by the system will be categorised according to the

following drivers:

Societal developments and discourses (e.g. new social movements), and changes in

perceptions (e.g. people feel that an issue is more important to them).

Technological developments and innovation (e.g. new industrial processes such as 3D

printing, autonomous (driverless) vehicles, advanced genetic engineering, new chemical

compounds)

Environmental developments (e.g. changes in exposure, improved understanding)

Economic developments and new business models (e.g. the emergence of Uber and Air

bnb); and changes in consumer behaviour and lifestyles, often driven by new technologies

(e.g. use of virtual reality for ‘enhanced reality’ and shared experiences changing the way

people interact with their surroundings and each other)

Political developments (e.g. greater political division, emergence of new political movements

alongside the rise of populism)

Potential impact areas for emerging issue categorisation and characterisation

The aim of the system is to detect and prioritise emerging issues that may pose risks or

opportunities to the European environment and therefore require management and an EU policy

response. In this context it is proposed to characterise prioritised emerging environmental issues

following the DPSIR16 framework using topics derived from the structuring of information within DG

Environment’s Science for Environmental Policy17, and the Environmental topics used by EEA18. This

categorisation will be tested and further developed

through the Pilot phase (see Section 3).

Driving forces19:

Production

Consumption

Demographics

Recreation

Agriculture

Transport and mobility

Pressures20:

Polluting substances

Radiation

Noise

Land use

15

Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic, Political 16

DPSIR: Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impact, Response 17

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/themes_menu.htm 18

See: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes 19

Describe the social, demographic and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in life-styles having an impact on the environment. 20

Developments in release of substances (emissions), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and the use of land.

Early warnings or weak signals?

In horizon scanning signals of potential future

change are often referred to as ‘weak signals’

or ‘early warnings’. For example JRC defines

weak signals as ‘emerging issues, outlier

behaviour, discontinuities, unconventional

wisdom, or disruptive technologies indicating

that potential future changes may occur’. In

the methodological framework the term ‘weak

signals’ is used to represent both ‘warnings’ of

emerging risks, but also ‘signals’ of new

opportunities.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/themes_menu.htm

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes

June 2017


Waste

Use of natural resources (mineral and biotic)

State of the environment and health:

Land and soil

Biodiversity and ecosystems

Human health

Air

Atmosphere (including climate)

Marine and coastal

Freshwater

Materials

In the context of the system, impacts of emerging issues are assumed to manifest as changes in

driving forces, pressures or the state of the environment and human health. The appropriate

response to emerging issues and the risks or opportunities they represent will be considered outside

the system. This may be through for example additional risk assessment and management,

amended or new policy responses.

It is expected that cross-cutting issues will also emerge: those that do not fit within pre-defined

categorisations. These issues may be classified as being relevant to multiple topics, or if they do not

fit in any of the existing environmental topic areas can be defined as new topics with an appropriate

name, or as cross-cutting. The uncertainty that is likely in relation to many emerging issues suggests

that a rigid framing of environmental topics may not be appropriate or possible and it is proposed

that these topics should not be static, and are reviewed and revised on a regular basis, such as

annually.

For more information on the approach to categorisation of emerging issues see sub-section 2.5.3.

1.5.4 Geography and time

Geographic focus

The geographic focus of the methodological framework will be on the detection of issues that may

pose risks or represent opportunities for the EU (i.e. that are relevant to the EU 28) and/or that

require an EU policy response.

Where issues are detected that are considered important but may represent risks or opportunities

for a group of countries (e.g. Nordic countries), at a member state or sub-national scale, these would

not be considered further in the system and would be referred to the appropriate authority for

further assessment and management.

Time considerations

A defining aspect of emerging issues is that they and/or their understanding or perception, are

changing (emerging) over time, and that this change is potentially rapid and/or highly uncertain.

Although it will not always be possible to identify the time-frame over which a detected issue is

expected to emerge, it is proposed to categorise issues as considered likely to emerge over the

following time periods: in the short-term (1 – 5 years); in the medium-term (5 – 10 years); and in the

long-term (10+ years).

June 2017


For the purposes of the methodological framework it is proposed that issues expected to emerge in

the short-term would be prioritised as they may require an urgent response, including through

new policy or regulatory responses. However, a degree of judgement will be required as some long-

term issues may require short-term management action to put in place effective management

procedures in order that significant future risks can be avoided (e.g. climate change).

1.6 Actors and audiences

The proposed actors (those who play an active role) in the methodological framework fall into three

main categories:

EKC Task Force: from EKC partners with a defined contributing role to the operation of the

system.

Contributing actors: from institutions outside EKC (but generally within EU institutions), who

have a role in contributing evidence or expertise e.g. through meetings.

External experts and networks: from a wider group of public and private institutions who

may contribute evidence and expertise on an ad-hoc basis, e.g. in relation to specific issues

or sectors.

More information on the proposed actors within the system, their roles and responsibilities is set

out in sub-section 2.3.

The principle audiences for the outcomes from the methodological framework are:

Senior and middle management within EKC partners21 who will need to: be informed of

new emerging issues in their policy areas; make decisions about whether emerging issues

detected within the system represent emerging risks or opportunities; and may need to

carry out or commission further assessment or research to decide how to respond to

particular issues.

Staff in other Commission DGs, with responsibility for policy development, monitoring and

risk management, who may need to respond where emerging issues are detected that fall

outside the remit of EKC partners and are therefore referred to other appropriate

Commission institution/s.

The potential secondary audience includes:

Member state authorities, research institutes / universities and private sector

organisations, who may have a role to play in further research into emerging issues, as well

as their assessment and/or management.

Public and wider stakeholders, who may be interested in being informed or in responding to

emerging issues.

Each audience will require different types of outcome and communication, some quite informal (e.g.

briefing notes and meeting reports) others more formal and taking the form of more technical

reports and formal publications. In the first instance and during the pilot phase it is proposed that

the system focuses on developing outputs for the primary audiences.

More information on the audiences, outcomes and communications related to the methodological

framework are set out in sub-section 2.5.5.

21

DG ENV, DG CLIMA, DG RTD as well as EEA, JRC and EUROSTAT

June 2017


1.7 Development through a pilot and learning-by-doing

The establishment of a methodological framework for the systematic identification of emerging

environmental issues is an ambitious goal. Experience from existing systems of emerging issue

detection and management22 suggest that such systems can require a number of years to become

established and that issue detection and assessment procedures may need to be reviewed and

modified over time and through practice. In addition the effective functioning of such systems

requires knowledge and capacity to be built within participating experts and institutions, which also

takes time.

Section 2 describes a proposal for the system including detail of the methodological steps. However,

given the challenges in establishing such a systematic approach, the proposal is that the

methodological framework will initially operate through an 8 month pilot phase. The pilot is

described more fully in Section 3.

During the pilot phase the activity within the system may be focused around one or more specific

topics, and the aim will be to demonstrate its operation and added value, while also developing and

exploring institutional relationships and providing an opportunity to learn from the experience and

test different approaches. At the end of the pilot phase the results should be reviewed and

decisions will need to be made on how to proceed.

22

Such as the emerging risk unit at the European Food Safety Authority, or the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks at DG SANTE

June 2017


2. Methodological framework – outline of the system

2.1 Overview

This section describes the elements of the proposed methodological framework, that if implemented would become a ‘system’ i.e. a systematic process that, as long as supported, would provide a basis for the detection and characterisation of emerging environmental issues. The section builds on the foundations set out in Section 1, and proposes governance and institutional roles and a series of procedural steps.

The system described in this section could be set up and implemented in various ways, depending on the level of commitment made by participating actors and the level of resource available. Following this section, Section 3 sets out a preliminary proposal for setting up the system, including through a pilot phase to run for approximately 8 months to test elements of the system and help establish the working relationships required.

2.2 Principles of operation

The proposed principles of operation for the system is that it should:

Be as simple as possible while meeting operational objectives.

Make maximum use of and links to existing activities, processes and networks.

Enable and encourage thinking and activity outside and across traditional EU policy topics,

by bringing together diverse knowledge, expertise and institutions.

Be proactive primarily: the aim is to detect new things, but once established, the expertise

and networks could be used reactively and respond to requests from policy makers.

Deliver outcomes for internal, policy and risk management audiences within the European

Commission.

Contribute ‘down the line’ to public communication by providing outputs that can be used in

existing public-oriented processes, e.g. DG Environment’s Science for Environmental Policy

news alerts23.

2.3 System governance and institutional roles

The EKC was established to strengthen the knowledge base for the 7th EAP, including the

management of emerging issues. Therefore, the EKC institutions are proposed to provide the core

of the system and be its driving force, as it already has a mandate for work in this area in the EKC

Roadmap. Unit A3 of DG Environment will act as a secretariat, providing the coordination lead for

activities within the system.

The main governance and institutional roles are set out in Table 1. More information on specific activities within the system are included in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, and Table 2 provides an overview of the points at which different institutional partners are expected to participate in the system. Estimated resource needs are described in Section 3. Each of the roles described in Table 1 will be tested through the pilot phase, and revised as required to reflect the realities of implementing the system in practice.

It is suggested that the participation and connection with member states and the public is managed through existing processes and networks rather than the establishment of a new process. For

23

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/newsalert.htm


June 2017


example, Eionet24 could provide a mechanism for member states to comment on, participate in or feed information into the system.

Table 1: System governance and institutional roles

System component Who is involved? Description

1. Governance oversight

EKC Director Generals or other senior management (e.g. directors or heads of units)

A dedicated governance structure including oversight from EKC Director Generals, led by DG Environment. It is proposed that EKC institution Director Generals (or directors / heads of unit) will act as a management board, allocating time in existing scheduled EKC meetings to receive and consider the results of the system, oversee progress and help establish of the high-level institutional commitment required.

2. Secretariat DG Environment A small secretariat with dedicated staff within DG Environment (Unit A.3) with responsibility for the day-to-day management and coordination of activities and institutions within the system.

The secretariat’s tasks would include the organisation of meetings, preparation of materials and templates and the collation of information and findings. The secretariat would also have responsibility for developing or coordinating the development of outputs and communications related to emerging issues.

3. EKC Task Force Representatives from each EKC partner that has made a (voluntary) commitment to contribute

A core institutional group (EKC Task Force) formed of one or more representatives from each EKC organisation who have an institutional commitment and dedicated time to participate in the system and to contribute regularly.

The role of the Task Force is described in sub-sections 2.4 and 2.5 and Table 2 provides an overview of when the Task Force is expected to contribute to the system.

4. Scientific committee: SCHEER

Experts on health, environmental and emerging risks, including on broad, complex or multidisciplinary issues

It is proposed that the emerging issues detected through the system are considered by SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) established by DG SANTE

25.

The role of SCHEER is described in section 2.5, and Table 2 indicates when SCHEER would be expected to contribute to the system.

5. Commission institutional partners

EU institutions outside the EKC

Wider institutional partners within the European Commission who are willing to contribute their institutional expertise and evidence on an ad-hoc or regular basis.

The potential for involvement of institutional partners, and who these should be, would be considered through the pilot phase.

24

Eionet (European Environment Information and Observation Network) is a partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its member and cooperating countries. It consists of the EEA itself, six European Topic Centres (ETCs) and a network of around 1000 experts from 39 countries in up to 400 national bodies dealing with environmental information. See: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/about 25

Pursuant to Commission Decision of 7.8.2015 (C(2015) 5383 final) on establishing Scientific Committees in the field of public health, consumer safety and the environment in order to give advice to the Commission on health and environmental risks: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/docs/call_2015_5383_decision_with_annexes_en.pdf

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/about

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/docs/call_2015_5383_decision_with_annexes_en.pdf

June 2017


2.4 Procedural overview and system flow-chart

The proposed system for identifying emerging environmental issues is built on activities, processes and relationships that have developed over several years and for different purposes. The system is conceptually organised into five ‘steps’: Step 1: Information gathering and scoping; Step 2: Sense making and selection; Step 3: Characterisation through additional research and use of existing tools; Step 4: Validation by a scientific committee; Step 5: Outputs and communication.

These steps are presented in Figure 2 which sets out the system as a flow chart. Table 2 then provides an overview of the institutional roles and information sources contributing to each step.

The system flow chart in Figure 2 and overview in Table 2 presents a linear process as part of a regular cycle. It is proposed that the five steps presented can be implemented through an annual cycle, although this frequency and the timings proposed should be reviewed through the pilot phase.

Figure 2 represents an overview of the system once operational. The Secretariat and EKC Task

Force will need to establish agreements and set up the mechanisms for the system to begin to

function. The development of the system will involve establishing governance structures and

instruments and setting up the processes to be used. More information on how the system might be

established and operate in practice is set out in Section 3.

2.5 System processes and activities

This section describes how the methodological framework will operate from a technical perspective, including the operational steps foreseen and the methods, approaches and processes to be used or developed. Each of the steps set out in Figure 2 and Table 2 are elaborated in more detail in the sub-sections below.

It is proposed that the methodological framework will be based on existing processes and outputs being used by EKC partners, and others where relevant, rather than seeking to generate or implement new methods and approaches.

As noted in sub-section 1.5, a known problem for emerging issue detection is ‘information overload’, and the need to move from information to intelligence i.e. making sense of information to identify what is actually important. The system puts a strong emphasis on expert input to make sense of information collected, through sense-making workshops to involve EKC members and external experts (Step 2) and the use of a scientific committee (Step 4).

Box 1: Capacity building

Capacity building is not a step within the process, but is critical to the maintenance and improvement of the system. The members of the EKC Task Force will need to have skills in recognising or detecting potential emerging risks and in sifting irrelevant information. The expertise of those involved is likely to improve with experience, but actions to promote capacity building should be part of the system. This will not just increase the capabilities of individuals working in the system but will also develop understanding and skills in people who come into contact with the system and this will contribute to widen the pool of expertise on emerging risks.

The pilot phase can be used to identify gaps in knowledge and expertise and specific capacity building needs and opportunities.

June 2017


Figure 2: Procedural overview flowchart

June 2017


Table 2: Overview of the system: contributing activities and roles [to be reviewed during pilot phase]

Step System governance and administration

Step 1: Information gathering and scoping

Step 2: Sense making and selection

Step 3: Characterisation

Step 4: Validation Step 5: Outputs

Description

Primary contributing sources

JRC Horizon Scanning

DG Environment text mining of scientific literature (Tool for Innovation Monitoring)

DG Environment text mining of online and social media (European Media Monitoring customised tool)

Eionet FLIS26

Horizon Scanning

27

Other system activities

Desk based research

Consultation with experts

Workshops and meetings

Who is involved EKC DGs / directors Secretariat EKC Task Force

SCHEER External experts

Estimated time to complete Ongoing 2 months 2 months 2 months 4 months 2 months

Purpose and outcome Effective admin and governance

Detect long-list of weak signals (approx. 200) and generate short narratives

Review weak signals to select short-list of (10-15) potential emerging issues

Collate existing evidence on shortlisted issues and complete issue templates

Convene meeting of SCHEER working group to review and validate selected issues

Prepare issue briefing notes and an annual report to communicate all issues detected

For full description see Section 2.3 Section 2.5.1 Section 2.5.2 Section 2.5.3 Section 2.5.4 Section 2.5.5

26

See: https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-flis 27

Note: EEA are in the process of discussing and developing a horizon scanning system within Eionet FLIS. This will not be operational during the pilot phase, and the secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning activity is expected to commence.

https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-flis

June 2017


2.5.1 Step 1: Information gathering and scoping

Purpose of Step 1 The purpose of Step 1 is to collate information on potential weak

signals from a range of sources to provide the best possible

opportunities for the system to detect emerging environmental

issues.

Who is involved? The key actors in Step 1 will be the secretariat in DG Environment,

JRC and the EEA (Eionet FLIS).

JRC will provide a list and short description of weak signals

identified through its Horizon Scanning Service.

The secretariat (DG ENV Unit A3) will undertake searches

using text mining systems (Tools for Innovation Monitoring

(TIM) and the European Media Monitoring (EMM) system).

These will identify additional weak signals.

When operational28, EEA will collate additional weak signals

identified through the horizon scanning activities of the

Eionet FLIS and share these with the secretariat.

Timing / frequency Step 1 is intended to take approximately 2 months to complete, and

will be completed once per annual cycle.

Outcome A long-list of detected weak signals: it is expected approximately 200

weak signals will be detected. Each weak signal will be described in a

simple template.

The detection of emerging issues requires

information to be gathered from a range of

sources (institutions/organisations, networks,

experts, processes) and brought into the

system so that it can be considered through a

process of review and ‘sense-making’: a

process of developing intelligence about

potential emerging issues.

Intelligence is defined as information about

a topic or trend combined with knowledge

and expert judgement to interpret the

information in order to identify weak-signals

of change. Step 1 represents the collation of

information related to weak signals, which is

then reviewed through the sense-making

procedure outlined in Step 2 to develop

intelligence about potential emerging issues.

28

EEA are in the process of discussing and developing a horizon scanning system within Eionet FLIS. This is not expected to be operational during the pilot phase, and the secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning activity is expected to commence.

Two horizon scanning systems will provide

information on weak signals for the system. JRC has

developed a horizon scanning system that collects

weak signals from across the JRC’s knowledge

management units (e.g. knowledge for energy union,

knowledge for sustainable development and food

security) using a coordinated procedure with

dedicated resourcing for scanning, collation and

sense making of weak signals. The EEA is supporting

Eionet FLIS in developing a horizon scanning system

that will collect weak signals from EU member states,

through the use of templates and annual meetings of

Eionet FLIS experts to review and select weak signals

detected across Europe. The Eionet FLIS horizon

scanning is currently under development, and the

secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the

pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning

activity is expected to commence.

June 2017


As outlined in sub-section 1.5.3 the detection of weak signals will be directed by using the STEEP

categorisation of drivers of change and considering potential impacts related to the DPSIR

framework. A simple format is proposed for recording each weak signal, a template that includes: a

title; a short narrative (2 – 3 sentence) description; and a list of source/s of information. A suggested

template format is included in Table 3, however it is understood that JRC are developing a template

for weak-signal recording, which could be adopted as the standard template for the system.

Table 3: Step 1 Weak signal recording template

Weak-signal title Title / name of the weak-signal

Weak-signal description 2-3 sentence narrative describing the weak signal

Information source/s List source/s of information related to the weak signal.

If relevant, list specific reference/s that identify the issue, e.g. journal articles, conference papers, web-articles. Provide web-links where possible.

A digital filing system or online shared-space should be developed so that all detected weak-signals

of change can be recorded. It is understood that the existing EKC web-based ‘shared-space’ can be

used (subject to feasibility) to provide a dedicated online space for the recording and archiving of all

weak signals collected by the system.

In Step 1 the system will draw on three main sources of information (see Table 4), and the

secretariat will have responsibility for collating and compiling a list of weak signals coming from

these sources. It is expected that there may be overlaps or similarities in the signals that different

sources detect, so the collation will involve an element of review and rationalisation to develop one

coherent set of weak signals of change.

Table 4: Sources of information

Sources of information Contribution to Step 1

Primary sources

Horizon Scanning system at JRC JRC Horizon Scanning system will produce a long-list of weak-signals collected from active ‘scanners’ across JRC Knowledge management units. JRC will collate and share these with the secretariat in the agreed format.

Text mining using JRC developed Tools

for Innovation Monitoring (TIM) and a

customised version of the European

Media Monitoring (EMM), as piloted

by DG Environment

DG Environment Unit A.3 will regularly conduct reviews using a range of relevant search terms to identify weak signals.

Eionet FLIS Horizon Scanning EEA will coordinate the collection of weak signals from the Eionet FLIS, and collate and communicate these to the secretariat.

Secondary source

EKC Task Force professional intelligence

29

EKC experts to identify and report on any potential weak signals they have become aware of through their work, e.g. from participating in meetings, workshops and through research they come across, in particular through RTD network of foresight correspondents

29

Identification of information by EKC experts based on their own knowledge and experience e.g. from participating in meetings, workshops and through research they come across through their work

June 2017


2.5.2 Step 2: Sense making and selection

Purpose of Step 2 Step 2 will make sense of the potentially large number of weak

signals collected in Step 1. The purpose of Step 2 is to bring together

a range of experts to review and discuss the weak signals and select

those judged to represent potentially important emerging

environmental issues.

Who is involved? The Secretariat will prepare materials for and convene a sense-

making workshop to review the outcomes of Step 1.

The workshop is expected to involve experts from EKC institutions,

including those engaged in horizon scanning at JRC and the Eionet

FLIS.

External experts are also likely to be involved, however the number

of experts and expertise required will depend on the weak-signals

collected in Step 1.

Timing / frequency Step 2 is expected to take approximately 2 months to complete.

One sense-making workshop is intended to be organised in each

annual cycle to follow the completion of Step 1. A one-day

participatory workshop is proposed.

Outcome Workshop record including a short-list of approximately 10-15

weaksignals, together with initial reflections on their potential

importance for the EU environment or society (i.e. the extent to

which they represent emerging issues, risks or opportunities).

Weak signals considered relevant and important will be taken

forward for characterisation in Step 3.

In Step 2 the Secretariat will need to collate the

outcomes of Step 1 and prepare materials for a

participatory ‘sense-making’ workshop to bring

together EKC and external experts (see box) to

review, discuss and select from the long-list of

weak-signals those considered most important for

the EU environment and society. To ensure good

participation it is proposed that a date is agreed

and participants are identified and invited as soon

as possible in the annual cycle, and at least 2

months before the workshop if possible.

One sense-making workshop is proposed,

although, if a very large number of weak signals are

detected or if there is a wide range of areas of

expertise required to contribute to sense-making,

it may be necessary to convene more than one

workshop. It may also be useful to cluster the weak signals into broadly similar types (e.g. according

to the STEEP driver categories in which they have been detected, i.e. are they technological

Expert input to Step 2

It is expected that some external experts will

need to be involved in the sense-making

workshop to ensure a sufficient diversity of

knowledge and expertise to consider all the

weak signals detected. The exact range of

expertise required will depend on the type of

signals detected. It is proposed that during the

pilot phase an initial ‘pool’ of experts is

identified, which can be drawn upon as

required in future implementation of the

system. It is anticipated that over time

networks of experts can be established and the

relationship between these experts and the

system will develop.

June 2017


developments, social developments etc.), to provide a basis for small group discussions during the

workshop.

A one-day workshop is proposed and could include the following sessions:

Overview of Step 1 outcomes: long-list of weak signals

Working sessions to review and discuss weak signals, divided into small working-groups (e.g.

by cluster of weak signals).

Plenary session/s to select the 10-15 most important weak signals, and discuss initial

reflections on relevance for EU policy and society.

The outcome will be a workshop record, including a list of selected weak signals (10-15) together

with any additional information emerging through the workshop discussions (drawing on the

collective expert knowledge), in particular related to how the weak signal may be important to or

impact the European environment or society.

Weak signals short-listed and selected through the sense-making workshop will be carried forward

to Step 3: Characterisation. Weak signals not selected through the sense-making workshop will be

managed in one of two ways:

Those considered not relevant in the short-term, but which may develop over time will be

recorded and reassessed in the next system cycle (as new information may be available etc.).

Those considered not relevant for the system in general will be archived, and may be

reported in the annual report but not reconsidered within the system.

The existing EKC web-based ‘shared-space’ can be used (subject to feasibility) to provide a dedicated

online space for the recording and archiving of all weak-signals collected by the system.

2.5.3 Step 3: Characterisation

Purpose of Step 3 To provide a characterisation of the weak signals selected through

the sense-making in Step 2. The characterisation of weak signals is

indented to enable the description of the type and nature of

emerging risks or opportunities they may represent.

Who is involved? The Secretariat supported by EKC Task Force members and, where

required, input through consultation with external experts.

Timing / frequency Characterisation will follow the sense-making workshop, and is

expected to take approximately 2 months.

Outcome The outcome of Step 3 is an emerging issue template completed for

each weak signal selected during Step 2, characterising each weak

signal and describing the risks or opportunities it may represent.

Step 3 involves the characterisation of weak signals drawing on multiple sources. The Secretariat will bring together available evidence about each of the weak signals selected in Step 2. This will include reviewing information available through the source/s identified in each weak signal description (from Step 1), additional sources of information identified during the sense-making workshop (Step 2) and if necessary additional information identified through desk-based research and bilateral discussions with external experts, for example:

June 2017


Literature searches, using existing tools available to the secretariat at DG Environment: text mining using TIM and EMM; and (if time allows) reviews of academic literature requested through the Science for Environmental Policy service contract.

Requests for information from the EKC Task Force and other external experts, particularly where knowledge of evidence sources are required in particular thematic areas, sectors or topics.

Bilateral discussions, such as through interviews with external experts (see box) with knowledge of a particular topic or sector.

If after completing the above further information is still required, additional informal information gathering interviews with members of existing expert panels and committees could be used30 as appropriate.

Working with the Task Force, the Secretariat may make use of tools such as trend analysis and causal chain analysis or mind-maps to develop a better understanding of the scale and significance of specific issues.

The outcome of Step 3 will be a completed emerging issue characterisation template for each selected weak signal (see Table 5), accompanied by any supporting references or literature as required.

The level of detail possible in the template will depend on the available information, although it is assumed that each template will be a maximum of 2 – 3 pages in length.

Table 5: Step 3 Emerging Issue characterisation template

Step 3: Issue characterisation

Emerging issue title

Title / name of the emerging issue

From Step 1 weak signal template, amended based on sense-making discussions (Step 2), and information review (Step 3).

Emerging issue description

Short narrative describing the emerging issue (1-2 short paragraphs)

Include description of the STEEP category the weak signal related to the emerging issue comes from, based on STEEP

31 categories of drivers.

Based on description of weak signal from Step 1, amended and expanded based on sense-making discussions (Step 2), and information review (Step 3)

Type of impact expected: potential risks or opportunities

Short narrative describing how the emerging issue is expected to effect the EU environment or environmental policy. Identify potential negative impact (risks) as well as positive impact (opportunities).

Consider the following areas of impact in which risks or opportunities may be seen (based on the DPSIR framework

32):

30

E.g. SCHEER at DG SANTE; the emerging risk unit at EFSA; the Science Advise Mechanism (SAM) hosted by DG RTD; European Forum on Forward Looking Activities (EFFLA) high level experts; and the European Parliament Science and Technology Option Assessment (STOA) panel. 31

Societal developments / perceptions; Technological developments and innovation; Environmental developments; Economic developments and new business models; Political developments 32

As noted in sub-section 1.5.3 ‘Impacts’ and ‘Responses’ are not considered explicitly in the system. ‘Impacts’ of emerging issues are assumed to manifest as changes in driving forces, pressures or the state of the environment and human health; and the appropriate ‘response’ to emerging issues and the risks or opportunities they represent will be considered outside the system.

Expert input to Step 3

It is expected that some external experts will

need to provide input to the characterisation of

weak signals, to ensure a sufficient diversity of

knowledge and expertise is available. The exact

range of expertise required will depend on the type

of signals detected. It is proposed that during the

pilot phase an initial ‘pool’ of experts is identified,

which can be drawn upon as required in future

implementation of the system. It is anticipated that

over time networks of experts can be established

and the relationship between these experts and the

system will develop.

June 2017


Driving forces: Production; Consumption; Demographics; Recreation; Agriculture

Transport and mobility

Pressures: Polluting substances; Radiation; Noise; Land use; Waste ; Use of natural resources

State of the environment and human health: Land and soil; Biodiversity and ecosystems; Human health; Air; Atmosphere (including climate); Marine and coastal; Freshwater; Materials

Timeframe of emergence

Describe when the emerging issue is considered likely to emerge as an issue, and what factors may influence this emergence.

Consider whether the issue is expected to emerge in the: Short-term (1-5 yrs); Medium-term (5-10 yrs); Long-term (10+yrs); or Long-term, but requires an urgent response

Uncertainty

Briefly describe the level of uncertainty associated with the weak signal / emerging issue and the risks / opportunities identified.

A simple scale could be used to indicate the level of uncertainty, from very certain to very uncertain.

Policy status Describe briefly the policy status of the weak signal / emerging issue it may represent. Does EU or international policy exist relevant to the issue? Is the issue relevant to an existing policy topic of the Commission? Is the issue cross-cutting?

Notes on additional research or evidence that may be needed

Add any notes on additional research or evidence that may help further characterise or understand the emerging issue.

Reference/s List specific reference/s that identify the issue, e.g. journal articles, conference papers, web-articles. Provide web-links where possible.

From Step 1, amended and added to, based on sense-making workshop discussions (Step 2) and evidence review (Step 3)

2.5.4 Step 4: Validation

Purpose of Step 4 The purpose of Step 4 is to validate the outcomes of Steps 1 – 3

through their consideration within a scientific committee: the

Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks

(SCHEER) at DG SANTE.

Who is involved? The Secretariat will have responsibility for liaising with the SCHEER

secretariat to organise one of more meetings of the SCHEER. These

meetings will be convened under usual SCHEER procedures. If

agreed, a dedicated SCHEER working group33 on emerging

environmental issues could be established.

Timing / frequency The SCHEER would meet in each annual cycle following completion of

Step 3. It is expected that approximately four months will be

required for the committee to consider the outcomes of Step 3 and

convene one or more meetings to discuss and validate these.

Outcome The outcome of Step 4 will be an opinion by SCHEER on the emerging

issues characterised in Step 3 and where possible on the level of

scientific consensus around each emerging issue and the risks /

opportunities.

33

See: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/minutes_wg_meetings_en

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/minutes_wg_meetings_en

June 2017


In Step 4, the Secretariat liaises with SCHEER to arrange emerging environmental issues working group meetings to review the Step 3 characterisation emerging issue templates, debate the evidence, comment on and validate the outcomes, in particular the risks and opportunities identified and the levels of uncertainty and scientific consensus.

The SCHEER working group should consider a set of key questions, including:

Is the emerging issue as described plausible?

Is the emerging issue likely to have the risks and/or opportunities described, or others?

Does the working group agree with the expected time-frame of emergence, in particular those issues expected to emerge in the short and medium term (i.e. that may be of highest priority for an urgent response)?

It will be important that the SCHEER working group should have face-to-face meetings with sufficient time for broad deliberations around each issue.

2.5.5 Step 5: Outputs and communication

Purpose of Step 5 Step 5 concerns the preparation of outputs from the system, and

their communication with relevant audiences and stakeholders.

Who is involved? The Secretariat will have responsibility for the preparation of

reporting from the system, and the EKC Task Force will approve and

provide support on particular topics or issues.

The secretariat and EKC Task Force will help communicate outputs to

the appropriate senior staff in their institutions and to the annual EKC

DG level meeting.

Timing / frequency Communication represents the outcome of each ‘cycle’ of the

system, and therefore outputs would be expected annually.

Issues detected during the annual cycle that are considered of an

urgent nature could be communicated immediately, through ad-hoc

briefing notes to relevant stakeholders.

Outcome It is proposed that two key outputs be developed:

Short and accessible briefing notes or alerts to be prepared at

the end of each cycle (annually) to provide information to EKC

DGs on emerging issues requiring policy attention. Ad-hoc

briefing notes could also be prepared where urgent issues are

detected.

Annual reports to present and summarise the results of the

system each year, including an overview of all weak signals

detected.

As noted in sub-section 1.6, the proposed principle audiences for the outcomes of the system are

senior and middle management within EKC institutions (e.g. directors general, directors, heads of

unit), and staff of similar grade in other Commission DGs who will need to be informed of emerging

issues in their policy areas and make decisions about how to respond (e.g. through additional

research, new policy responses etc.). It is proposed that EKC directors-general will be informed of

the outcomes once a year through their regular EKC meetings.

June 2017


It is proposed that in Step 6 the following outcomes are developed:

Key Output 1: At the end of each cycle (e.g. annually) briefing notes or alerts developed for

‘decision makers’ which can be relatively informal and short. These briefing notes will

summarise information and recommendations on identified and prioritised weak signals and

associated emerging issues, together with information on the potential risks and

opportunities they represent, and present this to the annual EKC DGs meeting for further

assessment and decision making on appropriate management responses.

Key Output 2: Annual report to record all weak signals examined, prioritised, referred on or

archived. To minimise the need to generate new materials, the annual report could be

largely based on individual templates developed in Steps 1 and 3.

Outputs can be communicated directly with relevant audiences and stakeholders, however existing

communication tools could also be used. Online versions of outputs could be published through the

DG Environment website, and the annual report could be circulated through the Science for

Environmental Policy news alert mechanism34. The outputs of the system could also provide an

input to reporting by other EKC institutions, for example input for EEA publications such as the

European Environment – State and Outlook Report (SOER), or through the Eionet input to member

state processes and reporting, including national state of the environment reporting and horizon

scanning (e.g. feeding back into Eionet FLIS).

Once the system is operational, consideration will need to be given to how outputs can be

communicated to wider audiences beyond the primary audience. A wide group of institutions and

experts (e.g. Eionet, existing expert networks) are expected to contribute to the system by providing

information, and it will be important to provide such contributors with recognition and benefit to

their involvement.

Archive of weak signals

Although not a formal communication output of the system, as noted in Step 2, based on the

outcomes of sense-making an ‘archive’ of weak signals will be maintained within the EKC web-

based shared-space. This will represent a record of all signals detected including those not

recommended for further consideration. As indicated in sub-section 2.5.2 these are expected to fall

into two categories: those that are considered not relevant in the short-term, which will be reviewed

in the subsequent cycle to ensure that a weak signal that was not selected in a previous assessment

is regularly checked against new information or changes in understanding and perceptions; and

those which are not relevant to the system at all, which will be archived but not considered in the

next cycle.

2.6 Emerging risk assessment and management

The outcomes of the system represent the detection of emerging environmental issues,

characterisation of potential emerging risks and opportunities, and their review by an established

scientific committee (SCHEER). It is proposed that formal emerging risk assessment, and where

required risk management (or interventions to exploit opportunities) is undertaken outside the

system: the system refers issues and related information that is useful to support decision making

about next steps.

34

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/newsalert.htm


June 2017


Established risk management procedures exist within the Commission, including those related to

specific thematic policy areas (e.g. DG Environment previously completed a review of risk

management processes in use across all environmental sectors / areas of legislation35); and through

processes established specifically to help understand the nature of and appropriate responses to

risks in particular areas (e.g. the Science Advice Mechanism coordinated by DG RTD, see Annex 2 for

more information). Which institution or process is best place to undertake specific risk assessment

and management will depend on the sectors and types of risks and opportunities detected and

prioritised through the system.

35

DG Environment (2014) Mapping on approaches to risk and uncertainty in DG ENV. Unpublished internal review.

June 2017


3. Setting up the system: the pilot phase and beyond

3.1 Overview

This section discusses the approach for establishing the system described in Section 2. It first

outlines the steps to be taken in the first year, when a pilot will test the system. The section then

presents key elements for a roadmap to formally establish the system. Finally it presents options for

implementing the system itself and their estimated resource requirements.

3.2 Key steps

An overall objective for the framework is that it should be practical and can be put into operation.

For this reason, we propose that DG Environment and its EKC partners run an informal pilot of the

framework using currently available resources and then review the pilot experience for the

preparation of the full, formal stage of work for the framework. Figure 3 presents a schematic idea

of this ‘launch’ phase, including initial start-up actions, the pilot and its follow-up with an internal

review, as well as work leading to the more permanent stage: this initial trial period might take one

year in total.

Figure 3: Schematic of the proposed ‘launch’ phase (also see Section 3.3)

The pilot is discussed in further detail in the following sub-section 3.3. Sub-section 3.4 then

discusses key elements of the roadmap to be prepared, while sub-section 3.5 outlines three options

in terms of the scale of the permanent framework.

3.3 Piloting the framework

The goal in the pilot phase will be to ‘learn by doing’: it would trial the systematic approach

developed in this project within a defined topic area, and its results would be used to refine the

approach and to communicate its value. The first goal of the pilot will be to develop and test the

framework set out in Section 2.

Start-up actions

(months 1-2)

Pilot

(months 2-8)

Internal review of pilot and preparation of roadmap

(months 9 - 10)

Present formal framework for approval

(month 11)

Launch formal framework

(month 12)

June 2017


3.3.1 Setting up the pilot

This pilot could be carried out on an informal basis among EKC partners (and other EU bodies that

agree to participate). DG Environment would provide an informal secretariat for this work, drawing

on resources that are currently available.

During the setup phase, several questions will need to be addressed: the definition of the topic (see

sub-section 3.3.2 below), the roles and working relationships among participating bodies, and the

operational plans for each of the steps set out in section 2. In terms of planning, it will be important

to ensure that key inputs – such as horizon scanning from JRC and EEA/Eionet FLIS – will be available

to meet the timelines. The suggested review questions for each step of the pilot phase are set out in

sub-section 3.3.3. As indicated, it is expected that the pilot will be carried out on an informal basis;

nonetheless, agreements may need to be established between EKC members and with other

participating bodies, notably with DG SANTE and SCHEER.

3.3.2 Topic for the pilot

Discussions during the project brainstorming and workshop recommended that the pilot should

focus on a single, relatively well-defined thematic area. The project workshop in May 2017

considered several possible topics, and the discussion results are presented in the Workshop

Report36. The topic selected for the pilot is: new technologies in the urban environment.

Table 6 shows the opportunities associated with the elements of this topic and the challenges that

should be addressed in the pilot. By combining these individual topics, potential concerns regarding

each topic individually being too broad can be addressed by providing a focus for each e.g.

considering those new technologies that may have implications in an urban setting, and by limiting

the breadth of urban issues that could be considered by focussing on those influenced by new

technologies.

Table 6: Pilot topic opportunities and challenges from project workshop

Proposed topic Opportunities Challenges to be addressed in the

pilot

New technologies An opportunity to focus on specific types of new technology or sectors

Good access to secondary sources

Opportunity to do a ‘retrospective’ pilot alongside a ‘prospective’ one

Will need a clear time frame – e.g. issues emerging since 2010

Very broad area – may need to be narrowed to make text mining practical

Speed of technology adoption varies, resulting in uncertainties

The topic is often considered in foresight studies: a clear value added for the pilot should be identified

Urban issues A broad topic – useful to test the framework methodology

New topic at EU level and for emerging issues

A focus on ‘smart cities’ would touch on all three areas discussed, but this term needs definition

As a broad topic, the scan may need significant preparation

36

CEP (2017) Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging risks to the environment – Final record of workshop, 4 May 2017, Brussels

June 2017


3.3.3 Pilot approach and key issues for the steps

The pilot will work through the five steps of the systematic approach. At each step, the level of work

will be reduced compared to the full framework set out in section 2 – the approach is described in

below. The focus of the pilot will be to test the methods, relationships and processes proposed (e.g.

templates, sense-making workshop etc.). A set of review questions is proposed for each step.

Step 1. Information gathering and scoping

Did the results provided by horizon scanning (undertaken by JRC and possibly also via

EEA/Eionet FLIS) provide useful information for this step?

Did text mining from scientific literature and online media provide useful information?

Were there problems of information overload (too many results or too much detail) or lack

of information?

Is the weak signal template an appropriate format for collecting a large number of weak

signals?

Step 2. Sense making and selection

What are the best ways to organise the EKC sense-making workshop? How much time is

needed for effective and useful discussions?

How well does weak signal recording template used in Step 1 provide the appropriate level

of input for the workshop?

If external experts are involved in sense making, was their input valuable, and is it possible

to establish an informal ‘pool’ of experts to be used (and developed) for the system?

Step 3. Characterisation

How well does the characterisation template work?

What resources are needed to gather information for the template?

Should further information be provided on the reliability and plausibility of information

sources?

If external experts are contacted, what has been the value of the information they provided?

Is a more formal expert network required, or is an informal pool of experts appropriate?

Step 4. Validation

Does SCHEER provide an appropriate review of the work?

Would additional areas of high-level expertise might be needed for an effective review?

Step 5. Outputs and communication

What is the best format for the briefings?

How and when should results on emerging risks be disseminated to a wider audience? How

can the work of the framework be best linked to Science for Environmental Policy and other

dissemination tools?

June 2017


Overall questions for the pilot

Did each step provide value for the process?

Are the proposed timeframes for each step realistic? Is an annual cycle useful?

Does each step function as part of an annual process (as part of a longer-term cycle), or is

there a need for greater iteration between steps?

Are there opportunities to streamline the process? Are any additional steps needed?

Based on the pilot, what will be the resource needs for the full framework (see section 3.4

below for preliminary estimates of resource needs)?

3.3.4 Reviewing the pilot and preparing a roadmap

The answers to these questions will be considered in the review of the pilot, which will assess the

process as well as the tools used and consider any modifications for the formal stage of the

framework. On this basis, DG Environment would then prepare a detailed roadmap to put the

framework into practice. The figure below provides an initial overview of activities for the roadmap.

Figure 4: Overview of key set-up activities

It is expected that the main work for the set-up activities will be carried out by the Secretariat, with

input and discussion among the participating EKC members and other key EU institutions. After

agreement at working level, the work plan and budget would be presented to a meeting of the EKC

at DG level for approval.

3.4 Options for the level of activity for the framework

The pilot experience will be used to refine the approach for the full framework, which could take the

form of an EKC project. In developing the full framework, the EKC will need to consider the level of

ambition and resources available. We suggest that three main options be considered for the formal

framework. Table 7 then presents and overview of these implementation options and indicative

resource requirements.

Option 1: A framework mainly using currently available resources at DG Environment and

other EKC partners. Option 1 would provide a minimum level of work on emerging risks,

Governance structures

Agree roles among Task Force partners

Identify secretariat

Prepare ToRs for main bodies: Task Force, secretariat,

SCHEER

System procedures

Agree on scoping criteria

Agree on templates

Agree role of SCHEER

Check availability of EKC contributing

activities

Describe planned outputs

Budget and work plan

Agreement on budget and work

plan

June 2017


which might result in an annual briefing on one topic to EKC Directors. This would

essentially continue the level of resources used in the pilot. It would not draw on external

expertise.

Option 2: A framework with additional resources provided by DG Environment and other

EKC partners, possibly with some resources provided by other interested EU bodies (e.g.

other DGs). This option would put in place all the elements described in Section 2. Option 2

would provide additional outputs on emerging environmental issues, possibly two annual

briefings to EKC Directors. Under this option, external experts would provide input to the

system, as described in Section 2, including the use of SCHEER for validating issues detected.

Option 3: The third option would involve a higher level of activity on the part of DG

Environment, other EKC partners as well as other EU bodies. Under this option an external

Expert Panel could be established (in addition to SCHEER) to include a range of external

experts and associates who would be invited to participate when needed for additional

expertise. The framework might produce its own public briefings and also contribute

directly to other outputs, such as work by EEA and Eionet FLIS.

Table 7 provides initial indications of the resources and elements for the three options. The pilot will

be valuable in providing more accurate estimates of the resources needed and its results can also be

used to modify or further develop the options for the full framework.

Table 7: Overview of implementation options and resources

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Resources Similar to pilot:

0.5 month FTE at DG

ENV

5+ days FTE each at

other participating EKC

partners, including Task

Force and an internal (to

EKC) expert panel

Resources for horizon

scanning at JRC (and

possibly EEA and Eionet

FLIS)

0.5 - 1.0 FTE at DG ENV

10+ days FTE at other

participating EKC partners


scanning at JRC (and EEA

and Eionet FLIS)

5+ days for SCHEER

members

5+ days FTE at other EU

participating EU bodies

SfEP contribution

1.5 – 2.0 FTE at DG ENV

1-2 months FTE at JRC and/or

EEA


scanning at JRC (and EEA and

Eionet FLIS)

1 month FTE each at other

EKC partners and other

participating EU bodies

Resources for a dedicated

Expert Panel, plus additional

experts

SfEP contribution

Main actors DG ENV as secretariat

JRC, including for

horizon scanning

Other EKC partners

SCHEER

If possible, link to NRC

FLIS

DG ENV as secretariat

JRC, including for horizon

scanning

Other EKC partners

SCHEER

Other interested EU bodies

Link to NRC FLIS

DG ENV as secretariat

JRC, including for horizon

scanning

Other EKC partners

SCHEER

Other interested EU bodies

NRC FLIS: regular inputs

Process Focus on limited number

of topics, e,g, up to 2 per

year

Broader focus through

open scan drawing on

horizon scanning and text

mining

Broader focus through open

scan

Capacity to address requests

from policy makers

External SCHEER to provide

review

SCHEER to provide review

Involvement of additional

An annual conference would

review emerging issues

June 2017


Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

expertise external experts on an ad

hoc basis for specific needs

SCHEER working group

meets twice/year

identified by the framework.

Participants would be

identified to provide expertise

for the issues to be discussed.

SCHEER to provide further

review and input

Outputs One briefing per year to

EKC Directors

Two briefings per year to

EKC Directors

Occasional public

information provided via

SfEP

Four+ briefings per year to

EKC Directors

Information via SfEP

At least one DG ENV public

report per year

June 2017


Annex 1: Glossary of terms

Table A.1: Glossary of terms

Terms used Definition Source/s of

definition

Other sources

Brainstorming Brainstorming is a method for collecting ideas

without judgment or filtering. It involves

spontaneous contributions of ideas, encouraging

wild and unconstrained suggestions, and listing the

ideas as they emerge. Brainstorming is typically

used in early stages of futures workshops in order

to explore possible and/or (un)desirable future

trends, events and/or situations

EEA Foresight

Dictionary

JRC FOR-

LEARN; Popper,

2008a; Popper

2008b

Causal Chain

Analysis

A causal chain is an ordered sequence of events

linking the causes of a problem with its effects.

Causal Chain Analysis is the analysis of a chain of

causal links starting with ‘driving forces’ (e.g.

economic sectors, human activities) through

‘pressures’ (e.g. emissions, waste) to ‘states’ (e.g.

physical, chemical and biological) and ‘impacts’ on

e.g. ecosystems, human health and functions,

eventually leading to political ‘responses’ (e.g.

prioritisation, target setting, indicators). As such,

causal chain analysis illustrates how different

variables and components in a system interact to

influence the system’s behaviour. The chain of

causal relation stretches from the occurrence of a

hazard through to its final impact, including an

identification of sources, routes of exposure and

consequences.

GEF IW:LEARN

Adjusted from

Kristensen

(2004) and

OECD (2003)

and Committee

on Foundations

of risk analysis

(2015)

Meadows, 2008

Early Warning(s)

(Also found in

literature as Early-

Warning Signals/

Systems or Rapid

Alerts)

Early Warning is information about a potential

hazard or an issue of potential serious consequence

that is timely and meaningful, so that it can enable

individuals, communities and organisations

threatened by it to prepare and to act appropriately

and in sufficient time to reduce the possibility of

harm or loss.

Adjusted from

UNISDR (2007)

and FAO (2014)

EC, 2016; EEA,

2016a; EEA

Foresight

Dictionary

Emerging Issue An Emerging Issue is an issue that has very recently

been identified and merits further investigation, as

the information collected is preliminary and still too

limited to be able to assess whether it meets the

requirements of an emerging risk.

Note: this definition has been adapted and

expanded in the context of the methodological

framework to represent a definition of emerging

environmental issue (see sub-section 1.4.1).

Adjusted from

EFSA (2012)

EFSA, 2014;

OECD, 2003;

SCENIHR, 2009;

EEA, 2014

Emerging Risk An Emerging Risk is a risk resulting from a newly EFSA (2007) FAO, 2014; EEA,

June 2017



definition

Other sources

identified hazard to which a significant exposure

may occur or from an unexpected new or increased

significant exposure and/or susceptibility to a

known hazard.

Note: this definition has been adapted and

expanded in the context of the methodological

framework to represent a definition of emerging

environmental risk or opportunity (see sub-section

1.4.1).

2016a; IRGC,

2010; SCENIHR,

2009; Maynard,

2010; Locklear,

2011; Aven and

Vinnem, 2007

Systemic Risk A Systemic Risk is one that can result in total

system collapse, as opposed to breakdown in

individual components of a system. Systemic risks

are characterised by complexity and are often

driven by multiple factors (operating through both

direct and indirect causation and with

interdependencies and amplification across co-

causal factors) which creates uncertainties in our

understanding of causality.

Systemic Risks may emerge from conventional risks

taking on new forms or new major hazards

emerging, and can be characterised by both

extreme uncertainty and a potential for extensive

and perhaps irreversible harm.

The emerging dimension of systemic risks is shaped

by the view to the future.

Adjusted from

EEA (2016a)

and OECD

(2003)

Expert panels /

consultation

Expert panels are a method for soliciting informed

opinions from individuals with particular expertise.

They are used to obtain a rapid assessment of the

state of knowledge about a particular aspect of a

system and its environment. Expert panels are one

of the most common foresight methods that utilises

experts to review or deliberate on the future of a

specific matter.

EEA Foresight

Dictionary and

FAO (2014)

UNFCCC

Secretariat,

2005; Popper,

2008a and

2008b;

Armstrong,

2001

Foresight Foresight is a systematic, participatory, future-

intelligence-gathering and medium-to-long-term

vision-building process aimed at enabling present-

day decisions and mobilising joint actions.

As a forward-looking approach, it aims to help

decision-makers explore, anticipate, prepare for

and influence a range of possible future scenarios.

Adjusted from

JRC FOR-LEARN

and EEA

Foresight

Dictionary

FAO, 2014;

CORDIS, 2010;

EC, 2009;

Slaughter,

1997; Jakil,

2011; Popper,

2008b

Horizon Scanning Horizon scanning involves the systematic collection,

organisation and examination of a wide range of

information on potential challenges, opportunities,

and threats to identify emerging issues that may

have significant impact in the medium to long term

Adjusted from

Defra (2002),

EC (2016), EEA

Foresight

Dictionary and

JRC FOR-

LEARN; Könnölä

et al. 2012;

Sutherland and

Woodroof,

June 2017



definition

Other sources

future. It is a key foresight method for identifying

possible future drivers of change that are at the

margins of current thinking and acting.

Horizon scanning aims to provide early warning

about important changes and to detect weak

signals that can challenge present assumptions and

provide new perspectives on future threats and

opportunities.

Horizon scanning may explore novel and

unexpected issues as well as persistent problems or

trends.

FAO (2014) 2009; EEA,

2016b

Method

and

Methodology

Method is a path for collecting, analysing,

interpreting and disseminating plausible,

inspirational and robust knowledge and information

about the past and the present to make statements

about the future. The choice and the use of

methods are informed and determined by a

methodology.

Methodology refers to a research logic consisting of

a more or less consistent set of assumptions about

the relevant conditions that need to be fulfilled to

gain plausible, inspirational and robust knowledge

and insights.

EEA Foresight

Dictionary

Jakil, 2011; JRC

FOR-LEARN

Mind-mapping Mind mapping is a method for drawing one or more

diagrams to visually organise knowledge and

information about a topic or concept. A mind map

is often created around a single concept to which

associated representations of ideas such as images,

words and parts of words are added. Major ideas

are connected directly to the central concept, and

other ideas branch out from those.

EEA Foresight

Dictionary

Nesbit and

Adesope, 2006

Participatory

(approach)

A participatory approach offers and encourages the

participation of individuals and groups.

Future-oriented activities can be considered

participatory if:

they involve participants from at least two

different stakeholder groups (e.g. researchers

and business people; experts and policy-

makers; experts and laymen)

they disseminate their preliminary results (e.g.

analyses, tentative conclusions and policy

proposals) among interested 'non-

participants', e.g. face-to-face at workshops,

over the internet with free access for

everyone, or in the form of printed documents,

JRC FOR-LEARN

June 2017



definition

Other sources

leaflets, newsletters

they seek feedback from this wider circle

(again, either face-to-face or in written form).

Risk Risk is the combination of the probability, or

frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard and

the magnitude of the consequences of the

occurrence.

We consider a future activity [interpreted in a wide

sense to also cover, for example, natural

phenomena], for example the operation of a

system, and define risk in relation to the

consequences (effects, implications) of this activity

with respect to something that humans value.

Royal society

(1992)

ISO Guide

(2009)

UNISDR, 2007;

Committee on

Foundations of

risk analysis,

2015; OECD,

2003; Defra,

2011

Risk assessment Risk assessment is the procedure in which the risks

posed by inherent hazards involved in processes or

situations are estimated either quantitatively or

qualitatively. It involves identifying and evaluating

each step of a trajectory – from the origins of a

hazard to its final consequences for a given system.

As a scientifically based process it consists of the

following steps: (i) hazard identification, (ii) hazard

characterization, (iii) exposure assessment, and (iv)

risk characterization.

Adjusted from

OECD (2003),

EEA (2016b)

and FAO (2014)

UNISDR, 2007;

Defra, 2011;

EEA, 2001

Risk

characterisation

A qualitative and/or quantitative picture of the risk;

i.e., a structured statement of risk usually

containing the elements: risk sources, causes,

events, consequences, uncertainty representations/

measurements and the knowledge that the

judgments are based on.

Committee on

Foundations of

risk analysis

(2015)

EEA, 2001;

Defra, 2011

Sense-making Sense-making is described as the collective activity

of knowledge creation through the collection of

signals and the interpretation of their significance.

Sense-making is built collectively when

observations are evaluated or aggregated into more

encompassing clusters or when their

interrelationships with other notions, such as

trends, are explored.

Könnölä et al.

(2012)

Wild Card

(Also found in

literature as Black

Swan)

A Wild card can be described as an event that has a

very low probability of occurring, but a very high

impact on the system under consideration.

Adjusted from

FAO (2014) and

EEA Foresight

Dictionary

(Weak) Signal Weak signals are early and inaccurate indicators of

an upcoming event or development that may have

Adjusted from

EEA Foresight

FAO, 2014;

Hiltunen, 2010;

June 2017



definition

Other sources

a significant impact on the system under

consideration. They are generally difficult to

identify and have unclear implications, but can be

helpful in dealing with uncertainties and wild cards.

Dictionary and

FAO (2014)

EFSA, 2015

References used for glossary

Armstrong JS, 2001. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Editor.

Kluwer Academic, London, 850 pp

Aven T & Vinnem JE (2007) Risk Management: With Applications from the Offshore Petroleum

Industry. London: Springer.

Committee on Foundations of risk analysis (2015) SRA glossary. Available from:

http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA-glossary-approved22june2015-x.pdf

CORDIS (2010) What is foresight: definition. Available from:

http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/definition.htm

Defra (2011) Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: Green Leaves III.

Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidelines-for-environmental-risk-

assessment-and-management-green-leaves-iii

Defra (2002) Horizon Scanning & Futures Home. Defra Definition of Horizon Scanning (2002).

Available from:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071022164356/horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/

EC (2016) Science for Environmental Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Identifying emerging risks for

environmental policies. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/emerging_environmental_ris

ks_early_warnings_FB12_en.pdf

EEA Foresight Dictionary. Available from: https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-

flis/portal_glossary/glossary?lang=en

EEA (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000, Environmental

issue report No 22/2001, EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available from:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22

EEA (2014) Report of the EEA Scientific Committee. Seminar on Environment, Human Health and

Well-Being: Advancing the Knowledge Base. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-

us/governance/scientific-committee/reports/report-of-the-eea-scientific/view

EEA (2016a) Report of the EEA Scientific Committee Seminar on emerging Systemic Risk. Available

from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/reports

EEA (2016b) Environmental Risk Assessment: Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources

EFSA (2007) Definition and description of “Emerging Risks” within the EFSA’s mandate (adopted by

the Scientific Committee on 10 July 2007). Available from:

http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA-glossary-approved22june2015-x.pdf

http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/definition.htm

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidelines-for-environmental-risk-assessment-and-management-green-leaves-iii

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidelines-for-environmental-risk-assessment-and-management-green-leaves-iii

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071022164356/horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/emerging_environmental_risks_early_warnings_FB12_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/emerging_environmental_risks_early_warnings_FB12_en.pdf

https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-flis/portal_glossary/glossary?lang=en

https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-flis/portal_glossary/glossary?lang=en

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/reports/report-of-the-eea-scientific/view

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/reports/report-of-the-eea-scientific/view

https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/reports

June 2017


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/escoemrisk

definition.pdf

EFSA (2012) Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification. Available from:

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-243

EFSA (2014) TECHNICAL REPORT: Update on EFSA’s activities on Emerging Risks 2012-2013. Available

from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-585

EFSA (2015) Identification of emerging risks: an appraisal of the procedure trialled by EFSA and the

way forward. Available from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-824

FAO (2014) Horizon Scanning and Foresight: An overview of approaches and possible applications in

Food Safety. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4061e.pdf

GEF IW:LEARN is the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) International Waters Learning Exchange and

Resource Network implemented by the UN Development Programme and the UN Environment

Programme (Division of Early Warning and Assessment). Available from:

http://old.iwlearn.net/manuals/tda-sap-methodology/development-of-the-tda/causal-chain-

analysis/what-is-causal-chain-analysis

Hiltunen, E. 2010. Weak Signals in Organisational Futures. Helsinki.

IRGC (2010) Risk Governance Deficits: Analysis, illustration and recommendations. Available from:

http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_rgd_web_final.pdf

ISO (2009) International Organization for Standardization, Draft ISO Guide 73: Risk Management –

Vocabulary, Geneva, ISO

Jakil, A. 2011. Sustainability Governance Foresight – Towards Bridging the Knowledge Gap between

Policy Analysis and Governance for Sustainable Development. Vienna

JRC FOR-LEARN. Key Terms used in Foresight. Available from:

http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/A1_key-terms/index.htm

Könnölä, T., Salo, A., Cagnin, C., Carabias, V., & Vilkkumaa, E. (2012). Facing the future: Scanning,

synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 222-231.

Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/articles-journals/facing-future-scanning-

synthesizing-and-sense-making-horizon-scanning

Kristensen, P. (2004). The DPSIR Framework. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.

European Topic Centre. European Environment Agency.

Locklear K (2011) Emerging risk: An integrated framework for managing extreme events. 2011 ERM

Symposium.

Maynard, A.D., Warheit, D.B. and Philbert, M.A. (2010) The new toxicology of sophisticated

materials: Nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicological Sciences 120 (Supplement 1): S109– S129

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea green publishing.

Nesbit, J.C. and Adesope, O.O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps. Review of

Educational Research, 76 (3)




http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4061e.pdf

http://old.iwlearn.net/manuals/tda-sap-methodology/development-of-the-tda/causal-chain-analysis/what-is-causal-chain-analysis

http://old.iwlearn.net/manuals/tda-sap-methodology/development-of-the-tda/causal-chain-analysis/what-is-causal-chain-analysis

http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_rgd_web_final.pdf

http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/A1_key-terms/index.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/articles-journals/facing-future-scanning-synthesizing-and-sense-making-horizon-scanning

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/articles-journals/facing-future-scanning-synthesizing-and-sense-making-horizon-scanning

June 2017


OECD (2003) Emerging Risks in the 21st Century: An Agenda for Action. Available from:

http://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/emergingrisksinthe21stcenturyanagendaforaction.ht

m

Popper, R. (2008a). Foresight methodology. The handbook of technology foresight, 44-88.

Popper, R. (2008b) How are foresight methods selected?, Foresight, Vol. 10 Issue: 6, pp.62-89,

https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810918586

SCENIHR (2009) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Emerging

Issues and the Role of the SCENIHR Position Paper. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_s_01.pdf

Slaughter, R. A. (1997). Developing and applying strategic foresight. ABN Report, 5(10), 13-27.

Sutherland, W. and Woodroof, H. (2009). The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends in

Ecology & Evolution, 24(10): 523-527.

The Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. Report of a Royal Society

Study Group. The Royal Society.

UNFCCC Secretariat. 2005. Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and

vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change. Bonn.

UNISDR (2007) United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction Terminology. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-e

http://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/emergingrisksinthe21stcenturyanagendaforaction.htm

http://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/emergingrisksinthe21stcenturyanagendaforaction.htm

https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810918586

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_s_01.pdf

http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-e

June 2017


Annex 2: Review of existing methods and approaches

A desk-based review of methods and approaches was undertaken by the project, together with

interviews with experts from European institutions. The objective of the review was to gain an

understanding of existing best practices (methods, methodologies and tools) in the field of emerging

risks that could contribute to establishing a European system. Particular attention was paid to

practices in use by EKC partners.

A loose hierarchy was used to guide the review: (i) Commission institutions, especially the EKC and

key partners; (ii) other EU bodies, EU research projects; (iii) Member States; (iv) research

institutions, private sector, international organisations. Through the review more than 60

institutions with some activity related to emerging risk detection or assessment were identified, and

examples of more than 50 methods and approaches were reviewed.

The review was completed in the early stages of the process to develop the methodological

framework, and in particular was a source of information in developing the initial draft proposals for

the methodology and as input to the discussions in the brainstorming event held in Brussels in

December 2016.

A summary of the review is presented in Table A.2 below. In many cases limited information is

publically available on the procedural functioning of existing methods and approaches, and where

no information was available this is noted in Table A.2. The review includes a qualitative assessment

of the relevance of each method or approach to the methodological framework for the systematic

identification of emerging risks to the environment. The relevance of each method or approach is

assessed based on the following scoring:

= High relevance: method/approach is a primary source of emerging issue / weak signal detection and can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework and is relevant to at least one environmental impact area (see sub-section 1.5.3); AND/OR method/approach can play a primary role in the implementation of the framework

= Medium relevance: method approach can support (e.g. as a secondary source) emerging issue / weak signal detection, can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework, and is relevant to one or more environmental impact areas; AND/OR method/approach can potentially play a supporting role in the implementation of the framework

= Low relevance: method/approach is either not suitable as a source of emerging issues /

weak signal detection, is not able to provide outputs in a timeframe suitable for the

framework and/or is not relevant to any environmental impact areas; AND/OR

method/approach is not suitable to play a role in the implementation of the framework

Some further key observations from the review, which were presented at the project brainstorming

event, include:

There is a lot of relevant activity related to emerging issues (in particular policy specific early

warning systems, and strategic use of foresight and horizon scanning) within European

institutions, but limited coordination, even within institutions.

Only a few examples were found of a systematic approach to emerging issue detection.

These systematic approaches exist in clearly defined policy or topic areas, such as: food

safety; consumer safety; health and safety at work; chemicals.

June 2017


Existing systematic approaches are generally based on a monitoring and alert mechanisms

drawing on established networks and reporting (e.g. related to product safety) and typically

focus on identifying specific incidences of: increased exposure to risk; and new sectoral

hazards rather than emerging issues in a broader sense.

Existing methods and approaches that explicitly address emerging issues and risks typically

combine central coordination, research and synthesis with expert and scientific involvement

through committees, panels and networks.

There is also notable use of foresight methods for strategic issue identification or agenda

setting purposes, such as scenarios and horizon scanning in DG Climate Action, DG Research

and Innovation, the activities of the JRC (often with DGs) and in some Member States.

Although no existing methods and approaches address all relevant issues, they could play a

role in a new systematic approach, such as: Horizon Scanning activity within JRC; the Science

for Environment Policy news alert coordinated by DG Environment; or the European Media

Monitoring and related text mining tools developed by JRC; and scientific committees in DG

Health and Food Safety which consider and provide ‘scientific opinions’ on emerging risks for

consumer safety, public health and the environment37.

Interviews identified other highly relevant approaches, such as: horizon scanning

coordinated by the Eionet FLIS and EEA to scan for signals from member state to EU level;

and the establishment of a horizon scanning system at JRC. Both of these are proposed as

primary information sources for the methodological framework.

The review did not identify any member state level ‘emerging risk’ identification systems or

frameworks, although examples of horizon scanning and foresight relevant to the environment were

seen.

37 DG SANTE do not appear to define ‘environment’ but use the following description for issues considered: ‘pollutants in the environmental media and other biological and physical factors or changing physical conditions which may have a negative impact on health and the environment, for example in relation to air quality, water, waste and soil, as well as on life cycle environmental assessment’.

June 2017


Table A.1: Overview and assessment of methods and approaches

Institution / initiative

Title of method / approach

Type Description Deliverables / outputs

Timeliness / frequency

Policy areas / topics considered

Relevance to the proposed methodological framework

38

Environmental Knowledge Community

DG Climate Action

Early warning and risk management (working with EEAS)

Various Networking, e.g. through diplomatic relations with the UN, EU and non-EU countries

No information available

Ad-hoc / ongoing Climate change; security

Member State risk profiles

Survey, expert network

A monitoring and reporting tool to construct a risk profile.

Climate change risk

profile for each

member state


Climate change

European Environment Agency

EEA Scientific Committee

Scientific committee

The scientific committee assists the EEA management board and the Executive Director in providing scientific advice and delivering professional opinion on any scientific matter in the areas of

Opinions/ meeting reports / reports in specific areas

The committee meets at least 2 time per year

All environmental policy areas (not explicitly addressing emerging risk)

38

Scoring based on potential role each method / approach could play in a methodological framework for the identification of emerging risks: = High relevance: method/approach is a primary source of emerging issue / weak signal detection and can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework and is relevant to at least one environmental impact area (see sub-section 1.5.3); AND/OR method/approach can play a primary role in the implementation of the framework = Medium relevance: method approach can support (e.g. as a secondary source) emerging issue / weak signal detection, can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework, and is relevant to one or more environmental impact areas; ; AND/OR method/approach can potentially play a supporting role in the implementation of the framework = Low relevance: method/approach is either not suitable as a source of emerging issues / weak signal detection, is not able to provide outputs in a timeframe suitable for the framework and/or is not relevant to any environmental impact areas; ; AND/OR method/approach is not suitable to play a role in the implementation of the framework

June 2017








38

work undertaken by the Agency

Eionet FLIS Horizon Scanning

Scanning Network of member state experts with knowledge / expertise in foresight.

To be confirmed. Intention is FLIS will identify and report on weak signals from member state intelligence

In development, assumed annual once operational

All environmental policy areas

Global Megatrends (GMTs) published as part of SOER

Literature review, expert networks

The EEA SOER GMTs are a flagship report on global megatrends of importance to Europe’s environment and environment policy. The GMT analysis also identifies ‘implications’ for EU environment.

Report SOER is published every 5 years (previous 2015; next 2020)


Late Lessons from Early Warnings

Literature review; expert opinion

Late lessons presents case studies of historic environmental policy decisions made in context of scientific uncertainty and/or where evidence of emerging risks was ignored or downplayed.

Report Two produced so far – 2001 and 2013

Various, including technology, chemicals etc.

June 2017








38

Scenario studies (e.g. PRELUDE)

Scenarios EEA has developed various scenarios to illustrate environmental challenges and explore possible futures. The example of PRELUDE was a web based interactive scenario tool allowing users to explore different long-term land-use scenarios for Europe.

Various: reports, interactive tools, web-content.

Ad-hoc. Various

DG Environment Science for Environment Policy (SfEP)

Scanning A service providing news alerts and policy briefs based on results from scanning and expert assessment. Since 2017 SfEP has a remit to consider emerging environmental issues.

News alerts; policy briefs / reports

Approx. weekly news alerts; policy briefs ad-hoc

All environmental policy areas; wider issues which could affect the environment

Expert Panel As above

Policy specific early warning and risk management

Various Systematic studies in a range of policy areas using monitoring and other methods to gather knowledge on new environmental risks.

Various: reports; mapping; monitoring and notification systems

Dependent on policy area

Examples include: Chemicals; Noise; Alien species; Air quality; Water / flooding

Tool for Innovation

Text / data mining

A tool enabling search queries into

Dataset; overview analytics; visual

Ad-hoc, can be interrogated as

DG ENV are piloting looking

June 2017








38

Monitoring (TIM) (developed by JRC)

global database of: scientific papers, patents and EU projects.

summaries (of data) required across all environmental policy topics

Eurostat No specific methods identified

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

Horizon scanning Scanning A pilot programme including horizon scanning for weak signals of change, summarising available information, and sense making sessions to select validated signals of change

Summaries of weak signals; validated weak signals

In development. Likely to be annual.

Pilot study focus on migration and energy. System understood to be adaptable to consider range of topics (including environmental topics)

European Media Monitor (EMM)

Text / data mining

An web-based live media / news search engine with a number of text analysis and information processing modules. Can be searched by region, language, sector (e.g. environment) and free-text searches

NewsBrief - latest news classified according to subject. NewsExplorer - news summaries, analysis.

NewsBrief - updated every 10 minutes, 24 hours per day; NewsExplorer - daily

User selects areas of interest (See also Tool for Innovation Monitoring (TIM); The Medical Information System (MediSys))

DG Research and Innovation

Scientific Advice Mechanism

Scientific Committee

A scientific committee established to provide scientific

Recommendations; advice on specific policy issues

Ad-hoc Meet on various issues, recently including: transport;

June 2017








38

advice to the Commission specifically for policy.

cybersecurity; chemicals

RISE Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts

Expert panel An advisory group to support DG R&I Commissioner and his team in policymaking and agenda-setting process.

Policy Briefs and Policy Papers; Studies; Workshop notes

Ad-hoc Innovation, Science

European Forum on Forward Looking Activities

Expert panel High level advisory group providing forward looking studies and activities on the future of research and innovation.

Policy briefs No longer active Research and innovation policy

Strategic Foresight

Scenarios Foresight activities carried out to specifically support the development of proposals for the Framework Programme and its biannual work programmes.

Reports Ad-hoc Strategic direction for research and innovation

Horizon scanning Scanning An activity to search for early signs of important changes in society, science and technology to provide intelligence for Commissions policy

Reports Ad-hoc Society, science, technology

June 2017








38

proposals.

Foresight based policy

Scenarios, expert panels

An activity to explore future policy issues and options through expert groups and specific studies, which develop foresight-based policy lessons and recommendations.

Reports Ad-hoc Research and innovation policy

Other EU institutions and initiatives

Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP) template

Survey, expert network, evidence collation

A monitoring and reporting tool – available in an Excel file used to construct a city’s risk profile

Completed Excel-based template submitted online

Every 2 years Issues related to: Energy, climate change

DG EPRS - Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel

Scientific Foresight Unit

Literature review; workshops

A scientific unit to consider and raise awareness-of possible impacts of techno-scientific trends and empowering MEPs to work towards facilitating desirable, and avoiding undesirable, future scenarios

Publications (reports, newsletters, opinion papers), blog posts

Ongoing, with annual reporting

Technology, innovation

DG JUST Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Consumer Products (RAPEX)

Monitoring An online data and information sharing platform that enables quick exchange of

Publications, e-mail updates (weekly alerts)

Weekly e-mail alerts

Consumer safety

June 2017








38

information between 31 European countries and the Commission about dangerous non-food products posing a risk to health and safety of consumers.

DG SANTE The Medical Information System (MediSys)

Text / data mining

An internet monitoring and analysis system that scans information from the European Media Monitor (EMM) software, to rapidly identify potential threats to public health.

Early warning alerts Updated every 10 minutes. Can be interrogated as required.

Health

Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER)


On request of Commission services, SCHEER working groups provides scientific Opinions on questions concerning health, environmental and emerging risks.

Opinion papers The Committee rules of procedure also refer to production of memoranda and position statements

On request. The SCHEER working groups meet regularly: approximately monthly on a variety of topics Ad-hoc: the Committee can also, at its own initiative, publish statements on specific topics.

Public Health, Consumer safety, Environment

June 2017








38

The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)

Monitoring A collaborative web-based portal designed to enable control authorities to report and share information about issues and risks detected in relation to food or feed.

Regular notifications; annual report

‘Round-the-clock’ service

Health

European Parliament

European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS)

Literature review, expert network, workshops / panels

An inter-institutional

EU project providing

a framework for

cooperation and

consultation at

administrative level

between EU bodies.

Maintains a

repository of

international

strategic studies

(ORBIS)

Reports on specific

studies; ESPAS

conference;

dialogue events;

ESPAS Young Talent

Network events

Ongoing /

continual update

of knowledge

base (ORBIS);

annual

conference

Future context /

challenges for EU

policy

EU-OSHA European Risk Observatory

Foresight project Literature review; scenarios, workshops

A project producing a set of scenarios to consider the potential impacts that developments ICT and changes in work location may have on workers’ safety and health.

Scenarios One-off output Green jobs; health and safety at work; ICT

June 2017








38

European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks

Interviews; surveys

A survey looking at how safety and health risks are managed in European workplaces.

Interactive dashboard; reports; data summaries (of surveys; establishment of a ‘wiki’: OSHWIKI for monitoring new and emerging risks

Ongoing / no specific frequency evident

Safety and health at work

Eurobarometer Thematic studies Interviews; surveys

The Eurobarometer is a regular survey of public opinion on a range of topics relevant to the Commission. First completed in 1974, the survey is undertaken twice per year the surveys investigate motivations, feelings and reactions of selected social groups towards a given subject or concept

Reports; interactive web-portal

Biannual surveys / reports

Various

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Standing Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Emerging Risks (SWG-ER)

Expert panel A working group seeking to support EFSA throughout the emerging risk identification procedure.

Recommendations / meeting reports

Meets regularly: approximately 3 – 4 times per year

Food and feed safety

Stakeholder Consultative

Expert panel A consultative group established to

Reports Annual reporting on meeting


June 2017








38

Group on Emerging Risks (StaCG-ER)

improve the exchange of data and information on methods, as well as to have a dialogue on issues pertaining to emerging risks.

discussions

Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit (SCER)


A Unit responsible for coordinating EFSA’s activities to establish a capacity for the identification of emerging risks.

Specific outputs not known: plays a coordinating role

Not known: Food and feed safety

Emerging Risk Exchange Network (EREN)

Expert network A network used for exchanging data, methodologies and lessons learnt on emerging risks between EFSA, Member States, EU and international agencies.

Meeting minutes Approximately 4 times per year


Member States

The Cabinet Office (UK)

(Blacket Review) Specific study: High impact low probability risks

Expert panel A process for UK government to engage with academia and industry to answer specific scientific and/or technical questions primarily in the security domain.

Report Ad-hoc Various: method can be used in different policy areas

June 2017








38

Blackett Reviews provide a multi-disciplinary thinking in a specific area. In each review, a panel of 10-12 experts is tasked with answering a well defined question/s of relevance to a challenging technical problem.

Defra (UK) Strategic evidence

Horizon scanning A programme established to improve cross-government horizon scanning work, develop networks to gather and share information and gain new insights and bring emerging issues to a senior-level audience.

Briefing papers; research papers

Not known Various: horizon scanning relevant to environmental policy

Finnish Government

Foresight Network

Workshops Established to bring together Finnish foresight data producers and is a discussion and coordination forum for national foresight actors.

Meetings, Foresight Forum

Monthly meetings; Annual forum

Various (challenges and opportunities facing Finnish society)

June 2017








38

International, academic and private sector

Citizen scientists initiative (Greece)

Community based monitoring

Monitoring A community based monitoring approach innitially established to identify alien marine species in Greece.



Biodiversity

Ecoveilance Web-mining Scanning A social-media-mining platform established to explore the use of social media in ecological monitoring.

Collation of twitter messages

Ad-hoc Biodiversity

International Biosecurity Intelligence System (IBIS)

Web mining tool Scanning A media monitoring tool built to detect Emerging Disease Risks impacting on food security and the environment.

Scans; Information summaries from the detected article (the title, text, author, language and locations).

Daily scans Biodiversity

International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)

The IOSCO Committee on Emerging Risks (CER)


A committee established to foster an active and open dialogue on risk among CER members.



Finance

IOSCO Consultation

Surveys Interviews

A survey enquiring IOSCO members and experts from the market, academic and regulatory community about emerging risks.

Outlook reports Annual survey Finance

IOSCO Risk Indicators An automated Indicators; Dashboard Finance

June 2017








38

Dashboard dashboard monitoring a sizable time series of data allowing for the identification of changes in patterns and trends.

Publications of an annual series of Outlooks

updated and shared before every IOSCO Board Meeting

Observatory for Technological Industrial Foresight (Spain)

Foresight DELPHI questionnaires; Scenarios; Roadmapping; SWOT

A foundation to create a knowledge base on the most relevant technology trends for future economic and social development.

Foresight study reports

Ad-hoc Technology

OECD - International Futures Programme

Foresight Scenarios; Expert panels; Horizon scanning

A programme providing strategic, long-term thinking and horizon scanning, working in two specific sectoral areas: the space sector and the future of the ocean economy

Foresight study reports

Ad-hoc Various

Swiss RE SONAR (systematic observation of notions associated with risk) Framework

Internal expert survey / opinions, expert panel

A framework designed to manage and communicate emerging risks allowing to identify, assess and report these risks in a timely manner using an

In-house intelligence reports; Published reports

Ad-hoc Various

June 2017








38

interactive intranet platform.

UNEP Global Environment Outlook (GEO)

Scenarios; analysis of drivers (DPSIR); Integrated environmental assessment

A report providing an integrated analysis (e.g. social, economic, environmental) of major trends that have shaped the environment using the integrated environmental assessment (IEA) methodology.

Report Five GEO reports produced since 1997. GEO5 was published in 2012. GEO6 is expected to be published in 2017


Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS)

Scanning A mechanism for identifying, selecting and communicating early warning information on emerging issues to decision makers on a regular basis across UNEP's focus areas.

Alerts No information available


University of Cambridge

Cambridge Conservation Initiative

Horizon scanning A horizon scan established to identify issues that could have substantial effects on global biological diversity in the future, but are not currently widely well-known or understood

Workshops; Publications

Annual scanning and annual publications

Biodiversity

June 2017








38

within the conservation community.

Verisk Maplecroft Global Alerts Dashboard

Monitoring; mapping

A commercial tool providing world-wide monitoring and alerts covering key operational and supply chain disruptions via a subnational mapping and data platform.

Alerts – can be tailored as a web-based dashboard to user needs

On demand: a commercial product / dashboard providing ‘real-time global analytics’

Terrorism incidents, corporate security, environmental risks, and legal and regulatory issues

Global Risks Forecast

Forecasting A service providing analysis and forecasting by the company’s senior analysts on key geopolitical developments, country risks, and emerging issues impacting the world of global business and finance.

Assessments; regular analysis; webinars; briefing reports; interactive online web-tool

On demand: a commercial product available through subscription

Politics, economics, society and environment

World Economic Forum

Global Risk Report

Expert network, survey

A report featuring perspectives from experts on the perceived impact and likelihood of global risks over a 10-year timeframe.

Report; interactive online web-tool

Annual report Various

methodological framework for the systematic identification

Documents