www.skep-era.net [email protected] tauc - underlying theory and method #3: ‘the legal...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
TAUC - underlying theory and method #3: ‘the legal discourse’: a European perspective
Dr Simon GardnerEnvironment Agency for England & Wales
2000/60/ECCOMMPS procedure - Frauenhofer Institute
Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs) - Predicting species assemblages
Inter-calibration (JRC)River Basin Characterisation (RBC) - pressures and impacts
2005/07/ECbacterial pollution incident prediction
91/271/ECWQ models:
phosphate/orthophosphatenitrate/DAIN/DAIPnutrient budgets
91/676/ECNO3 -based surface and
Groundwater health protection and
eutrophication models
Habitats Directivephosphate/orthophosphate
nitrate/DAIN/DAIPnutrient budgets
79/923/EECWQ models:
bacteriological concentrations
European Commission Infractions Interest
In the interests of driving what it regards as full implementation of European Union legislation, the Commission typically exerts pressure on a Member State via either direct legal pressure:
- pre-Article 226 warning letter of formal notice- Article 226 ‘Reasoned Opinion’letters
- pre-Article 228(1)1, 228(2)2 letters of formal notice- Article 228(1) 1, 228(2)2 ‘Reasoned Opinion’ letters
- referal of unresolved cases to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)- the levying of daily fines in Euros
1Commission ECJ action (Article 226) leading to Article 228(1) judgment2Second ECJ action: fine against non-compliance with 1st judgment (Article 228(2))
European Commission Infractions Interest
Or indirect pressure:
- prosecution of other Member States as an example- informal discussions
- use of negative publicity- encouraging Member States to infract each other under Art. 227
European Commission Infractions Interest
Common triggers for the initiation of infraction proceedings include:
1. Unacceptable time delays
- to the transposition of Commission legislation into domestic law
- to the identification of sites to be protected under the Directive in question
- to remediation measures designed to reduce pollution in identified sites (NVZ Action Programmes; treatment additional to
secondaRy at qualifying discharges)
- to reporting on the environmental effects of implementation
European Commission Infractions Interest
Common triggers for the initiation of infraction proceedings:
2. Incomplete or incorrect transposition
- via inappropriate legal means (ex. Circulars)
- via too restrictive a site identification policy(ex. flawed interpretation of an Article within a Directive)
- as a result of inadequate or insufficient remediation measures employed at identified sites (ex. an assessment of which
qualifying discharges are deemed to impact on a Sensitive Area)
Potential modeling link
European Commission Infractions Interest
Subsidiarity - a double edged swordThe subsidiarity principle pursues
two opposing aims:
On the one hand, it seeks to uphold the authority of the
Member States in those areas that cannot be dealt with more
effectively by Community action.
On the other, it allows the Community to act if a problem
cannot be adequately settled by the Member States acting on their
own.
Imprecise and vague wording are intrinsic to the drafting of EC legislation - however, the benefits of subsidiarity often fall in the
Commission’s favour
European Commission Infractions Interest
Non-conformity Environment Cases(by Member State, December 2002)
14
8 8 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 4 3 2330
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
A D F E FIN I UK B IRL NL S EL L P DK
European Commission Infractions Interest
There is an extensive history of infraction cases against EU Member States, and the UK is no
exception.
Recent domestic infraction cases have been drawn up on the basis of:
European Commission Infractions Interest
Art. 228 Reasoned Opinion 2106/96 (91/676/EEC)“non-identification of
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in the United Kingdom”
Reasoned Opinion 2265/98 (91/271/EEC)
“non-identification of Sensitive Areas deemed to
be eutrophic by the Commission (ongoing)”
Art. 226 Reasoned Opinion 4126/00 (78/659/EEC)
“insufficient identification of salmonid and cyprinid
stretches”
Pre-Art. 228 (C-427/00)(76/160/EEC)
“for continued non-compliance with the limit values set out in Article 3 of the Council Directive”
Art. 228 4756/96(79/923/EEC)
“failure to designate shellfish waters; to establish pollution control programmes; and to
sample parameters correctly”
European Commission Infractions Interest
A Directive may attract a sequence of legal challenges from the Commission, and the nature of the infraction often develops in parallel with the
stage of implementation of a Directive
Oct 02. 2nd designation of NVZs in England – total NVZ area now 55%
Dec 02. 2nd round of action programme
measures in force
Dec 03. Infraction chefs meet to decide on UK case. If they are not satisfied with the UK’s response the case will go back to the ECJ and if found guilty the UK will be fined.
1991 19961992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 2002200120001999 2003 2004
Dec 91. Directive adopted by Council having been formally proposed 3 years earlier in Dec 1988 by Commission.
Dec 93. Directive should have been transposed into national law, NVZs should have been designated and codes of good practice established
Dec 95. Action programmes within NVZs should have been established.
Oct 96. Infraction proceedings against the UK begin with an article 226 letter of formal notice from the Commission
June 98. Infraction progresses to second stage of article 226 - reasoned opinion.
Dec 00. After a hearing in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) it rules against the UK and orders them to comply.
Oct 01. Infraction proceedings progressed to the next stage when the Commission sent a letter of formal notice under article 228.
April 03. The Commission issues a reasoned opinion under article 228 which the UK responds to in May 03 detailing method and scope of new designations.
April 96. 1st
designation of NVZs in England – total NVZ area 8%
28 months late
36 months late
Dec. 98. Action programme measures in place in NVZs.Commission
deadlines. Department actions in italics.Dates relating to Commission infraction proceedings
Time between deadline and date achieved
Dec. 01. Consultation on 2nd round of NVZ consultation in response to infraction proceedings
62 months after infraction proceedings began
July 91. Codes of agricultural good practice established – prior to adoption of Directive
29 months before Commission deadline
Case study: Timeline showing the implementation of the Nitrates Directive against Commission deadlines and the progress of the infraction case against the UK
European Commission Infractions Interest
In the decade between 1992-2002, the Commission registered 280 dossiers relating to presumed or ascertained violations of EC
environmental legislation in the UK.
These dossiers were open on the basis of:
complaintspetitions
parliamentary questions, andCommission own-initiative investigations
European Commission Infractions Interest
Infractions under Article 226 of the Treaty have been initiated in 84 of these 280 cases:
On the 2nd of October 2003, 106 dossiers concerning presumed or confirmed breaches of EC environmental legislation in the UK
remained open
Air pollution - 12Waste - 15Nature - 13
Chemicals - 9Water - 17
Environmental Impact Assessment - 10GMOs - 3
Other Sectors of environmental legislation - 5
European Commission Infractions Interest
The UK can reasonably expect to experience continued infractions pressure in the future,
because of three basic facts...
#1 History tells us that the UK has never implemented any significant piece of European Union environmental water quality legislation and
escaped infraction pressure from the Commission
#2 The more complex the legislation, the greater the chance of incorrectly implementing it (compare 76/160/EEC to 2000/60/EC)
#3 The goalposts often move. What the Commission regards as “adequate” implementation has a tendency to become more exacting
over time.
European Commission Infractions Interest
“Ever tried? Ever Failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Samuel Beckett
Some future challenges for theuse of models in the EU
- re-establishment of credibility (Arthur Petersen)
- detailed argument received as disemblement or filler (only 5-10% of a document is commonly read - Jeroen van der Sluijs)
- the precautionary principle: underlining quantitative certainty?(what is significant: 1%, 10%, 30%...)
- clear usage, ie. for discrete and qualified deliberative problem solving - [despite political pressure for perfect knowledge]
- to educate Government Ministry & Commission policy and legal staff - a form of ‘uncertainty communication’. Use of science/model translators;
- to encourage the EC to develop guidance on the consideration of models (a difficult task given questions relating to subsidiarity and institutional goals);
- involvement of policy-makers in model development
An Environment Agency led co-ordination initiative to bring together the key funders of national environmental research programmes to generate this knowledge in partnership and improve links with environmental protection and policies
WHAT is the‘SKEP ERA-NET’?
SKEP participants
17 partners from 13 European countries funding environmental research to support environmental
protection regulation and policy
The aims of SKEP
Foster Joint Calls
Identify overlaps in research activities Identify gaps in
research portfolios
Current fragmentation - separate national programmes, no consultation, duplication, missed opportunities for collaboration, sharing and developing innovation
Full integration – joined up national programmes, collaborating on issues of common concern using experience
Identification of common strategic issues – current and future research themes and ‘horizontal themes’, e.g. dissemination
Development of joint activities – development of guidelines for good practice in programme management, research evaluation, dissemination and implementation
Implementation of joint research activities - for 2 thematic and/or ‘horizontal’ areas
Systematic exchange of information – research plans and priorities, policy-makers’ needs, good management and dissemination practices
SKEP Work Packages
WP 2: Exchange of research programme information (EA)
WP 3: Best practice in researchmanagement (FiMoE, SYKE)*
WP 4: Dissemination and implementation of research (SwEPA)*
WP 6: Investigate emerging issues forfuture research planning (MEDD, ADEME)
WP
5: Plan and develop collaborative
work areas (IE
PA
)
WP
1: ER
A-N
ET
managem
ent and co-ordination (E
A)
Implementation timetableJune 2005
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4WP1 Co-ordinationWP2 Develop data toolWP2 Collect dataWP2 Portfolio analysisWP3 Survey of research best practiceWP3 Workshop programmeWP3 Reports and guidelines for researchWP4 Survey current implementation practiceWP4 Define implementation best practiceWP5 Select area for joint activitiesWP5 Develop action planWP5 Deliver joint activityWP5 Review joint activityWP6 Review horizon-scanning activitiesWP6 Recommenations for future research
June 2009
Work Packages
Experts as required(all participant organisations)
Work Package LeadersGroup
(EA, FiMoE, SYKE, SwEPA, IEPA, MEDD, ADEME)
Advisory Board(Invited external experts)
DG-ENV, DG-RTD, EEA, USEPA, NEPA
Observer Institutions
(Interested non-participants)
Co-ordination Office
3-4 core staff (EA)
Network SteeringCommittee
Science/Research Directors(one /participant organisation)
6 monthly meetings
annual meetings
Environment AgencyProject Board
SKEP administrative structures
SKEP Advisory Board
Ingvar Andersson, EEA Pierre Valette, DG-RTD
Irja Vounakis, DG-ENV
Savka Kucar Dragičević ,
NEPA; Croatian EPA
Pasky Pascual, USEPA
SKEP (CA, 2005)‘Scientific knowledge for environmental protection
– network of funding agencies’Field: Environmental science;
environmental technology; policy developmentwww.skep-era.net
BiodiversitySustainable Development/
Horizon Scanning
Energy Water Resources/Flood Defence
Coastal and Marine research
Contaminated Land
Climate Change Agriculture and Food Safety
Transport
BIODIVERSA (CA, 2005)‘Biodiversity research ERA-NET’
Field: Biodiversitywww.biodiversa.net
FORSOCIETY (CA, 2004)‘Laying the foundations for an ERA-NET on
foresight and society’Field: Forsight, Science and Society
http://www.eranet-forsociety.net/
WOODWISDOM (CA, 2003)‘Networking and integration of national
programmes in the area of wood material science and engineering’
Field: Wood material sciencewww.woodwisdom.net
SUSPRISE (CA, 2003)‘Networking, co-ordination, co-operation and
integration of national RTD programmes in the field of the sustainable enterprise’
Field: Sustainable industrial developmentwww.susprise.net
MNT (CA, 2003; 2005)‘From micro- and nano-scale science to new
technologies for Europe’Field: Nanotechnology, micro-systems, micro-
technologywww.mnt-era.net
ERA-BUILD (CA, 2004)‘Strategic co-operation between national
programmes promoting sustainable construction and operation of buildings’
Field: Building construction and operationwww.erabuild.net
WORK-IN (CA, 2004)‘Labour and innovation: Work-oriented innovations
– a key to better employment, cohesion and competitiveness in a knowledge-intensive society’
Field: Innovation in work organisationwww.workinnet.org
EraSME (CA, 2004)‘ERA-NET on national and regional programmes to promote innovation, networking and co-operation
between SMEs and research organisations’Field: Innovation by SMEs
www.era-sme.net
MATERA (CA, 2005)‘ERA-NET materials’
Field: Materials Sciencewww.matera.fi
Nanosci-ERA (CA, 2005)‘Nanoscience in the ERA’
Field: Nanosciencehttp://www.iemn.univ-lille1.fr/cnanono/nanosci-era.htm
VISION (CA, 2005)‘Shared knowledge base for sustainable innovation
policies’Field: Innovation policywww.visioneranet.org
FENCO (CA, 2005)‘Promotion of an integrated European and national
R&D initiative for fossil energy technologies towards zero-emission power plant’
Field: Energyhttp://www.fenco-era.net/
ERA-NET BIOENERGY (CA, 2004)‘ERA-NET Bioenergy’
Field: Renewable energy sourceswww.eranetbioenergy.net
PV ERA-NET (CA, 2004)‘Networking and integration of national and regional programmes in the field of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy research and technological development in
the ERA’Field: Renewable energy sources
www.pv-era.net
HY-CO (CA, 2004)‘CA to establish a hydrogen and fuel cell ERA-NET,
Hydrogen-Co-ordination’Field: Alternative energy
www.hy-co-era.net
ACENET ERA-NET (CA, 2004)‘ERA-NET for applied catalysis in Europe’
Field: Applied catalysis and sustainable chemistrywww.acenet.net
INNER (CA, 2005)‘Innovative energy research’
Field: Energywww.inner-era.net
IWRM (CA, 2006)‘Towards a European-wide exchange network for
improving dissemination of IWRM research outcomes’
Field: Integrated water reources managementhttp://www.oieau.fr/eranet/
CRUE (CA, 2004)‘Co-ordination of the research financed in the
European Union on flood management’Field: Flood management
www.crue-eranet.net
EUWI ERA-NET (SSA, 2005)‘Co-ordination of Member State research
programmes in water science and technology for the developing world’
Field: Co-ordination of national and regional activities
www.euwi-era.netwww.euwi.net
BONUS (CA, 2003)‘BONUS for the Baltic Sea science network of
funding agencies’Field: Marine Sciencewww.bonusportal.org
MARINERA (CA, 2004)‘Co-ordination of national and regional marine RTD
programmes in Europe’Field: Marine science and technology
www.marinera.net
AMPERA (CA, 2005)‘European concerted action to foster prevention
and best response to accidental marine pollution’Field: Marine Pollution
www.ampera.net
COASTAL-ERA (SSA, 2005)‘Co-ordination of the research financed in the
European Union on flood management’Field: Marine water quality/food standards
www.coastal-era.net
SNOWMAN (CA, 2003)‘Sustainable management of soil and groundwater
under the pressure of soil pollution and soil contamination’
Field: Soil and groundwater protectionwww.snowman-era.net
CIRCLE (CA, 2005)‘Climate impact research co-ordination within a
larger Europe’Field: The impact of and adaptation to climate
changewww.umweltbundesamt.at/umwelt/klima/projekta/
circle/
EUROPOLAR (CA, 2005)‘The European Polar Consortium’
Field: Polar researchwww.europolar.org
PERIAPT (SSA, 2003)‘Pan-European pro-active identification of emerging
risks in the field of food production’Field: Food productionhttp://www.periapt.net/
CORE Organic (CA, 2004)‘Co-ordination of European trans-national research
in organic food and farming’Field: Organic food and farming
www.coreorganic.org
SAFEFOODERA (CA, 2004)‘Food safety – forming a European platform for
protecting consumers against health risks’Field: Food safety
www.safefoodera.net
ERA-ARD (CA, 2005)‘The agricultural research for development
dimension of the ERA’Field: Agriculturewww.era-ard.org
ERA-NET ROAD (CA, 2005)‘Co-ordination and implementation of road research
in Europe’Field: Road Research
www.road-era.net
ERA-NET TRANSPORT (CA, 2005)‘ERA-NET Transport’
Field: Transportwww.transport-era.net
ERAPG (CA, 2003)‘European research area plant genomics’
Field: Genomicswww.erapg.org
ERA-SAGE (CA, 2005)‘ERA on societal aspects of genomics’
Field: Ethical, legal and social aspects of genomics
www.erasage.org
Genomics
Key
Denotes a Co-ordinated Action
Denotes a Specific Support Action
Env
ironm
enta
l Res
earc
hE
nviro
nmen
tal P
olic
y D
evel
opm
ent
Other Environmentally-related ERA-NETs that fall under these research headings
Research Areas and Policy links for ERA-NET Projects(Series I-III) with Relevance to the Environmental Sphere
http://cordis.europa.eu/coordination/projects.htm
As a screening tool for Science Departments to:
- prevent unnecessary expenditure on parallel projects
- promote collaborative working on projects of joint concern to extend their science budgets
- disseminate their science more effectively
WP2 outputs: A consolidated database of research activities (June 2006), and a strategic assessment of environmental research activities across Europe (June 2007 ) will be used:
Work Package 2 - ‘Exchange of research programme information’WP2 is dedicated towards developing an understanding of the overall portfolio of research being funded by the SKEP participants, the identification of research themes, gaps and the consequent identification of opportunities for joint research activities.
‘Exchange of researchprogramme information’
Milestones and expected resultsM.2.1 (6 months)Workshop to review existing systems and finalise specifications for information tool and analysis
M.2.2 (12 months)Information tool available on a live web site (D2.1)
M2.3 (24 months)Portfolio analysis completed - including the identification of areas for information-sharing and collaboration to feed into other Work Packages (D2.2)
Work Package 2:
Theme maps of research expertise
Topic maps to link environmental research
Identifying gaps and overlaps on activities via Heat maps
Knowledge management toolsto support SKEP WP2: Phase 2
Timeline for the exchange of research data
Part II: Undertaking a strategic assessment of exchanged data
Early 2007- Preparation of a strategic analysis of quality-assured data. The analysis will look
at:
End June 2007- Overview report of
participants’ research to identify duplication, gaps and
priority topics including suggestions for information-sharing and collaboration in
areas where participants have, are or are planning to carry
out similar research.
End June 2006- Launch of Knowledge
Management tool on project website
- What are the thematic issues of the research programmes where are the gaps?
- What are the drivers and pressures of the
programmes and how they have to be managed in order to facilitate co-
operation?
- What is the timing and life cycle of research
programming for each organisation?
- How will National Research Directors make use of this knowledge to
improve funding efficiency and thematic focus of
programmes?
- What tools are necessary to maintain co-
operation?
Network Steering Committee decide which research areas for future
collaboration will be developed in WP5.
Early June 2007- 3 day workshop to condider the draft
portfolio analysis of exchanged research
information
Potential avenues (external) for future development of theSKEP database of environmental research funding
SciMIS
SKEPdatabase
Work Package 3‘Best practice in research programme management’
Progress to date:
Stage 1: A study on programme management across European countries will be undertaken. A questionnaire for participants will be developed which will investigate their programme project cycles and specific issues of good practice and concerns that they would like to investigate. ‘In-situ’ and telephone interviews will be made of 15-20 key programme management staff in participant countries.
A 2-day workshop in Finland will explore good practices on programme management identified fromthe questionnaire. Key topics will be to identify common good practices on:
• planning procedures and general programme management• mechanisms for research programme development
(e.g. how to identify policy needs and ensure policy implementation of results)• leading successfully projects• peer review facilities
Work Package 3‘Best practice in research programme management’
Stage 2: This task will explore research evaluation schemes including:• proposal evaluation• project evaluation• overall programme evaluation
The questionnaire developed in Stage1 will have already collected some of the initial information for this task.
Based on the results of the questionnaire, phone interviews will be made to key programme management staff in participant countries.
Further issues to be investigated are how, when, and should who carry out evaluation schemes. Also whether the objectives of the project/programmes were achieved? The exact design of a workshop will be defined after the interview phase. This task will be completed by a 2-day workshop.
Stakeholders evaluating project proposals in programmes with criteria for scientific quality and/or policy effectiveness
Methods used to assess project proposals
- In-house experts in the funding organisation assessing project proposals and/or deciding on the funded projects;
- External national and/or international experts assessing project proposals and/or deciding on the funded projects;
- A programme steering group deciding on the funded projects;
- Thematic evaluation teams (3-10 people) that quantitatively and/or qualitatively assess how each of the proposals meet the set criteria;
- A combination of a management committee and thematic sub-committees of external experts;
Recommendations for best practice for evaluating project proposals
1. An open two-step process for inviting project proposals can be used in larger research funding programmes. The intent of applications in the first round is to highlight what is being done in the research field, and enable inviting the more promising projects to submit a full research plan.
2. Clearly defined criteria, that are linked to the objectives of the Programme, and that are followed strictly and transparently in evaluating the project proposals reduce problems during the Programme.
3. Scientific quality is the most important criterion. It should, however, be balanced with other important criteria: policyrelevance, collaboration, innovativeness.
Expertise in reviewing project funding proposals
4. In addition other useful criteria can be used, such as those related to societal benefits or to dissemination of results.
5. A panel or a group of people should be used in evaluating project proposals to take into account the "big picture" and make the evaluation more democratic.
i. Recommendations for best practice in programme management structure
4. Using a programme board whose members are motivated and somehow reflect the aims of the programme is also recommended. A programme board can consist of a variety of members including funding agencies, scientific experts, and the end-users of results, e.g. from public administration, businesses and NGOs.
5. A separate steering committee can be used for following up and advising the programme or individual projects. In this case ensuring the commitment of the members of the committee is important.
Compilation of the programme board in programmes with selected project
funding criteria
Work Package 4‘Best practice in research programme management’
Progress to date:
This work package is about comparing procedures and tools for assuring the best communication anduse of research results.Stage 1: Current dissemination and implementation activitiesA questionnaire will be used to gather information from policy makers and programme managers. A consultant will carry out a mapping exercise of how the process of implementation of research results is undertaken in all the participant organisations. The above questionnaire and the consultant investigation will be presented at a 3-day workshop with 15-20 policy makers and programme managers recruited from the different funding organisations and the research community.
Stage 2: International ConferenceAn effort will be made to present the results of WP4 at an international conference like the "Bridging the Gap" conferences or other meetings such as Science Meets Policy initiatives.
The case studies and survey will constitute the heart of the study. They will explore the following five areas:
1. The planning and management of research projects and programmes: in particular, the ways in which potential end-users of the research are involved in planning, project selection, project and programme management, and potentially the co-production of knowledge.
2. The communication of results: the routes and mechanisms for bringing the research results to the attention of users.
3. The roles of interpreters and intermediaries in making results available to users in a form which is useful.
4. Engagement with stakeholders: how to ensure that information is made available to stakeholders in a form which meets their information needs, enables them to play an effective role in the decision-making process, and that processes are transparent and build trust.
5. The evaluation of processes of dissemination and utilisation.
- to guide the management of future Science programmes;
- to increase the impact of our Science by learning from European best practice;
- to influence the development of guidance for evidence-based policy;
- to influence the wider debate on Science governance within other initiatives in the domestic and international (‘Science meets Policy’) arena;
WP3: A report on best practice in the management of environmental research programmes (June 2006 ) and guidelines on common evaluation procedures (June 2007 ) will be used to:
European recommendations for best practice
WP4: A report on current activities in the dissemination and implementation of science for environmental policy makers of environmental research programmes (June 2007 ) and guidelines on best practice (June 2008 ) will be used to:
www.SciencemeetsPolicy.eu
Work Package 5‘Plan and develop collaborative work areas’
Progress to date:
This work package will deliver two co-ordinated actions to explore the feasibility of conducting joint calls and to provide a framework for future collaborative activities by environmental research funders. A small-scale pilot joint call for proposals will be launched in month 24 using information collected in other SKEP work packages. A review of this pilot call will be conducted to examine the barriers and solutions for collaboration and to inform the development of a full-scale joint call for proposals involving the members of the SKEP network. Thematic areas of strategic and trans-national relevance will be identified and developed for this joint call through further outputs of WP2, WP3 and focus on WP4 and WP6 to include:
• WP6: Emerging themes (e.g. Environmental applications of nanotechnology) or orphan themes – area of high importance for policy makers, but where there may only be limited national research capability (e.g. research at the interface between social, environment and the economy, environmental & social justice);• WP 4: Horizontal activities (e.g. Strategy for effective communication of research, promotion of evidence-based approach to policy making)
- to pool scientific expertise across the EU in order to produce effective, well-disseminated research to European policy-makers;
- to extend the effectiveness of Science budgets
- to foster partnerships activities and share expertise;
WP5: The creation of a lasting framework for engaging in collaborative research (Test joint call: December 2007 ; Main joint call: June 2008 ) will be used to:
Work Package 6‘Investigate emerging issues for future research planning
Progress to date:
This work package has the objectives of investigating current methods for future planning or ‘horizon scanning’ for research areas and proactively investigating one emerging issue for horizon scanning, identify the policy and operational questions we need to address to tackle the information needs of policy makers and other stakeholders.
Progress to date:
SKEP ERA-net : Scientific Knowledge for Environmental ProtectionWork Package 6 – Investigate emerging issues for future research
planningParis, June 12th and 13th
How to identify emerging long term strategic issuesfor environmental research and policies ?
I. An examination of existing practice by horizon-scanners across the EU, and
II. A debate on the topic area to be selected for in-depth study (aided by two completed questionnaires)
Science-Policy assessment
Emerging issues‘GRIN’ technologies
Impacts on regulators
Topic area
SKEP co-ordination team: [email protected] website: www.skep-era.net
Please take time to visit the project website and request a either a Member’s log-in from the co-ordination team, or to be added to our
monthly Newsletter