Environmental Policy Making in the EU:

1. The need for scientific advice and how it is used Environmental Policy Making in the EU: Dr. Karen FabbriChief Scientist, Research & Innovation UnitEnvironment Directorate GeneralEuropean Commission, Brussels EASAC Workshop, Berlin, 24-25th June 2010

2. Contents • Part 1 – EU Environment Policy • Part 2 – The Science and Policy Interface

3. Part 1 EU Environment Policy

4. Environment Policy Outlook • February 2010: New EC & reorganisation: Commissioner Potočnik’s priority: environment policy based on solid scientific evidence. • EU 2020 Strategy: developing a resource efficient low-carbon economy and stimulating green innovation, growth and jobs. • 2010 State of the Environment, Trends and Outlook report (EEA, November 2010). • Final Assessment of 2002–2012 6th EAP and definition of future EU environment policy framework: setting objective targets (7EAP?).

5. 6th EAP – Mid-term Review State of the environment EU environment policies have improved peoples’ quality of life (air, water, structural funding..) considerable progress has been made in many areas (water, climate change, waste..); But: magnitude of certain environmental challenges is increasing (consumption >> waste volume); EU is not yet on a path towards a sustainable development: “Getting people out of poverty without harming the environment”. Implementation of EU environment legislation by Member State authorities is uneven (infringements)

6. 2010 and beyond (1) Biodiversity and ecosystems • Setting post-2010 target on Biodiversity (UN Year of Biodiversity) • Biodiversity Action Plan / revitalised EU Biodiversity policy: Defining future EU Ecosystem and Biodiversity Protection • The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) • International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) • Forests • Invasive Species

7. 2010 and beyond (2) Resource efficiency and sustainable use • EU 2020 Strategy – promoting investment in green technology / eco-innovation; environmental infrastructure; green growth. • Sustainable resource use ~ GDP and beyond; Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan (Eco-design, Green Procurement) • Waste sector ~ resources’ life-cycles; specific waste streams.

8. 2010 and beyond (3) • Ongoing priorities • Air quality • water resources & water quality • Land use and soil • Chemicals, nanotechnology • Implementation, integration • Emphasis on Implementation and enforcement: ‘strict but helpful’. • Mainstreaming of environmental objectives into other Community policies. • Smart regulation. • EU setting the global trend on environment. (UN, OECD..)

9. Part 2 The Science and Policy Interface “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of facts”. Carl Sagan

10. Knowledge Needs • Over time, environment policies have evolved from being very targeted to being more holistic • implies more knowledge demands, in particular to characterise the added complexities and uncertainties of integrated issues having long term consequences. • Env policy development is entering a new phase with the reflections starting on the next 7thEAP and based on results of the 2010 SOER (Nov 2010). • this provides opportunities to the further development and streamlining of efficient science-policy interfaces ! • … Let’s see how science and knowledge feed into policy making and implementation…

11. Policy MakingCycle Problem identification Policy Review Science & Knowledge Stakeholder Involvement & Impact Assessment Policy Design Policy Monitoring Policy Implementation

12. Science for Environment Policy • Env Policy has been generally been driven by science • (ie: side effects of pesticides, thinning of ozone, health effects of mercury, Co2 for climate change) • Science is key to generating acceptance and legitimising policy intervention • Scientists feature among the voices more « trusted » by citizens • Env policy develops more easily when science backs it … and those adversely affected by policy are quick to challenge its scientific foundations ! • Environmental indicators and trends need to rest on solid scientific evidence • The entire policy cycle from ideas to policy implementation & review must rest on a firm technical and (constantly evolving) scientific base

13. Impact Assessments • Impact Assessments (IA) introduced by EC in 2002 to accompany all legislative proposals as a tool to improve the way it designs policy, in order to better meet the European Sustainable Development Strategy and the Better Regulation package aims. • identifies and assesses the problem at stake and the objectives pursued • identifies the main options for achieving the objective and analyses their likely economic, environmental and social impact. • outlines advantages and disadvantages of each option as well as synergies and trade-offs. • helps policy decision-makers to choose between different proposals • uses the most up-to-date scientific evidence and economic analysis.

14. Embedding science in policy 1 • At EU-level the Commission is committed to basing its policies on sound knowledge and scientific evidence as stated in its 2002 Communication on “Improving the knowledge base for better policies” • It provides guidelines on the collection and use of expertise by the Commission to: • Seek advise of an appropriately high quality • Be open in seeking and acting on advise from experts and • Ensure that its methods for collecting and using expert advise are effective

15. Embedding science in policy 2 • Policy developments should systematically identify gaps in knowledge • Prioritisation and better forward planning of policy needs and knowledge requirements is necessary • Establishing long-term partnerships with “knowledge providers” to increase understanding of env policy requirements, and facilitate interaction throughout the entire policy cycle • Invest in mechanisms to provide timely access to scientific knowledge in areas, in particular where controversy is looming • Thematic Strategy on air quality is a good example of the way scientific evidence is collected and used for environment policy initiatives …

16. “Air quality” example • Behind the Air Quality thematic strategy, there are four years of intensive work including over 100 meetings with experts, an internet-consultation that attracted an unprecedented 11,000 responses, and several studies based on best available science and economics. • The impact assessment for this strategy is very comprehensive. It comprises the updated knowledge of: • Health and environmental scientists and various organisations and Committees. • Economists • EU-funded research results • Peer reviewed models • Stakeholder consultation and • Several studies based on best available science and economics.

17. Challenges 1 Science is only one factor to be considered when making public policy. It is, however, a critical one because of its limiting or empowering effects on decisions! • RTD isn't driven by same types of incentives as policy-oriented RTD (for which a reward system is needed to attract scientists!) • Out of phase timing: RTD results emerge after 3-5+ years, policy-oriented research is required in 1-2 years. • There is a need to handle uncertainty: scientists need to present the uncertainty of their results in ways that policymakers (& general public) can understand. • quantitative & qualitative descriptors of uncertainty • when scientists are asked to make predictions that go beyond their data, they should explicitly articulate this fact • Research in support of public sector policies (ie: environment) competes for funds with basic/blue sky, applied and industrial research. How to secure this?

18. Challenges2 • How to handle scientific & technological progress whose env & health impacts are unknown or still disputed (ie: nanotech, GMO) … precautionary principle, ethics… • The judicial system is increasingly faced with litigation cases that present complex issues of science and technology, and increasingly require access to sound science • The need to build consensus among scientists in the movement toward integration …to do so scientists must first synthesize the most current scientific knowledge available on a particular issue (allowing for conflicting viewpoints) – ie:(IPCC) • The need for scientists to become involved at the local level (ie: Local Agenda 21!). • Need to integrate policy dimension in existing university/academic training

19. Challenges3 • Need to improve the dissemination and exploitation of research results and “translation” for facilitated take-up by policy makers (generally inadequate or absent). • Should scientists become better communicators, or policy makers better interpreters of science?! • Should we increase “scientific literacy” of policy making community? …how then? • Should we increase “policy literacy” of science community? …how then? • Third party facilitators/translators - who then? • Consultants via public procurement? Vademecum/best practices? • Via existing & future Science Policy Panels (ie: IPCC, IPBES, EASAC, etc.)? – networks of knowledge (ensuring openness & transparency) • Train a new generation of environmental professionals – revise/adapt university curricula? • etc.

20. Challenges4 • Need to make data, research results and knowledge more accessible and (re)usable (from a technical and institutional point of view). This is happening! • SEIS (and WISE, BISE …) • INSPIRE • GMES • GEO • Need a more open and structured dialogue between env policy and scientific communities! … actively working together towards meeting the grand challenges that lie before us.

21. A process is needed ! Use BEST data & Information…. …and use it WELL… Use POOR data & Information …. …and use it POORLY… Source: DEFRA, UK

22. News Alert http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/research_alert_en.htm

23. Thank you for your kind attention !