National reports with a review and synthesis of the ......National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated information 5 1.2 This report This country report is an excerpt

D2.5

National reports with a review and

synthesis of the collated

information

Slovakia

HORIZON2020 CSA INSPIRATION

Deliverable D2.5 – National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated information

www.inspiration-h2020.eu

2

Document information

Project acronym: INSPIRATION

Project full title: INtegrated Spatial Planning, land use and soil management Research

ActTION

Project type: Coordination and Support Action (CSA)

EC Grant agreement no.: 642372

Project starting / end date: 1st March 2015 (month 1) / 28

th February 2018 (month 36)

Website: www.inspiration-h2020.eu

Document status / date: Final version as of 01/03/2016

Deliverable No.: D2.5

Responsible participant: DELTARES (participant number 14)

Due date of deliverable: 01/03/2016

Actual submission date: 01/03/2016

Dissemination level: X PU - Public

PP - Restricted to other programme participants*

RE - Restricted to a group specified by the consortium*

CO - Confidential, only for members of the consortium*

(* = including the Commission Services)

Authors: Maros Finka, Maria Kozova, Zita Izakovicova, Lubomir Jamecny, Vladimir

Ondrejicka, Jos Brils, Linda Maring, Stephan Bartke

Contact: INSPIRATION Coordinators Detlef Grimski (UBA): [email protected]

or Stephan Bartke (UBA): [email protected]

To be cited as:

Finka et al. (2016): National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated information – Slovakia.

Final version as of 01.03.2016 of deliverable 2.5 – section on Slovakia – of the HORIZON 2020 project

INSPIRATION. EC Grant agreement no: 642372, UBA: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.

Disclaimer:

This document’s contents are not intended to replace consultation of any applicable legal sources or

the necessary advice of a legal expert, where appropriate. All information in this document is provided

"as is" and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The

user, therefore, uses the information at its sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the

European Commission has no liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the

authors' view.




3

D2.5: National reports with a review and synthesis of the collated

information – Slovakia

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 About INSPIRATION ................................................................................................ 4

1.2 This report ................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 The INSPIRATION conceptual model and its themes ............................................... 8

1.4 Guide to the reader: outline of the country chapters ................................................. 9

1.5 Annexes ................................................................................................................. 11

2. Slovakia ....................................................................................................................... 20

2.1 Executive summary ............................................................................................... 20

2.1.1 English version ................................................................................................20

2.1.2 Slovak version .................................................................................................24

2.2 Methodology followed ............................................................................................ 28

2.3 Research and Innovation (R&I) needs ................................................................... 36

2.3.1 Societal challenges and needs ........................................................................36

2.3.2 Topics / research needs to include in the SRA ................................................38

2.4 Experiences regarding connecting science to policy/practice ................................ 49

2.4.1 Use of knowledge ............................................................................................49

2.4.2 Possibilities to set the agenda .........................................................................50

2.4.3 Science – policy – practice ..............................................................................52

2.5 National and transnational funding schemes ......................................................... 54

2.5.1 Funding schemes and possibilities for research funding ..................................54

2.5.2 Gaps in financial resources for research .........................................................55

2.6 Other remarks made by interviewees and national workshops .............................. 56

2.7 Annexes ................................................................................................................ 60




4

1. Introduction

1.1 About INSPIRATION

The aim of INSPIRATION is to establish and promote the adoption of a strategic research

agenda for land use, land-use changes and soil management in the light of current and

future societal challenges. Main objectives are:

Formulate, consult on and revise an end-user oriented strategic research

agenda (SRA);

Scope out models for implementing the SRA;

Prepare a network of public and private funding institutions willing to

commonly fund the SRA.

The proposed methodology is based on a multi-stakeholder, multi-national and

interdisciplinary approach that covers the variety of stakeholders (public bodies, business,

scientific community citizens and society) and the variety of relevant funders. The vehicle to

engage with relevant stakeholders across the Member States is a National Focal Point (NFP)

in 17 countries1. Between March 2015 and March 2016 The NFP’s interviewed National Key

Stakeholders (NKS), performed a desk study and organized workshops with national

stakeholders of funders, end-users and researchers across the various soil and land

management disciplines. The goal of these exercises was to gather information and support

the main objectives as stated above.

The collated results will be structured along four integrative themes: 1) resources demand

and efficiency; 2) natural capital stewardship; 3) land management; 4) net impact on global,

EU and local scale (see section 1.3) and merging into thematic knowledge needs to satisfy

the as yet unmet societal challenges and to ensure that knowledge contributes primarily to

enable meeting these challenges. Based on these results, a cross-border and cross-

discipline dialogue will subsequently be organized among the relevant user communities,

funding bodies and scientific communities in Europe in order to reach a trans-national,

prioritized SRA as well as a model for execution of this SRA. Thus a SRA will be produced

which will give national funders confidence that for each Euro they spend, they will get

multiple Euros worth of knowledge in return in order to address their national societal

challenges.

Learn more about the INSPIRATION coordination and support action on the project’s

website: www.inspiration-h2020.eu and follow us on twitter: @inspiration4eu.

1 The Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) with support of Formas is currently mirroring the

INSPIRATION approach in Sweden. SGI has proposed to act as Swedish National Focal Point and

to become a full member of the INSPIRATION consortium. This has been welcomed by the

consortium. Currently formal negotiations are in place between SGI, the consortium and the EC to

effectively implement this collaboration. This report furthermore contains some information for

Denmark and Luxemburg – representatives of both countries joined the Belgium workshop – and

for the Republic of Ireland – representatives joined the UK workshop – see below.)




5

1.2 This report

This country report is an excerpt from the INSPIRATION Deliverable 2.5 “National reports

with a review and synthesis of the collated information”, which integrates 17 national reports.

These 17 countries, in alphabetical order, and respective report authors are:

1. Austria,

Pia Minixhofer, Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern, Rosemarie Stangl, Andreas

Baumgarten, Martin Weigl, Peter Tramberend,

2. Belgium (including some information for Denmark and Luxemburg),

Nele Bal, Bavo Peeters,

3. Czech Republic,

Petr Klusáček, Stanislav Martinát, Bohumil Frantál,

4. Finland,

Antti Rehunen, Teija Haavisto, Ritva Britschgi, Outi Pyy, Jari Rintala, Petri Shemeikka,

5. France,

Marie-Christine Dictor, Samuel Coussy, Valérie Guerin, Corinne Merly,

6. Germany,

Uwe Ferber, Stephan Bartke, Detlef Grimski,

7. Italy,

Matteo Tabasso, Sarah Chiodi, Giulia Melis,

8. Poland,

Anna Starzewska-Sikorska,

9. Portugal,

Thomas Panagopoulos, Vera Ferreira, Dulce Antunes

10. Romania,

Mihail Dumitru, Sorin Liviu Stefanescu, Andrei Vrinceanu, Valentina Voicu, Nicoleta

Vrinceanu,

11. Slovakia,

Maros Finka, Maria Kozova, Zita Izakovicova, Lubomir Jamecny, Vladimir Ondrejicka,

12. Slovenia,

Boštjan Cotič, Barbara Mušič, Ina Šuklje Erjavec, Matej Nikšič,

13. Spain,

Pierre Menger, Gemma Garcia-Blanco, Efren Feliu,

14. Sweden,

Yvonne Ohlsson, Lisa van Well, Kerstin Konitzer,

15. Switzerland,

Regula Brassel, Marco Pütz,

16. The Netherlands,

Linda Maring, Jos Brils

17. The United Kingdom (including some information on the Republic of Ireland),

Paul Nathanail, Matt Ashmore.




6

Deliverable D2.5 concludes the activities of INSPIRATION Work Package (WP) 2

“Demands of research from industry, end-users and funders (State-of-the-art at

national levels)”, task 2.5 “Review and synthesis of the collated information”.

The WP2 activities were executed in the 1st year of the INSPIRATION project (month 1 –

12), i.e. in the period from March 2015 to February 2016. In the WP2 project description, the

final task executed in this period is described in the following way:

“The NFPs will organize at national level a 2-day workshop, where the collated

information (task 2.4) will be reviewed and synthesized and prioritized under

guidance of the NFP by the NKSs. The WP-leader will prepare – in consultation

with the INSPIRATION core group – a generic outline for the agenda of the 2-day

national workshops. That outline will then be tailored to specific national

situations by the NFPs. The results of the workshop – i.e. reviewed and

synthesised information regarding topic a-d as mentioned under the WP2

objectives2 – will be described in a national report (in English) by the NFPs.

Before finalizing these reports, the NKSs as well as the International Advisory

Board (IAB) will be given the opportunity to review the draft report. In these cases

where English is not the native language, the national reports will also contain an

executive summary (policy brief) of the report in the native language.”

(INSPIRATION Grant Agreement - Description of Action - DoA).

Deliverable D2.5 describes the results of NKS interviews and of the desk-exercise as

performed in participating countries aimed at collecting national research demands, science-

policy-interface experiences and funding options. This report builds up on the interim results

presented in Deliverable 2.4.3 The methodologies followed for the information collation and

synthesis are presented in more detail for each country below. In general, the following

approach was applied (see also Figure 1):

1. In each country, national key stakeholders (NKS) have been identified (in a way to

ensure broad representation of soil and land-use/management topics and affiliations in

research funding / end-use / science or policy making);

2. Interviews (structured according to a common template: see Annex I and II) with circa

20 NKS per country have been conducted in order to collect national research needs

as well as information on science-policy-interface and financing options (with interim

result presented as D2.4);

3. In each country, a national workshop with NKS was conducted. Basis for the

workshops was the input provided in the NKS interviews before the workshop. It was

presented in order to synthesize the collated info, discuss and review the key national

research topics. The workshop thus aimed to check, verify and enrich, and in some

cases also already prioritize the suggestions provided by the NKS;4

2 See section 1.5 for a description of topic a-d.

3 Brils, J. et al. (2015): National report on collated information following the template. Final version as

of 01.12.2015 of deliverable 2.4 of the HORIZON 2020 project INSPIRATION. EC Grant agreement

no: 642372, UBA: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany. 4 In several countries besides the NKS interviewed also more stakeholders were invited (i.e. it were

open events), and participated and contributed to the workshops.




7

4. The results of the interviewing plus workshop process were documented in a report to

become the respective final national reports. A draft version was to be send nationally

to the NKS for review;

5. The national reports were aggregated in a combined document, on which the

International Advisory Board (IAB) of INSPIRATION was asked to give feedback, too;

6. The D2.5 report has been finalised taking into account the IAB recommendations.

Figure 1: INSPIRATION’s WP2 workflow.

The information collated in this report feeds into WP3 “Transnational commons

aggregated under integrated themes”. According to the INSPIRATION DoA, the main

objectives of WP3 will be to:

1. Achieve an overview of the transnational shared demands and experiences grouped

under common themes based on the national state-of-the-art reports as produced by

WP2,

2. Prioritise and elaborate the topics that could be included in the SRA (to be developed

by WP4) under specific themes,

3. Elucidate the opportunity to match (to be done under WP4) individual stakeholders (as

funders) to specific SRA topics that could be shared transnationally.” (INSPIRATION

Grant Agreement - Description of Action - DoA).

Visit the INSPIRATION website for the up-coming deliverables of the network!




8

1.3 The INSPIRATION conceptual model and its themes

In order to identify cross-country and cross-sectorial knowledge gaps and research

questions, the national Research and Innovation (R&I) needs will be analysed along four

overarching themes identified in the INSPIRATION conceptual model. This model is

presented in figure 2. It has been used to structure the information presented in this report on

R&I needs following these guiding key-questions for each theme:

Demand:

What does society demand from natural capital and ecosystem services including the

SSW-system?

Natural capital:

What has nature, including the Soil-Sediment-Water (SSW)-system, to offer and

which determinants sustain the system?

Land management:

What are options for an integrated, cross-sectorial land management to balance

societal demands and natural capital?

Net-impacts:

What are the impacts of different options of managing natural capital, including the

SSW-system on global, regional and local as well as temporal scales?

Figure 2: INSPIRATION’s conceptual model.




9

1.4 Guide to the reader: outline of the country chapters

Each county chapter in Deliverable D2.5 follows a comparable outline:

Section X.1- Executive summary

This section provides an executive summary in English (X.1.1) as well as in the national

language (X.1.2).

Section X.2 - Methodology followed

This section describes the methodology followed in the respective country including

information on the stakeholder engagement (see also section 1.4).

The subsequent sections give a review and synthesis of the main results of the topics as

mentioned under the WP2 objectives (see section 1.2).

Section X.3 Research and Innovation (R&I) needs

Topic a: Demand-driven* suggestions for the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), i.e.

suggestions from the perspective of industry, end-users and funders.

Related key question to be answered: What (new) knowledge do these parties need to

tackle societal challenges including the increase of job opportunities)?

* Demand-driven in INSPIRATION means focusing on the demands of those who are

responsible or feel committed to tackle the societal challenges related to the

INSPIRATION scope and themes, i.e. industry, end-users and funders. These parties

could improve their business opportunities and/or take better informed decisions on what

measures to take and execute in order to tackle other societal challenges if they would

(be enabled to) use the knowledge as resulting from execution of the INSPIRATION SRA.

This section is divided in the sub-sections:

Societal challenges and needs (X.3.1);

Topics / research needs to include in the SRA (X.3.2).

The research questions under the topics in the X.3.2 sub-sections are divided by themes

of the INSPIRATION conceptual model as described in section 1.3 of this chapter.

Section X.4 - Experiences regarding connecting science to policy/practice

Topic b: Experiences regarding the exploitation of scientific knowledge to improve

business opportunities and/or tackle other societal challenges.

Related key question to be answered: Where to improve the science-policy interface

so that (new) knowledge can and will be more effectively exploited by the demand

side?


Use of knowledge (X.4.1);

Possibilities to set the agenda (X.4.2);

Science – policy – practice (X.4.3).




10

Section X.5 National and transnational funding schemes

Topic c: Predominant, current as well as promising alternative funding schemes /

mechanisms / programs for knowledge production and dissemination.

Related key question to be answered: How to get with one Euro of national/regional

funding a multitude of Euro’s (from all sources) worth of knowledge in return

contributing to EU and national demands? Or even how to get with one euro of EU

funding a multitude of euro’s (from national, regional, local, and private sector)

worth of knowledge in return contributing to the R&I demands on Land and the

Soil-Sediment-Water systems.

Topic d: Experiences regarding the use of any trans-national, common budget for

scientific knowledge production related to the scope of INSPIRATION.

Related key question to be answered: How to set up/govern the appropriate

funding option(s) resulting from INSPIRATION – based on previous learning

experiences – so that: (1)the above demands will be fulfilled, (2) knowledge

resulting from implementation of the SRA will be taken up and used and (3)

funders experience that their invested, national Euros are indeed multiplied?”


Funding schemes and possibilities for research funding (X.5.1);

Gaps in financial resources for research (X.5.2).

Section X.6 - Other remarks made by interviewees

This section is optional and is not taken up in all national reports. It contains remarks,

points of attention and recommendations for INSPIRATION as given by the NKS.




11

1.5 Annexes

Annex I: NKS questionnaire template

This is the updated version of the questionnaire - reflecting inputs from the IAB and

discussions at the NFP training in Vienna on 22nd – 23rd June 2015.

Note: this questionnaire template is meant to help National Focal Points (NFPs) to facilitate

the interview/conversation with the National Key Stakeholders (NKS). Some questions are

relevant to one NKS, other questions to another NKS. Hence, not all questions are relevant

to each single NKS. The NFPs are required to adapt the template accordingly – keeping in it

as many as possible of the issues to be addressed. If needed, the NFPs also translate the

questionnaire into their national language.

The questionnaire (see next pages) has the following outline:

A. Interview information:

To be filled out by the interviewer

B. Introduction:

That the interviewer can use to start the NKS interview

C. Background information of the NKS interviewed:

Mostly ‘tick-boxes’

D. Strategic Research Agenda (SRA):

NKS preferred topics, overarching themes and scope for the SRA and national state-

of-the-art on research agendas that the NKS is aware of

E. Science-Policy-Interface:

NKS experiences regarding the exploitation of scientific knowledge to: improve

business opportunities; tackle other societal challenges; assist policy-implementation

and/or policy revision

F. Funding:

Predominantly used as well as promising alternative funding schemes / mechanisms /

programs for knowledge production and dissemination that the NKS is aware of

G. Other:

At the end there is some time advised to let the NKS give us their advice, some nice

quotes (that we can use anonymously in our communications), examples etc.

H. Ending the interview:

Explain follow up and if/how NKSs will be involved in the next steps of INSPIRATION




12

Questionnaire template

A. Interview information

Country:

Name of INSPIRATION researcher:

Date of Interview:

How does the NKS wish to be referred to: [Anonymous, personal opinions, company’s

opinion. Choose when it is a good time to discuss this. In the beginning or later on.

SHOW the interviewed NKS the ENGAGEMENT CONSENT FORM and ask him/her to fill it

out. Please introduce the engagement consent form (available in ‘D2.1 MoU’ and editable by

yourself) and hand a copy to the interviewee to read and fill in – make sure that you take this

away with you and keep for your own records]

B. Introductions

[Please introduce your selves, the project and the purpose of the interview. You can use the

handout as provided at the end of this template. This can also be sent beforehand to the

NKS. Agree on a time span: approximately one and a half hour.]

C. Background information on the interviewee

1. Name of NKS interviewed:

2. Institution:

3. Role:

4. Are you a (multiple answers possible):

o National-regional-local authority

o University/research institute

o Small or Medium sized Enterprise (SME, i.e. < 500 employees) / consultant

o Business and industry

o Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)

o Network representative / leader

o Other, specify: …

5. Fields of expertise (multiple answers possible): [Ask to specify background regarding

the selected item(s) in order to understand expertise background of interviewee]

o Soil

o Water

o Sediment

o Urban / spatial planning

o Landscape design

o Land management

o Other, specify: …..




13

6. Does your organisation provide external research funding?

o Yes. Please specify: ...

[e.g. as programme holder, public, private, …]

o No

D. SRA

7. Which societal challenges do you regard as important?

[If needed, you can use the European Commissions (EC) list of societal challenges

here. These EC themes are:]

- Contribute to food security and food safety;

- Ensure secure supplies of safe drinking water;

- Secure energy supply and distribution;

- Reduce raw material and resource consumption, Ensure efficient use of natural

resources;

- Contribute to climate change mitigation and societal adaptation;

- Contribute to a healthy living environment;

- Ensure secure infrastructure

[Explain that these challenges may be used as bases for defining of the overarching

themes for aggregating the research topics of our SRA.]

a. If applicable, what additional, other or alternative challenges would you

suggest/prefer?

[When needed, you can mention challenges as nature conservation, sustainable use

of ecosystem services, halting the loss of biodiversity]

8. Starting with your own experience: which specific topics (research needs) should be

included in the SRA?

[For each single topic mentioned by the NKS, use the following follow-up questions.

The a, b and c sub-questions are mandatory. The other sub-questions are optional]:

a. Explain – elaborate the topic

- Who will be affected?

- Who is responsible?

- Is it a topic of concern of your organisation / department

- Is it only a national topic, or a shared topic by multiple countries?

- Where are we now, where do we want to be in x years (point on the horizon)?

- How can the newly gained knowledge be effectively used?

b. Priority:

1. High priority

2. Some priority

3. Neutral priority

4. Low priority

5. No priority

- What is the urgency, i.e. what goes wrong if we do nothing?




14

c. Who wants to/should fund this kind of research?

[Optionally: check the following WP3 key-words for relevance, i.e. if they raise any

additional topics by the NKS. The key-words can be used as support / check list

Be sensible as interviewer if this is needed.]

o Assessment of land resources

o Potential productivity of land and soils

o Demand for soil/land resources, imports and exports

o Competition between land uses (land-use conflicts)

o Concepts to identify and quantify relevant impacts

o Instruments to avoid / minimize impacts (feedback to decision-making

process)

o Opportunities of innovative land-use technologies

o Resource-oriented land management systems]

o Soil regeneration

o Soil and groundwater remediation

9. Linked to topics mentioned by the NKS:

a. What are the important / relevant documents, research agendas, research

programmes underpinning these topics? (state-of-the-art)

b. Related to these agendas and programmes: what are timelines of programming

and windows-of-opportunities to influence agendas / programmes?

[Note: question 9b is input for work package 5]

E. Science-Policy-Interfacing (SPI)

10. How would you define ‘scientific knowledge’?

11. For what do you use scientific knowledge in your job?

12. Which sources of (scientific) knowledge do you use for doing your job?

[Open question and you can mention some of the sources underneath as examples]

o scientific paper

o consultants

o reports

o colleagues

o experiences /examples within my

own country

o experiences /examples abroad

o newspapers

o television

o conferences Involvement in research

projects

o data (bases)

o websites, such as: …..

o other, specify: …..

13. To what extent do you use most recent/new scientific knowledge (i.e. state-of-the-art

scientific insights/findings) for doing your job?

14. To what extent are you able to influence (and how) the setting of scientific research

policies/agendas in our country?




15

15. To which extent do our national policies/agendas reflect your specific needs and

priorities?

16. To what extent has been made use of the state-of-the art in scientific research for the

formulation of existing policies in our country?

[Questions only for NKS from the non-science sector (business and policy):]

17. Have you ever been involved in:

a. the formulation of scientific research questions?

b. doing scientific research (i.e. knowledge co-creation)?

c. synthesizing/wrapping-up of scientific knowledge, e.g. to feed into policy making

or to increase business opportunities?

[When yes: Follow-up questions]

- How successful/satisfying was this, on a scale of 1-5?

1. Very successful/satisfying

2. Successful /satisfying

3. Neutral

4. Unsuccessful/unsatisfying

5. Very unsuccessful/unsatisfying

- What went well

- What could be improved?

- What to avoid/not to do?

- Additional remarks?

[Question only to NKS who are likely to have insights here (e.g. research funders)]

18. (How) is the societal impact of scientific research related to the scope of

INSPIRATION being assessed in our country?

[If they know: Follow-up questions:]

- How successful/satisfying is this, on a scale of 1-5?


2. Successful/satisfying

3. Neutral



- What indictors are used?

- What goes well?

- What can be improved?



19. Which national Science-Policy-Interface documents do you know of / can you

recommend?

F. Funding




16

20. Which experiences and expectations in funding schemes (public / private) do you

have in your own field that could offer opportunities for future research on land-use

and -management and related impacts to Soil-/Sediment-/Water-systems:

- Sub-nationally/regionally?

- Nationally?

- European? [e.g. H2020, Interreg, multi-lateral such as the Joint Programming

Initiatives]

- International? [e.g. Belmont Forum, Foundations.]

[For all R&I questions aiming at achieving policy targets in the Land & SSW related

system (like e.g. Sustainable Development Goals on soils, existing EU directives

such as the Environmental Liability Directive, etc.) consider all Public and Private

funding sources. Please ask to provide details and give most important references

(documents, website) that could be relevant for explaining the answer]

21. How to increase the added value of different financial resources (i.e. achieve a

multiplier) for doing research that contributes to EU and national demands, in

particular to the R&I demands on Land and the SSW-system?

[CONSTRUCTIONS that (could) work. PP, PPI, etc. Just ask for, as open as possible

for suggestions, ideas, experiences, good examples]

22. Are there areas of research and innovation (R&I) that you are aware of that are not

(yet) covered by current funding mechanisms and which would need new/different

funding schemes / infrastructures?

23. Integrated approaches (necessary for addressing particular societal challenges

related to the use and management of land and related impacts to SSW systems) are

usually difficult to fund / get recognized by the research funding communities. What

would be necessary to improve this?

24. Based on previous learning experiences that you are aware of: how to best set up /

govern funding option(s), so that societal demands will be fulfilled, knowledge

resulting from execution of the SRA will be taken up and used; and funders

experience that their invested, national Euros are indeed multiplied? [if they know:

follow-up questions]

- How successful/satisfying was this, on a scale of 1-5?


2. Successful/satisfying

3. Neutral



- What went well?

- What could be improved?



G. Other (remarks, suggestions, examples):




17

H. Ending the interview

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview:

Would you like us to keep you updated about INSPIRATION progress?

Would you suggest anyone else who we should be interviewed by us?

Do you have further questions arising from this interview, or would you like to add

anything else?

What information are you interested in, and willing to give feedback on?

[Discuss the feedback mechanism and if they have expressed their opinions as a

person or as a representative of their organisation/network. Checklist:]

a. Information to exchange / willingness to give feedback on:

o (complete interview, not recommended)

o summary of main conclusions

o national report, national contribution to D2.4

o complete D2.4, all countries

b. Preferred level of feedback:

o no feedback

o informal feedback

o formal feedback (e.g. on behalf of represented organisation)

[Check: have you discussed consent form / how to refer to interviewee]

INSPIRATION acknowledges the received funding from the

European Community's HORIZON2020 Framework Programme

under grant agreement no 642372




18

Annex II: NKS hand-out: INSPIRATION interview at a glance

INSPIRATION interview at a glance

Aim of INSPIRATION:

The main purpose of the EC-funded INSPIRATION project is to formulate an end-user driven

strategic research agenda (SRA) for land-use, land-use changes and the related, impacted

compartments of the Soil-Sediment-Water (SSW) system in order to meet current and future

societal challenges and needs. Next to that, the project aims to scope out models of

implementing the SRA and to prepare a network of public and private funding institutions

willing to commonly fund the execution of the SRA.

National Key Stakeholders (NKS):

In a series of NKS interviews across EU nations the “National Focal Points (NFP) gather for

nations individually information related to the INSPIRATION scope (land and SSW-system

use and management) on:

Research and Innovation (R&I) needs

Experiences regarding connecting science to policy/practice

National and transnational funding schemes

In the interviews we focus at NKS – like you – positioned at a strategic level, i.e. leading

persons in their field of profession; with a good overview on opportunities; a clear vision on,

and insight in knowledge demands (short, middle and long-term). Furthermore, these NKS

are well positioned and participate in relevant professional network(s) and may also have

potential to become an ambassador for INSPIRATION. We selected NKS to represent

different disciplines and institutional backgrounds including: land-use planners; managers;

soil, sediment and water experts; researchers, funders and regulators/policy makers.

Workflow in the first year of INSPIRATION




19

This interview:

Collecting input from you – an expert in your field – is crucial for the project in order to help

us describing the state-of-the-art in our country as input into the European research agenda.

In the interview we will go through a series of topics and questions: The interviews of NKS

(ca. 20 per nation), together with a desk study on research needs and funding possibilities

will be synthesized to a ’national report‘. This synthesis will be reviewed in a national

workshop, to prioritize the topics for the suggested Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) from

our country’s point of view. The national reports will finally be used as input for elaborating

the European SRA and cross-nation matchmaking (matching research needs to possible

funding).

Example questions:

Research and Innovation (R&I) needs

Which societal challenges do you regard as important?

Starting with your own experience: which specific topics (research needs) should be

included in the SRA?

Experiences regarding connecting science to policy/practice

How would you define ‘scientific knowledge’?

To what extent has been made use of the state-of-the art in scientific research for the

formulation of existing policies in our country?

National and transnational funding schemes

Does your organisation provide external research funding?

Which experiences and expectations in funding schemes (public / private) do you

have in your own field that could offer opportunities for future research on land-use

and -management and related impacts to Soil-/Sediment-/Water-systems

Your benefits from participating:

A chance to influence the European SRA on land and SSW management in the light

of societal challenges and needs;

Being able to make use of the results of the project: overview of research need and of

existing and promising funding schemes on different levels (sub-national, national,

European, international) and opportunities for a better connection between science

and policy/practice;

Use the matchmaking opportunity to get in contact with other networks in- and outside

our country, and countries learn which shared challenges can be taken up jointly.

Contact and further information:

For general information on the INSPIRATION project visit our website: www.inspiration-

h2020.eu

Contact the National Focal Point:

See the INSPIRATION website for

contacts

Contact the general project coordination:

Stephan Bartke

[email protected]

http://www.inspiration-h2020.eu/


mailto:[email protected]




20

2. Slovakia

Report by Maros Finka, Maria Kozova, Zita Izakovicova, Lubomir Jamecny, Vladimir

Ondrejicka

2.1 Executive summary

2.1.1 English version

Societal challenges

Dominant challenges in regard to the land/soil management topic appointed by the

reviewed national key stakeholders (NKSs) from Slovakia were to contribute to healthy living

environment and to the food safety, to participate to climate change effects lowering and

social adaptation, to safeguard safe delivery of drinking water, to decrease the consumption

of natural resources and to contribute to the efficient use of natural resources.

These challenges identified in the interviews were discussed on 3 national workshops as

well. The participants underlined interlinks among the challenges and necessity to deal with

them in an integrative way. All above listed topics are in the harmony with the Research and

Innovation Strategy for Intelligent Specialisation of the Slovak Republic (RIS3 SK) containing

the research priorities for Slovak Republic up to 2020. Among them the topics related to the

environment protection, use of natural resources, clean energy e.g. efficiently usable energy

resources and environment, agriculture, food safety.

In addition some alternative challenges/topics, deepening above listed societal

challenges/topics have been identified e.g. protection of agricultural soil against urbanization

and degradation, efficient use of soil (agricultural, forest) and development of sustainable soil

management reflecting potentials and limits in the use of soil as well as balance between

economic and environmental interests, integration of the soil-water-land management with

the link to ecosystem services and stress on their implementation in the practice and on their

benefits / underline the economic dimension as well, implementation of preventive measures

for soil – water – land protection tackling the danger of natural disasters (not only climate

change), revitalisation of degraded ecosystems and brownfields, sustainable development of

cultural landscape and historic landscape structures and others.

As a common problem was appointed by many NKSs – the topic “land-soil-water-

sediments” needs systematic research (e.g. monitoring, long term effects assessment after

the implementation of respective intervention) and not only set of short-term projects as it is

reality across the levels incl. EU level. In many cases the research is more reacting on

pressing problems than preparing the background for systematic prevention oriented

measures.




21

R&I priority topics

Based on the contributions from the reviewed NKS and workshops outputs following

issues seems to be priority for EU supported research as the part of SRA:

Sustainability and sustainable management of natural resources – optimization of soil

functions incl. approaches, methods and instruments of the productive land protection

against its transformation towards build-up areas, intensive and ecologic acceptable

production approaches in agricultural and forest country, the effect of ownership

transformation in the land management, harmonization of the methods, structure of

the data.

Improvement of the reflection of scientific knowledge into institutional instruments of

land management incl. economic instruments incl. assessment of long term policies –

analyses of policies and assessment of their effects, contributions to the

environmental quality, efficiency, factors of efficiency, assessment of the effects of

supportive EU schemes for environment, efficiency of the financial investments,

methods and indicators for the assessment of their efficiency etc.

Sustainability of water resources and of quality of water management services incl.

assessment of global (incl. climatic) and regional factors influencing the development

of water balance in the territory and predicting of environmental and economic effects

due the proposed/implemented measures.

Approaches, methods and instruments of the lowering and elimination of natural

hazards and risks (floods, forest calamites, forest fires, geodynamic hazards and

erosion) incl. risk assessment on land use/soil use in relation the quality of water, risk

assessment on drought and foods as the effects of climate change and anthropic

changes in the landscape, development of the mitigation measures to lower abiotic

and biotic damages on forest

Risk assessment in regard to land use effects on the quality of natural resources incl.

research on changes in the landscape, spatial optimalisation of the land use, ecologic

optimal functional landscape organization, development of the model of integrated

landscape management, strategic assessment of the quality and efficient use of

landscape, etc.

Mapping and assessment of natural capital, mapping, assessment and revitalization

of degraded landscape ecosystems and the landscape ability to provide ecosystem

services incl. mapping and assessment of landscape and biotopes` fragmentation,

approaches, methods and instruments for revitalisation of degraded landscape

ecosystems incl. brownfields and for efficient implementation of the ecosystem

services concept, etc.




22

Lowering of negative effects of urbanization, urban sprawl regulation, consequent

monitoring of industrial production effects incl. approaches, methods and Instruments:

of assessment of urban sprawl and its limitation and mitigation of negative effects, of

green infrastructure revitalisation, development and maintenance, of identification of

complex caring capacity of urban landscape and for monitoring and provision of the

data on environmental quality incl. the risks accessible for all stakeholders in real

time, of lowering and prevention of the negative impacts on human health.

Modelling of the global megatrends effects. In the context of global economic, social

and environmental interlinks, global competition, global effects like biodiversity

degradation, not efficient use of natural resources, climate changes special attention

should be payed to the 11 megatrends listed by EEA in 5 clusters decision making for

long-term perspective in European environment

Restoration of contaminated soils by heavy metals and organic pollutants as a

consequence of anthropogenic activities - using of agricultural soils and novel

approaches of intensification of agriculture focusing on healthy food and higher

demand for organic products is necessary to increase the quality of ecological soil

functions.

Science-policy-interface

Positive experience regarding the interface between science and policies was identified in

the case of environmental policy in 1990-2006 where the transfer from science toward the

practice was rather successful (e.g. landscape planning in the building code, in the act of

nature and landscape protection, territorial systems of ecologic stability as a part of land

consolidation plans, methodologies for landscape planning documentations, new law on

EIA/SEA and methodologies in this field, sustainable development strategies at national,

regional and local levels, Strategy for biodiversity protection and its Action plan...). National

strategy for sustainable development was fully in the hands of professionals, as well as the

development of Regional and Local Agenda documents was broadly supported by the

scientists in many cases in the position of activists. As the problem was appointed their

implementation efficiency, many of measures based on newest knowledge has not been

implemented in the practice. The same for Biodiversity Protection Strategy and its Action

Plan. In global, national strategies/agendas do not mirror specific needs of academic

community in a proper way, in many cases their adoption is only formal with no practical

effects, and the measures are moved from year to year, from document to document. Slovak

Republic has got many of documents elaborated on high professional level, but their

implementation is formal, the realisation of the included measures use to be moved from

year to year, many of them ignored and stay only in the declarative position. Many of

documents are elaborated only as they are required by international agreements. The

policies are influenced by lobbing and interests of specific interest groups.




23

Funding options

There are different sources national and international used as the sources for financing

the research in Slovakia. Most important financial resources are represented by:

Resources from local and regional authorities.

National resources KEGA, VEGA, APVV, sectoral ministries.

European, H2020, Interreg, Norway fund, Swiss fund, Life, URBACT, V4 fund.

International Future Earth, MAB UNESCO, IPBES.

As the international sources are very competitive and connected with huge administrative

load of work, big pressure is at the national level of grant schemes, but the amount of

finances in national schemes is very low and the grants do not allow serious research in

(time and sources requiring projects) the field of living environment, especially in the VEGA

scheme. Successful realisations of the EU projects hamper administrative barriers,

bureaucratic procurement processes not fitting to the scientific services or infrastructure

procurement, not proper models of financing (based on hours spent and not on effects), need

of co-financing e.g. in INTERREG projects as well as late reimbursement of the

expenditures, discrimination of some research units in the calls (structural funds) e.g. not

eligibility for researchers from Bratislava although they have the same precondition, if not

worser, than others in SK. Due the international lobismus underdeveloped from Slovak

representatives in Brussels Slovak researchers do not have the same access to the H2020

and other European schemes.




24

2.1.2 Slovak version

Ako hlavné výzvy vo vzťahu k problematike manažmentu územia a pôdy z pohľadu

slovenských kľúčových stakeholderov boli označené: prispievať k zdravému životnému

prostrediu a k potravinovej bezpečnosti a bezpečnosti potravín, participovať na zmierňovaní

klimatických zmien a sociálne prispôsobenie, zaistiť bezpečné dodávky pitnej vody, ochrana

vôd, znížiť spotrebu primárnych surovín a zdrojov, zabezpečiť efektívneho využívania

prírodných zdrojov.

Tieto výzvy identifikované v rámci interview, boli diskutované aj na troch národných

workshopoch. Ich účastníci podčiarkli vzájomné väzby medzi výzvami a potrebu k nim

pristupovať integrovane. Uvedené výskumné témy sú plne v súlade so Stratégiou výskumu

a inovácií pre inteligentnú špecializáciu SR. RIS3 SK obsahuje výskumné priority a oblasti

špecializácie SR do roku 2020 pričom ich súčasťou sú aj priority zamerané na ochranu

životného prostredia, využívanie prírodných zdrojov, čistú energiu, napr. efektívne využiteľné

zdroje energie, životné prostredie, pôdohospodárstvo, potravinová bezpečnosť.

Okrem toho boli identifikované niektoré komplementárne výzvy ako sú napr. ochrana

produktívnej a kvalitnej poľnohospodárskej pôdy pred záberom na výstavbu a pred

degradáciou, efektívne využívanie pôdny (poľnohospodársky a lesný) fond, rozvoj

udržateľného manažmentu pôdy rešpektujúc potenciály a ohraničenia využívania pôd ako

riešenie balansu medzi ekonomickými záujmami a životným prostredím, riešenie problému

pôdy - vody – územia v integrovanom manažmente s väzbou na poskytovanie

ekosystémových služieb; ekosystémové služby posunúť do praxe s dôrazom na ich benefity

(zadefinovať to aj ako ekonomickú tému), realizácia preventívnych opatrení na ochranu pôdy

– vody - územia pred prírodnými hrozbami a rizikami – treba sledovať aj ďalšie

environmentálne problémy, nielen klimatickú zmenu, revitalizovať degradované ekosystémy

a hnedé plochy sídiel, zachovanie kvalít kultúrnej krajiny a historických štruktúr krajiny a iné.

Ako spoločný problém menovaný mnohými národnými kľúčovými stakeholdermi možno

označiť potrebu systematického výskumu v rámci témy “územie-pôda-voda-sedimenty” napr.

monitoring, hodnotenie dlhodobých efektov po implementácii intervencií) a nie iba realizáciu

krátkodobých projektov ako je to skutočnosť naprieč rôznymi úrovňami EU. V mnohých

prípadoch výskum skôr reaguje na urgentné problémy ako by pripravoval systematické

východiská pre preventívne orientované opatrenia.




25

Prioritné témy pre výskum a vývoj

Vychádzajúc z príspevkov kľúčových národných stakeholderov a výstupov workshopov

nasledujúce témy sa javia byť prioritami pre výskum podporovaný EU ako súčasť strategickej

agendy výskumu (SRA):

Zachovanie a udržateľný manažment pôdnych zdrojov – optimalizácia funkcií

pôd vrátane prístupy, metódy a nástroje ochrany produktívnej a kvalitnej pôdy pred

záberom na výstavbu, intenzívne a ekologicky prijateľné pestovateľské postupy

v poľnohospodárskej a lesnej krajine vrátane aspektov krajino-tvorby, vplyv

transformácie vlastníckych vzťahov a zabezpečenie prístupu k informáciám o pôde

a aktualizácia pôdneho prieskumu a zberu údajov a iné.

Zlepšenie priemetu vedeckých poznatkov do inštitucionálnych nástrojov

manažmentu - právne a ekonomické nástroje vrátane hodnotenia dlhodobých

reálnych dopadov, hodnotenia dopadu podporných schém na životné prostredie,

hodnotenia transferu vedeckých poznatkov do environmentálnej praxe

Udržateľnosť vodných zdrojov a kvality poskytovaných vodohospodárskych

služieb vrátane hodnotenia globálnych (klimatických) a regionálnych/lokálnych

vplyvov (antropických) na vývoj vodnej bilancie v území a predikcia

environmentálnych a ekonomických efektov v dôsledku navrhovaných/prijatých

opatrení.

Prístupy, metódy a nástroje na zmierňovanie a elimináciu prírodných hazardov

a rizík (povodní, kalamít v lesoch, nebezpečenstva požiarov v lesoch, zosuvná

a erózna činnosť…)vrátane hodnotenia rizík využívania pôdy/krajiny s ohľadom na

kvalitu vôd, hodnotenia rizík nedostatku/sucha a nadbytku vody (záplavy) v dôsledku

klimatickej zmeny a antropických činností v krajín, opatrní na zníženie abiotického a

biotického poškodenia lesov (vetrové a kôrovcove kalamity) a i.

Hodnotenie rizík využívania pôdy/krajiny s ohľadom na kvalitu jednotlivých

prírodných zdrojov vrátane výskumu zmien krajiny a priestorovej optimalizácii

využívania krajiny, ekologicky optimálna organizácia a využitie krajiny, rozpracovania

modelu integrovaného manažmentu krajiny založeného na systémovom prístupe ku

krajine ako integrácie prírodných zdrojov v určitom priestore, strategického posúdenia

kvality a efektívneho využívania krajiny, jej zaťaženia, potenciálov

a environmentálnych limitov

Mapovanie a hodnotenie prírodného kapitálu, mapovanie, hodnotenie a

revitalizácia degradovaných ekosystémov krajiny a schopnosti krajiny

poskytovať ekosystémové služby vrátane mapovania a hodnotenia fragmentácie

krajiny a biotopov, osobitne v urbanizovanej krajine and hodnotenie biodiverzity v

urbánnej krajine, metódy jej ochrany a revitalizácie, prístupy, metódy a nástroje:

revitalizácie degradovaných ekosystémov v krajine vrátane brownfieldov,

implementácie konceptu ekosystémových služieb do praxe, manažmentu krajiny

vrátane územného plánovania s dôrazom na ich benefity a i.




26

Znižovanie negatívnych vplyvov urbanizácie, regulovanie rozrastania sídiel do

krajiny a dôsledné sledovanie dopadov priemyselnej výroby hodnotenia

dôsledkov rozširovania urbanizácie do prírodnej a poloprírodnej krajiny - rozrastanie

sídiel do krajiny, nástroje jeho obmedzovania a znižovania negatívnych efektov,

prístupov, metód a nástrojov tvorby, obnovy a údržby zelenej infraštruktúry a i.

Modelovanie vplyvu globálnych mega-trendov. Slovensko podobne ako i Európa

je previazané so svetom prostredníctvom rôznych ekonomických a sociálnych väzieb,

ktoré umožňujú obojsmerný tok materiálov, finančných zdrojov, inovácií, ideí, ale aj

odpadov a emisií. Zvyšuje sa globálna súťaž o zdroje a zároveň sa prejavujú

dôsledky globálnych javov ako je úbytok biodiverzity, neefektívne využívanie

prírodných zdrojov, zmena klímy a pod. V dôsledku toho bude ekologická,

ekonomická a sociálna situácia Európy a teda aj Slovenska v nadchádzajúcich

desaťročiach výrazné ovplyvnená rôznymi globálnymi megatrendmi. Tie možno

definovať ako trendy vo veľkom meradle (globálne) s veľkými dopadmi; často ide o

vzájomne závislé sociálne, ekonomické, politické, environmentálne, alebo

technologické zmeny. Európska environmentálna agentúra (EEA) definuje 11

megatrendov (MT) v piatich klastroch, ktoré sú považované za kľúčové pre dlhodobý

výhľad v oblasti životného prostredia v Európe. Je potrebné neustále sledovanie

týchto megatrendov, modelovanie dopadu týchto megatrendov na krajinu, jej zložky

a prvky.

Obnova pôd znečistených ťažkými kovmi a organickými polutantmi ako

dôsledok antropogénnych činností vrátane identifikácie a kvantifikácie

antropogénnych faktorov, hodnotenia možnosti uplatnenia nevyužívanej pôdy na

poľnohospodárske činnosti, vypracovania vhodných opatrení pre efektívny

manažment ekologického hospodárenia na pôde ako aj postupov renaturácie

poškodených pôdnych systémov (ťažkými kovmi, pesticídmi, zasolené pôdy atď.).

Vzťah veda a politika

Ako príklad úspešného prenosu vedeckých poznatkov je do politiky je možné označiť

obdobie rokov 2000-2006, kde sa podarilo dostať viaceré vedecké poznatky do tvorby

legislatívy (krajinnoekologický plán do stavebného zákona, ÚSES do pozemkových úprav

a do, zákona o ochrane prírody, metodiky pre tvorbu krajinnoekologických dokumentácií do

vyhlášok a pod.). Podobne na tvorbe zákonov E.I.A a S.E.A sa podstatnou mierou podieľala

vedecká komunita. Výrazná participácia vedeckých pracovníkov bola v oblasti

implementácie trvalo udržateľného rozvoja. Národná stratégia trvalo udržateľného rozvoja

bola výlučne v rukách odborníkov, podobne ako aj spracovanie Regionálnych a Lokálnych

Agiend prebiehalo väčšinou pod gesciou vedcov, prípadne za ich širokej účasti ako

aktivistov. Problém však je, že tieto opatrenia sa už slabšie, alebo vôbec nerealizujú

a neaplikujú v praxi. Podobná situácia bola aj pri spracovaní Stratégie ochrany biodiverzity

a jej Akčného plánu. Źiaľ vo všeobecnosti národné politiky/agendy odzrkadľujú špecifické

potreby a priority vedeckej komunity nedostatočne. Často krát prijímanie týchto strategických

dokumentov je len formálne. SR má síce vypracované strategické dokumenty na dobrej

odbornej úrovni, ich realizácia v praxi je minimálna, realizácia opatrení zadefinovaných

v jednotlivých dokumentoch sa často posúva z roka na rok, mnohé opatrenia sa prepisujú




27

z jedného dokumentu do druhého, mnohé z nich sa ignorujú a často tieto opatrenia zostávajú

deklarované len v týchto dokumentoch. Mnohé dokumenty sa vypracovávajú iba preto, lebo

si to vyžadujú medzinárodné záväzky. Tvorba politík je často ovplyvňovaná aj politikou

a výrazným lobingom rôznych záujmových skupín.

Na financovanie výskumu sa v SR používajú rôzne zdroje, či už národné alebo

medzinárodné. K najvýznamnejším patria nasledovné zdroje a fondy:

Vnútroštátne / regionálne: zdroje Samosprávnych krajov, zdroje miestnych

samospráv.

Národné: VEGA, KEGA, APVV, príslušné ministerstvá.

Európske: H2020, Interreg, multilaterálne, cezhraničná kooperácia, Vyšehradsky

fond, Nórsky a Švajčiarsky fond, Life, URBACT.

Medzinárodné: Future Earth, MAB UNESCO, IPBES.

Vzhľadom na ťažkú dostupnosť finančných zdrojov z medzinárodných grantových schém

a ich administratívnu náročnosť, veľké tlaky sú vyvíjané na domáce grantové schémy, čo

následne spôsobuje slabú úspešnosť projektov v grantových schémach. Financie

v národných schémach sú značne poddimenzované, najmä v grantovej schéme VEGA

a často za poskytnuté finančné prostriedky nie je možné hĺbkovo riešiť problémy životného

prostredia, ktoré sú častokrát finančne i časovo náročné. Úspešnú realizáciu sťažujú často aj

rôzne administratívne bariéry, ako je verejné obstarávanie, nevhodné modely financovania

(založené na odpočte odpracovaných hodín a nie na výsledkoch), napr. povinná spoluúčasť

v projektoch INTEREG, následná refundácia výdavkov až po ukončení projektov v prípade

cezhraničných projektov a pod. Problémom je aj diskriminácia niektorých pracovísk vo

výzvach štrukturálnych fondov. Nelogicky z podpory je vylúčený Bratislavský región, kde je

najväčšia koncentrácia vedeckých pracovníkov. Diskrimináciou je tiež nerovnomerné

financovanie vedeckých pracovníkov z medzinárodného pohľadu, kde slovenskí účastníci

majú za rovnaký výskum podstatne nižšie odmeny. Pri získavaní projektov HORION 2020

značnou mierou funguje aj lobizmus, v čom Slovensko ťahá za kratší koniec.




28

2.2 Methodology followed

This report (i.e. INSPIRATION deliverable 2.5) reports the information collated for

Slovakia. The information was collated in accordance with INSPIRATION D2.3 “Template for

national information collation” and in accordance with the agreed approach to the

organisation of national workshops with the NKSs. In Slovakia, 50 NKS were interviewed and

3 workshops realised in different parts of Slovakia – North-East Slovakia - Ruzomberok,

Middle Slovakia – Zvolen and South-West Slovakia – Bratislava and different thematic focus

with the goal to collect relevant representative information from different groups of

stakeholders representing different problem regions, different thematic background and of

course the whole scale of positions in the land, soil, water and sediments management.

The detailed program of the workshops and an overview about the participants follows.

The program reflected the fact, that the majority of the participants were informed about the

INSPIRATION project based on the interviews or from info letter about the project in the

annex to the invitation. To start efficient discussion the summary from the interviews was

presented and opened or specific question briefly discussed. The workshops met broad

interest and were background for active involvement of many of NKSs into the report

preparation and reviewing.

Details on these NKS were provided in Annex I. of the deliverable D 2.4. The desk study

was based on documents based on NFP knowledge as well as suggested by NKS. These

are listed in Annex II. The national report is based on broad desk research, review with

NKSs. Based on this the national report has been developed in Slovak language with the

goal to address stakeholders for their feedback. The final version of the national report

reflecting the NKSs` opinion, results from the desk research and feedback from chosen

representatives of NKSs` groups was translated and edited into the final version.

The national report has been review by 11 NKSs representing whole spectrum of

stakeholders, based on its draft publishing on the website of the SPECTRA CE EU as the

INSPIRATION project partner and NFP at the national level.




29

Detailed information about national workshops

National workshop in Ružomberok

Venue: Faculty of Education, Catholic University in Ružomberok Date: October, 12th, 2015

Organizers: SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, Slovak University of Technology in

Bratislava, Institute of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Dept. of Geography,

Faculty of Education, Catholic University in Ruzomberok

Agenda:

09:30 – 10:00 Registration - Welcome coffee, tea and snacks, working material for the

workshop

10:00 – 10:20 Introductory words (D. Kováč-Petrovský, vice-dean of the Faculty of

Education, Catholic University in Ružomberok)

10:20 – 10:45 Presentation of the project INSPIRATION (M. Finka, SPECTRA Centre of

Excellence EU, national coordinator of the project INSPIRATION)

10:45 – 11:15 Presentation of the preliminary results obtained in the framework of interviews

(M. Kozová and J. Demko, Institute of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Faculty of

Education, Catholic University in Ružomberok)

11:15 – 12:15 Discussion: The importance of the project for promoting regional cooperation

and building partnerships (on example of the Žilina region)

12.15 – 13.00 Final discussion: formulating the priorities and needs of integrated spatial

planning, land use and soil management in the EU, Slovakia, regions and suggestions for the

way forward

13:00 – 14.30 Lunch together for all participants of the workshop and informal discussion

Workshop in Ružomberok focused on discussion of societal trends and research needs of

integrated spatial planning, land use and management of land and the possibilities how to

streamline the transfer of scientific knowledge into practice. Within the parts providing initial

objectives of the project and presented the first results from the interviews. Faculty of

Education CU in Ružomberok in its research also aims to obtain information on the needs

and requirements of local government, local authorities, professional associations and other

entities operating at the regional level.




30

Participants of the workshop in Ružomberok (family, name and institutions) + addition

information whether he/she was also respondent of the interview

SURNAME, FIRST NAME

AND WORKING POSITION

INSTITUTION END USER/ OR KNOWLEDGE

PROVIDER

Bašáry Jozef, project

manager

(on behalf of the first

deputy mayor Michal

Slašťan he represented

Ružomberok city)

City Hall in Ružomberok

end user

Bednárik Ján

námestník riaditeľa

Water Company in Ružomberok

end user

Borošová Daniela,

professional staff member

Regional Public Health Office in

Banská Bystrica

end user

Bublinec Eduard

university professor

Dept. of Biology and Ecology,

Faculty of Education, Catholic

University in Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Černá Ľubica, university

teacher

Institute of Transdisciplinary

Environ. Studies, Faculty of

Education, Catholic University in

Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Demko Jaroslav,

university teacher




Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Ferianc Ján, head of the

Dept.

District Office in Ružomberok, ,

Dept. of Land and Forest

end user

Filo Milan, Ing.

expert adviser

District Office in Ružomberok

Dept. of the care of the

environment

end user

Finka Maroš, national

coordinator of the project

INSPIRATION

Spectra Centrum excellence EU,

Institute of Management Slovak

University of Technology in

Bratislave

knowledge provider

Guniš Marián

main forestry adviser

District Office in Ružomberok,

Dept. of Land and Forest

end user

Izakovičová Zita

director of the institute

Institute of Landscape Ecology

SAS in Bratislava

knowledge provider

Kováč-Petrovský Dušan

vice-dean of the faculty

Faculty of Education, Catholic

University in Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Kozová Mária, head of

the Institute




Ružomberok

knowledge provider




31

Mackových Daniela

head of the Dept.

State Geological Institute of

Dionýz Štúr, Regional Centre in

Banská Bystrica

knowledge provider

Machava Ján

research worker




Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Ochodnický Marcel,

research workers

Laboratory of air quality ENVItech

s.r.o. (SME)

end user and also

knowledge provider

Papčo Pavol, university

teacher

Dept. of Geography, Faculty of


Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Pauditšová Eva, deputy

head of the Dept.

Dept. of Landscape Ecology,

Faculty of Natural Sciences

Comenius University in Bratislava

knowledge provider

Rakytová Iveta, deputy

head of the Dept.



Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Staník Rastislav,

professional worker (on

behalf of the head of the

Dept. Slámková M. he

represented the

institution)

Dept. of care of the city

environment, Slovak

Environmental Agency in Žilina

knowledge provider

Styk Ján, research

worker

(on behalf of the director

of the Research Institute

for Soil Science and

Conservation of Soils in

Bratislava Sobocká J. he

represented the

institution)

Regional branch of the Institute in

Banská Bystrica

knowledge provider

Šimún Metod

director of the regional

branch

Regional Land Office in Liptovský

Mikuláš

end user

Tomčíková Ivana, head

of the Dept.



Ružomberok

knowledge provider

Uhríková Katarína,

head of the Dept.

District Office in Liptovský

Mikuláš, Land and Forest Dept.

end user




32

National workshop in Bratislava

Venue: Malé kongresové centrum SAV Date: October, 8th, 2015


Bratislava, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava

Agenda:

09:00 – 10:00 Registration - Welcome coffee, tea and snacks, working material for the

workshop

10:00 – 10:10 Introductory words (Zita Izakovicova, director of Institute of Landscape

Ecology)




(Zita Izakovicova, director of Institute of Landscape Ecology)

11:15 – 12:15 Discussion: formulating the priorities and needs of integrated spatial planning,

land use and soil management in the EU, Slovakia, regions and suggestions

for the way forward

12:15 – 13.00 Catering for all participants of the workshop and informal discussion

Participants of the workshop in Bratislava (family, name and institutions)

SURNAME, FIRST NAME AND WORKING

POSITION

INSTITUTION

Pauditšová Eva Dept. of Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Natural

Sciences Comenius University in Bratislava

Kozová Mária Institute of Transdisciplinary Environ. Studies,

Faculty of Education, Catholic University in

Ružomberok

Finka Maroš Spectra Centre of excellence EU, Institute of

Management Slovak University of Technology in

Bratislava

Luby Štefan Institute of Physics of the Slovak Academy of

Sciences, Bratislava

Izakovičová Zita Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak

Academy of Sciences, Bratislava

Kalivoda Henrik Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Bujnovský Radoslav Water Research Institute , Bratislava

Kluvánková Tatiana SPECTRA, Centre of excellence EU, Slovak

University of Technology and Slovak Academy of


Špulerová Jana Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak





33

Štefúnková Dagmar Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Hrnčiarová Tatiana Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Hreško Juraj Constantine the Philospher University in Nitra

Šatalová Barbora Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Dubcová Magdaléna Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Miklósová Katarína Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak


Ondrejička Vladimír Spectra Centre of excellence EU, Institute of


Bratislava

Štecová Iveta Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak

Academy of Sciences, Zvolen

Lehotský Milan Institute of Geography of the Slovak Academy of


Pavličková Katarína Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of

Landscape Ecology

Jurík Luboš Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of

Horticulture and Landscape Engineering

Supuka Ján Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of

Horticulture and Landscape Engineering




34

National workshop in Zvolen

Venue: Institute of Forest Ecology, SAS, Zvolen Date: October, 16, 2015


Bratislava, Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Science, Zvolen

Agenda:

09:30 – 10:00 Registration - Welcome coffee, tea & snacks, working material for workshop

10:00 – 10:20 Introductory words (Jozef Vaľka, director of Institute of Forest Ecology)




(Tatiana Kluvánková, Institute of Forest Ecology)

11:15 – 12:15 Discussion: formulating the priorities and needs of integrated spatial planning,

land use and soil management in the EU, Slovakia, regions and suggestions

for the way forward

12:15 – 13.00 Catering for all participants of the workshop and informal discussion

Participants of the workshop in Zvolen (family, name and institutions)

SURNAME, FIRST NAME AND WORKING

POSITION

INSTITUTION

Kluvánková Tatiana SPECTRA, Centre of excellence EU, Slovak

University of Technology and Slovak Academy of


Vaľka Jozef Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Finka Maroš Spectra Centre of excellence EU, Institute of


Bratislava

Štecová Iveta Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Bucha Tomáš National Forest Centre, Zvolen

Németh Ľuboš National Forest Centre, Zvolen

Kukla Ján Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Blaženec Miroslav Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Gomoryová Erika Faculty of Forestry, Technical University in Zvolen

Pavlenda Pavel National Forest Centre, Zvolen

Šulek Rastislav University in Zvolen

Minďaš Jozef SEVŚ Skalica

Kuklová Margita Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Štupáková Petra Slovak Academy of Sciences, Zvolen




35

Wengerová Leona National Forest Centre, Zvolen

Kozová Mária University in Ružomberok

Ditmarová Ľubica Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Brnkaľáková Stanislava Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Pôbišová Anna National Forest Centre, Zvolen

Janík Rastislav Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Dvořáčková Katarína Nature Protection Agendy, Slovakia

Schule Branislav Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Babicová Alena Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Sarvašová Lenka Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Víglasová Sandra Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Parák Michal Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Luptáková Eva Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Dzurenko Marek Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Hulfán Ján Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Hroššo Branislav Institute of Forest Ecology of the Slovak


Schwarz Marián FEE Tuzvo




36

2.3 Research and Innovation (R&I) needs

2.3.1 Societal challenges and needs

Which societal challenges do you regard as important?

Dominant challegnes in regard to the land/soil management topic appointed by the

reviewed national key stakeholders (NKSs) from Slovakia were:

to contribute to healthy living environment,

to contribute to the food safety,

to participate to climate change effects lowering and social adaptation,

to safeguard safe delivery of drinking water,

to decrease the consumption of natural resources,

to contribute to the efficient use of natural resources.

Only very marginal part of the reviewed NKSs added among key challenges:

to safeguard safe infrastructure,

to safeguard energy supply and distribution.

These challenges identified in the interviews were discussed on 3 national workshops as

well. The participants underlined interlinks among the challenges and necessity to deal with

them in an integrative way.

All above listed topics are in the harmony with the Research and Innovation Strategy for

Intelligent Specialisation of the Slovak Republic (RIS3 SK) containing the research priorities

for Slovak Republic up to 2020. Among them the topics related to the environment

protection, use of natural resources, clean energy e.g.:

Efficiently usable energy resources.

Environment, agriculture, food safety.

In addition following other issues/challenges were addressed by reviewed NKSs.

Alternative challenges/topics, deepening above listed societal challenges/topics

Protection of agricultural soil against urbanization and degradation.

Efficient use of soil (agricultural, forest) and development of sustainable soil management reflecting potentials and limits in the use of soil as well as balance between economic and environmental interests.

Integration of the soil-water-land management with the link to ecosystem services and stress on their implementation in the practice and on their benefits / underline the economic dimension as well.

Implementation of preventive measures for soil – water – land protection tackling the danger of natural disasters (not only climate change).

The quality of surface water and groundwater for irrigation

The quality of drinking water and the impact of sources of pollution from agricultural activities (especially nitrogen compounds and pesticides) to the quality of drinking water




37

Removal of environmental loads through remediation of geological environment and water

Lowering the negative effects of urbanisation, urban sprawl regulation, monitoring of the industrial production effects – absence of scientific knowledge on their impacts on public health.

Implementation of the measures lowering the contamination of soil, water and other elements of environment, including the measures limiting the land degradation, sediments contamination.

Limitation of the landscape and biotopes fragmentation, lowering the effects of the fragmentation, further development of green infrastructure.

Revitalisation of degraded ecosystems and brownfields.

Use of abandoned land for quick growing trees.

Realisation of effective environmental education and growth of social awareness.

Sustainable development of cultural landscape and historic landscape structures.

R&D in the field of plastic materials with the stress on recycling and bio-degradation.

Supplementing alternative important challenges linked to the land/soil management

(not properly reflected in Slovakia for longer time)

Soil ownership transformation, necessity to implement the land consolidation.

Research capacity building at the national and regional level with relevant scientific profile for soil, water, and land management.

Systematic state support for research-practice cooperation including technology transfer related to the land – soil – water issues.

Access to the information, up-date of the information, and increasing the level of detail harmonisation of scientific assessment methods related to land and soil.

Integrated information system about elements and factors of environment usable for self-government and local state governmental bodies.

For self-government and local state governmental bodies to develop measures of soil protection for an effective territorial development.

Redevelopment of the practical education on agriculture in the primary and secondary schools as the tool of redevelopment of the awareness about value and relationship to the soil.

A common problem was appointed by many NKSs – the topic “land-soil-water-sediments”

needs systematic research (e.g. monitoring, long term effects assessment after the

implementation of respective intervention) and not only set of short-term projects as it is

reality across the levels incl. EU level. In many cases the research is more reacting on

pressing problems than preparing the background for systematic prevention oriented

measures.




38

2.3.2 Topics / research needs to include in the SRA

Based on the contributions from the reviewed NKS and workshops outputs following

issues seems to be priority for EU supported research as the part of SRA:

SR-1: Sustainability and sustainable management of natural resources – optimization

of soil functions

Despite broad available knowledge the research focused on update and practical efficient

respond on current challenges is needed. This research has to be integrative across different

disciplines as a precondition for overstepping the limits of sectoral approaches.

Natural capital

Research on and development of intensive and ecologic acceptable production

approaches in agricultural and forest country including the aspects of cultural

landscape quality development

Land management

Approaches, methods and instruments of the productive land protection against its

transformation towards build-up areas.

The effect of ownership transformation in the land management (specific Slovak

issue)

Access to the information about land, soil including up-date of information systems

and their content, harmonization of the methods, structure of the data.

Why and for whom is this relevant topic? What aspects are parts of the issue?

This topic, although locally based has transnational and transdisciplinary dimension. The

absence of proper responds on current challenges would have trans generation effects.




39

SR-2: Improvement of the reflection of scientific knowledge into institutional

instruments of land management incl. economic instruments

Although, there is joint environmental policy in the EU, a lot of agreements, strategies and

supportive schemes, but the state of art of the environment is not satisfying. The question is,

where is the problem, to which extend are the policies and schemes effective, where are

barriers and problems with their implementation, how can be the problems eliminated. This

should be the object of the research as well addressing following topics:

Land management

Transfer of knowledge into environmental practice, assessment, mechanisms,

transfer barriers in reaction to the fact, that the scientific knowledge, providing the

notions about the dangerous development is not reflected in the policies op to the

moment of disasters and not rewardable changes. The question is where are barriers

for transfer of know how into the policies and strategies, and which measures can

support barrier less transfer.

Net impacts

Assessment of long term policies – analyses of policies and assessment of their

effects, contributions to the environmental quality, efficiency, factors of efficiency.

Assessment of the effects of supportive EU schemes for environment, efficiency of

the financial investments, methods and indicators for the assessment of their

efficiency.


The subjects addressed are all levels of responsible governance and government

structures, as well as other stakeholders e.g. land users, owners, enterprises as well as

citizens. The topic has transnational dimension.




40

SR-3: Sustainability of water resources and of quality of water management services

In relation to the sustainability of water resources and of quality of water management

services in agricultural, forest and urban landscape the topic of assessment of global and

regional factors influencing of development of water balance is from the point of view of

NKSs crucial:

Natural capital

Assessment of global (incl. climatic) and regional factors influencing the development

of water balance in the territory and predicting of environmental and economic effects

due the proposed/implemented measures.


Absence of proper approaches could bring higher price for water for citizens, industry,

negatively influence water based biotopes and eco-system services. The addresses

regarding the research outputs are responsible subjects for water management/supply and

land users.

SR-4: Approaches, methods and instruments of the lowering and elimination of

natural hazards and risks (floods, forest calamites, forest fires, geodynamic

hazards and erosion)

The growing exposure to external shocks increases important of innovative approaches

methods and instruments of assessment and proper reflection of hazards and risks in

decision making and implementation of the development interventions.

Land management

Risk assessment on drought and foods as the effects of climate change and anthropic

changes in the landscape.

Development of the mitigation measures to lower abiotic and biotic damages on

forest.

Integration of interrelations between land-soil-water and sediments in the frame of

integrated management.

Net impacts

Risk assessment on land use/soil use in relation the quality of water.


This topic, although locally based has transnational dimension. The subjects addressed

are all levels of responsible governance and government structures, as well as other

stakeholders e.g. land users, owners, enterprises as well as citizens. The topic has

transnational dimension. The absence of proper responds on natural risks and hazards

would have trans generation effects. Responsible are state government in the collaboration

with self-government, professional and research institutions but the users of the land and

natural resources as well.




41

SR-5: Risk assessment in regard to land use effects on the quality of natural

resources

Reflecting the dynamics of changes in the land use, lack of coordination among requests

from different human activities, conflicts in the land use itself and with protection and

sustainable use of natural resources following topic are of special importance:

Land management

Research on changes in the landscape, spatial optimalisation of the land use.

Ecologic optimal functional landscape organization.

Development of the model of integrated landscape management based on system

approach to the landscape as an integration of natural resources in respective space.

Net impacts

Strategic assessment of the quality and efficient use of landscape, environmental

loads, potentials, and limits – development of assessment methods, incl. risks and

degradation processes assessment.


This topic, although locally based has transnational dimension. The subjects addressed

are all levels of responsible governance and government structures, as well as other

stakeholders e.g. land users, owners, enterprises as well as citizens. The topic has

transnational dimension. The absence of proper responds on natural risks and hazards

would have trans generation effects. Responsible are state government in the collaboration

with self-government, professional and research institutions but the users of the land and

natural resources as well.




42

SR-6: Mapping and assessment of natural capital, mapping, assessment and

revitalization of degraded landscape ecosystems and the landscape ability to

provide ecosystem services

In relation to the efficient use of landscape the research on mapping and assessment

methods of natural capital and on revitalization approaches of the degraded ecosystems are

of special importance. This includes:

Natural capital

Mapping and assessment of landscape and biotopes` fragmentation with special

focus on urban landscape and biodiversity in urban landscape and methods of its

protection and revitalization.

Land management

Approaches, methods and instruments for efficient implementation of the ecosystem

services concept into the practice of landscape integrative management incl. spatial

planning with the stress on their benefits (as economic category as well).

Net impacts

Approaches, methods and instruments for revitalisation of degraded landscape

ecosystems incl. brownfields.

Approaches, methods and instruments of multifunctional assessment and use of

ecosystem services incl. the monitoring and assessment of threats between particular

ecosystem services (e.g. production versus protection).


This is relevant topic for all levels as it is important to have an overview about the natural

capital, spatial distribution of the landscape ability to provide ecosystem services. This is

important for planning and management, implementation of green economy, revitalization

measures in the responsibility of the local, regional, national governance and government

bodies and EU structures, professional organizations and institutions.




43

SR-7: Lowering of negative effects of urbanization, urban sprawl regulation,

consequent monitoring of industrial production effects.

Important challenge for research represent urbanisation, urban sprawl as well as negative

effects of intensive industrial production. In this context the NKSs under lined following

research fields:

Natural capital

Approaches, methods and instruments for identification of complex caring capacity of

urban landscape and for monitoring and provision of the data on environmental

quality incl. the risks accessible for all stakeholders in real time.

Land management

Approaches, methods and instruments for green infrastructure revitalisation,

development and maintenance.

Approaches, methods and instruments for lowering and prevention of the negative

impacts on human health.

Net impacts

Approaches, methods and instruments of assessment of urban sprawl and its

limitation and mitigation of negative effects.


This is relevant topic for all levels as it is important to have an overview about the natural

capital, spatial distribution of the landscape ability to provide ecosystem services. This is

important for planning and management, implementation of green economy, revitalisation

measures in the responsibility of the local, regional, national governance and government

bodies and EU structures, professional organisations and institutions.




44

SR-8: Modeling of the global megatrends effects

In the context of global economic, social and environmental interlinks, global competition,

global effects like biodiversity degradation, not efficient use of natural resources, climate

changes special attention should be payed to the 11 megatrends listed by EEA in 5 clusters

decision making for long-term perspective in European environment. Special focus should be

oriented to the following questions and topics:

Land management

How to lover growing pressure on ecosystems, degrading biodiversity, destruction of

natural ecosystems?

How predict and lower the effects of global urbanization on landscape, its structure,

character, visual parameters with the goal to protect the value of cultural landscape?

Net impacts

Development of new identification methods for environmental loads, for the

assessment of synergies (sediments-water-soil-air) and transport of chemicals

between respective mediums.

What are the effects and development trajectories of different consumption models in

regard to their environmental foot prints?

Integrated modelling of global climate change effects.

Integrated research on the effects of the transformation from industrial to post-

industrial knowledge based society and economy on land, soil, water and landscape

transformation/use and management.

Integrated research on the effect of long-distance migration on land, soil, water and

landscape demands and management.


This is relevant topic for all levels as it is important to have an overview about megatrends

effects to be expected, especially about the spatial distribution of the effects on ecosystems

and their services. This is important for planning and management, implementation of green

economy, revitalisation measures in the responsibility of the local, regional, national

governance and government bodies and EU structures, professional organisations and

institutions.




45

SR-9: Restoration of contaminated soils by heavy metals and organic pollutants as a

consequence of anthropogenic activities

Using of agricultural soils and novel approaches of intensification of agriculture focusing

on healthy food and higher demand for organic products is necessary to increase the quality

of ecological soil functions.

Natural capital

Assessment of opportunities for using of unutilised agricultural land.

Land management

Setting of appropriate measurements for effective management of ecological farming.

Approaches of renaturation for degraded soil systems (heavy metals, pesticides,

salted soils etc.).

Implementation of traditional techniques for viticulture management focusing on

suburban zones.

Net impacts

Identification and quantification of anthropogenic factors.


Renaturation/remediation of degraded soil systems for farming will increase land use

functions. These processes will be positive effect for the whole human society.

Implementation of traditional agricultural techniques (including viticulture management)

will be positive for local and regional economics. The topic has transnational dimension. The

absence of ecological agriculture should have significant trans generation effects.

Responsible are state government in the collaboration with self-government, professional

and research institutions but the users of the land and natural resources as well.




46

Relevant documents relating to the management of environment, water, soil, rural

landscape…/

Strategy for flooding protection and control to the year 2020 (2013).

Adaptation Strategy of the Slovak Republic on Adverse Impacts of Climate Change

(NAS) (2014).

Slovak Operational Programme Quality of Environment (2014).

Slovak Rural Development Programme (2014).

Environmental Strategy Slovakia to the year 2030 (2015-2016) - Under preparation

(the first draft is prepared for reviewing. Elaborated by the Ministry of Environment

SR. The document will include a separate chapter on climate change and air

protection).

EU Framework Directive on Water.

Landscape convention.

Biodiversity convention.

Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks.

UN Framework Convention of Climate Change.

Directive on Environmental Quality Standards.

National Strategy of Sustainable Development.

National sectoral strategies.

Thematic strategy for soil protection.




47

Relevant documents relating to the science and research agenda

Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialization for Slovak Republic for

period 2014-2020 / Stratégia výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú špecializáciu

Slovenskej republiky: oblasť špecializácie pôdohospodárstvo a životné prostredie

vrátane moderných chemických technológií šetrných k životnému prostrediu.

Strategy of applied research in the agriculture/ Stratégia aplikovaného výskumu

v pôdohospodárstve.

Agricultural research in the Programme Horizon 2020 / Pôdohospodársky výskum

v Programe Horizont 2020.

Concept of advisor education for programming period 2014-2020 / Koncepcia

vzdelávania poradcov na programovacie obdobie 2014-2020.

European innovation partnership / Európske inovačné partnerstvo.

Action plan for implementation of the Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart

Specialisation for Slovak Republic for period 2014-2020 / Akčný plán implementácie

Stratégie výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú špecializáciu SR na roky 2014 – 2016

marec 2015, Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu SR a Ministerstvo

hospodárstva SR (Action Plan for implementing research and innovation strategy for

smart specialization SR for the years 2014 - 2016 in March 2015, the Ministry of

Education, Science, Research and Sport SR and the Ministry of Economy SR).

Up-date of the long-term strategy for state science and technology policy up to 2015 /

Aktualizácia dlhodobého zámeru štátnej vednej a technickej politiky do roku 2015

(Stratégia Fénix) (Updating long-term state science and technology policy to the year

2015).

Operational program reserch and innovations 2014-2020 / OPERAČNÝ PROGRAM

VÝSKUM A INOVÁCIE 2014-2020, 2014, Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a

športu SR (OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

2014-2020, 2014, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports SR).

Research and innovations strategy for smart specialisation of Slovak Republic - RIS3

/ Poznatkami k prosperite - Stratégia výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú

špecializáciu Slovenskej republiky (RIS3 SK). 13. november 2013 (Knowledge to

prosperity - research and innovation strategy for smart specialization of the Slovak

Republic).

Zákon č. 172/2005 o organizácii štátnej podpory VaV a o doplnení zákona č. 575/200i

Z. z. o organizácii činnosti vlády a organizácii ústrednej štátnej správy.

Zákon č. 185/2009 Z. z. o stimuloch pre VaV a o doplnení zákona č. 595/2003 Z. z.

o dani z príjmov v znení neskorších predpisov.




48

Other relevant documents

a) Information basis for integrated land management

KEZIMK

Integrated spatial information system - NIPI

b) Landscape-ecologic and spatial framework for integrated land management

Land-use planning documents incl. landscape ecologic plans

.

c) Sectoral documents

Landscape and nature protection documents;

Comasation documents;

Forest management documents.

Water management documents, planning documents for catchments areas;

Flood protection documents;

Others (e.g. protection and use of minerals, tourism...)

d) Documents and instruments of the environmental protection

Integrated prevention and pollutions control (IPKZ)

SEA/EIA documents




49

2.4 Experiences regarding connecting science to policy/practice

2.4.1 Use of knowledge

The NKSs understand the knowledge as a product of higher form of learning. The majority

of NKSs lined the knowledge to scientific activities. Summarising the answers form the

respondents we can formulate following definitions:

The knowledge is a form of output from scientific or research activities obtained by

basic or applied research, which can enrich following research activities, can be used

in the practice, and can contribute to the quality of life. Knowledge is developed

based on previous knowledge and on learning via deduction or observing. Knowledge

can be validated by following research. Acceptance of new knowledge is evidence

based.

Information oriented towards getting data to solve the problems.

Findings obtained based on data collected by defined methodology and assessed

based on clear criteria and methodologies.

Scientific knowledge is answer to the question formulated by research based on

societal demand or individual demand representing capital the value of which is given

by the effects from its use.

The use of the scientific knowledge is different depending from the position of the

stakeholders. Majority of NKSs use scientific knowledge for improvement of their work, for

research, publishing of scientific papers, practical projects and problem solutions, for

education. More than 80% of the NKSs use the knowledge as the basis for deriving new

knowledge and professional work. App. 50% of NKSs uses the knowledge in the projects and

NKSs from academic environment for educational purposes as well. The representatives

from SMEs and NGOs use the knowledge as a basis for practical solutions in the field of

environment, the representatives from governance structures predominantly for decision

making. The cyclic character of knowledge has been underlined – the knowledge is used for

deriving new knowledge.

Similarity to the knowledge as well the knowledge sources are different, mostly the project

work was appointed as the source not only by academicians but NGO and SMEs as well.

Important role in gaining the knowledge the “good practices” are playing. In the age of ICT

important role play not only conferences and printing materials but the web pages, data-

bases providing quick access to the sources. Up to 70% of the NKSs appointed own

colleagues as the source of knowledge. Absolutely marginal is the role of media mostly

oriented to commercial purposes and science is not the focus for them or marginal.

The NKSs use the newest knowledge very often up to average, some of them even every

day. The main factor of their use is the awareness about their existence, accessibility and

technical and personal capacities in respective institution/NGO/SME/enterprise. There were

the availability and the accessibility of proper data-bases defined as important problems.

Event the data-bases created with the support or fully financed from the public budget have

not free access for researchers. The problem is routine in dealing with the data too. Lower

accessibility of knowledge was indicated by the sectoral research institutions and SMEs.

Involvement of researchers and scientists into the formulation of research and science




50

policies is very week. Although they use to be invited to be the members of the respective

committees, their voice is taken into account only marginally. From the point of view of

researchers and scientists the topic of land /soil, water and landscape is only marginally

represented in science and research policies (e.g.RIS3) in Slovakia because of the

dominance of technology-oriented topics. The opinion of the policies authors is in

contradiction with this view expressed in the interviews as well during the workshops. The

policies authors underlined the fact, that the policies mirror state of art of the knowledge in

the World and in Slovakia and disponibility of intellectual capital in Slovakia for coming

planning period.

2.4.2 Possibilities to set the agenda

Scientists feel to have enough information to influence the right orientation of the

research and science policies and are ready to offer them to the decision makers, but

they feel lack of interests from their side. The scientists try to provide their knowledge

for the practice, but the transfer process is not properly functioning (more than 50% of

NKSs have very negative experience).

Positive experience was identified in the case of environmental policy in 1990-2006

where the transfer from science toward the practice was rather successful (e.g.

landscape planning in the building code, in the act of nature and landscape

protection, territorial systems of ecologic stability as a part of land consolidation

plans, methodologies for landscape planning documentations, new law on EIA/SEA

and methodologies in this field, sustainable development strategies at national,

regional and local levels, Strategy for biodiversity protection and its Action plan...).

National strategy for sustainable development was fully in the hands of professionals,

as well as the development of Regional and Local Agenda documents was broadly

supported by the scientists in many cases in the position of activists. As the problem

was appointed their implementation efficiency, many of measures based on newest

knowledge has not been implemented in the practice. The same for Biodiversity

Protection Strategy and its Action Plan.

National strategies/agendas do not mirror specific needs of academic community in a

proper way, in many cases their adoption is only formal with no practical effects, and

the measures are moved from year to year, from document to document. Slovak

Republic has got many of documents elaborated on high professional level, but their

implementation is formal, the realisation of the included measures use to be moved

from year to year, many of them ignored and stay only in the declarative position.

Many of documents are elaborated only as they are required by international

agreements. The policies are influenced by lobbing and interests of specific interest

groups.




51

Different opinion was represented by the representatives responsible for policies`

development stressing that the broad professional discussion created the base for the

formulation of the Concept for science and research policy for 2014 – 2020 with the

perspective up to 2030. The Ministry for education, science and research and youth

established workshops under participation of the representatives form universities,

Slovak Academy of Science, industry, enterprises and associations. The outputs

were analytical documents mapping the needs, possibilities and infrastructure in

respective fields of science and research (the representatives of land use and

management were not included) and proposal for priorities for the period 2014-2020

up to 2030 mirrored in the RIS3 KS. The most progressive way how to transfer the

outputs form the R&D into the practice seems to be the grant scheme for enterprises

with the stated support. Regarding the knowledge transfer towards practice was the

new law on state grants for enterprises No. 185/2009 Z. z. About the stimulus for

science and research mentioned. But this is only marginally relevant for land use and

management.

NKSs assessed the National RIS3 SK strategy as not complex document defining

state science and research strategy. Such documents absent at the national as well

as regional levels (e.g. program declaration of the government, state programs). The

measures included are not sufficient to solve the problems. Research and science

are in long term period underfinanced. 0, 5 % GDP is very low proportion (average in

EU 27 is 1,82 % GDP) and the advised level by EC is 3 %. (See Annex III). The

research institutions have to find own resources (can nut use own budget from state

subventions) to co-finance EU projects although the outputs from the projects are not

targeted to them but to the public sector. Private sector is not properly motivated to

finance research and development, the basic research is marginalized even by the

state supporting technology oriented research. The public sector at the lover than

national level is absolutely passive in supporting the research although there are

many specific needs at the local and regional level, they do not have adequate

financial resources to finance research.

The final phase of the research – model solutions, pre-production is under-financed




52

2.4.3 Science – policy – practice

Majority of the NKSs participating at the survey as well as on national workshops was

involved in the formulation of scientific research, realisation of scientific research and

synthesizing/wrapping-up of scientific knowledge. They perceived their participation as

satisfactorial up to neutral, in one case as negative. Their participation contributed to the

formulation of strategic documents, methodologies and their transfer into the new norms.

New software for modelling of natural processes, the database of the natural environment

parameters as the basis for management and decision making processes are the products

as well.

The NKSs consider as necessary:

to support the knowledge transfer into the practice,

to respect the law,

to formulate the goals for strategic research and consequently fill them up across

election periods,

to support SMSs,

to support consortia of research institutions and subjects from the practice,

to increase involvement of the representatives from outside of academic society on

the science and research policy formulations,

to strengthen integrative approach to environmental problems,

to coordinate scientific potential and avoid duplicities,

to be more consequent in the control of national and regional projects and their

effects for the practice,

to support consequently environmental education across different levels of

educational system.

Indicators for the assessment of scientific and research performance are based on Main

Science and Technology Indicators OECD. As crucial indicators for monitoring the efficiency

of the research are appointed following indicators:

Number of SCI publications.

Number of SCI quotations.

Number of patents.

Inventions and utility models.

Discoveries.

Licences.




53

These indicators are not proper for the environmental research, they do not reflect specific

needs of regional and local environmental research (e.g. transfer towards regional/local

practice). They are mostly quantitative and not qualitative, not oriented towards effects and

usability of the outputs.

As the indicators showing added value are mostly used following indicators:

New partnership between academic and business sector.

New research-educational working place.

New enterprise under participating of researchers.

New research and development projects based on outputs from the project.

Derived projects for international competition.

New research infrastructure.

New incubators oriented towards certain economic sector.

New science and technology park.

New certified laboratory.

Accreditation of new PhD study program.

Education of new researchers, popularization of the research outputs and

mobility.

Societal effect of the research on the protection of particular natural resources is low.

There are available knowledge, methodologies, and models focused on efficient and

sustainable use of nature, natural resources, land-use, modelling the natural risks and

hazards, scenario building but their usability in the practice is low. The NKSs indicated only

30% rate of usability of the research outputs in the practice.




54

2.5 National and transnational funding schemes

2.5.1 Funding schemes and possibilities for research funding

There are different sources national and international used as the sources for financing

the research in Slovakia. Most important financial resources are represented by:

Resources from local and regional authorities.

National resources KEGA, VEGA, APVV, sectoral ministries.

European, H2020, Interreg, Norway fund, Swiss fund, Life, URBACT, V4 fund.

International Future Earth, MAB UNESCO, IPBES.

As the international sources are very competitive and connected with huge administrative

load of work, big pressure is at the national level of grant schemes, but the amount of

finances in national schemes is very low and the grants do not allow serious research in

(time and sources requiring projects) the field of living environment, especially in the VEGA

scheme. Successful realisations of the EU projects hamper administrative barriers,

bureaucratic procurement processes not fitting to the scientific services or

infrastructure procurement, not proper models of financing (based on hours spent and

not on effects), need of co-financing e.g. in INTERREG projects as well as late

reimbursement of the expenditures, discrimination of some research units in the calls

(structural funds) e.g. not eligibility for researchers from Bratislava although they

have the same precondition, if not worser, than others in SK. Due the international

lobismus underdeveloped from Slovak representatives in Brussels Slovak researchers

do not have the same access to the H2020 and other European schemes.

Added value and synergies among different sources can be improved by the measures

listed by the NKSs as follows:

to invest more public resources in strategic research,

to finance basic research form the state budget across the sectoral division of

research unites,

to co-finance applied research via sectoral ministries and their institutions,

to increase the proportion of private resources via proper supportive measures,

to eliminate not correct lobbing from European as well as national level,

to guarantee fear professional assessment of the projects, to eliminate complicated

administration,

to define proper assessment criteria for the project outputs, to focus on outputs and

not on formal aspects like number of hours spent etc.,

to eliminate un-equal payment for equal performance at the European level,

to coordinate thematic research, to avoid duplicity, to support collaboration and

coordination,

to support transfer from the research to the practice in the not business oriented

fields.




55

2.5.2 Gaps in financial resources for research

NKSs reflected the situation with following advices:

to improve research coordination especially inter-sectoral coordination,

priority on the research with clear linked to the identified or expected problems in

society,

to prioritise research focused on environmental effects,

to avoid financing of the research by the firms, individuals, NGO without proper own

human capital, laboratories and technologies,

to stop negative development in financing the research,

to improve awareness about the role of science and research in society,

to support integrative instead of particular research (60% of NKSs identified problem

that even integrative projects proposals end with sectoral research projects in reality),

to create proper legal/institutional framework for integrative financing of the research,(

to create agency for integrated research support),

to create proper fair environment for European competition based on equal payment

for equal performance.




56

2.6 Other remarks made by interviewees and national workshops

The existence of the R&D fields not properly covered by existing mechanism of financing

has been broadly discussed during the workshops showing different opinions of participants

as well as official documents on science and research development. The position of the

authors of respective policies speaks about adequate sources for all relevant societal topics.

In opposite, the researchers, users and NGOs representatives insists, that the

interdisciplinary research in the field of living/natural environment is not sufficiently covered.

The progress in this field has been achieved mostly from the point of view of particular

problems and fields. Their integration is the challenge for next period.

The reviews as well as the analyses of official strategic documents show, that there is no

any national priority directly dealing with the land use. The closest is the priority Agriculture

and living environment, but this is a part of technology oriented set of topics with the stress

on progressive technologies in agriculture and food production and production of healthy

food. For researchers in the field of land use there is the only possibility to apply for the

grands from international programmes (e.g. H2020, EEA, …) supporting interdisciplinary

topics related to integrated land management or climate change adaptation.

In the Action Plan for implementing research and innovation strategy for smart

specialization SR for the years2014 – 2016, approved in March 2015 (the Ministry of

Education, Science, Research and Sport SR and the Ministry of Economy SR) the goal to

interlink research and innovation with immediate problems of societal practice is mentioned.

As, by the national priorities, not sufficiently covered very important topics are especially

appointed integrate landscape management, integrated catchment area management,

ecologic bearing capacity, eco-system services and first of all their economic expression.

The level of the implementation of integrative approach is different across Europe; in

Slovakia the field of regulations and institutional arrangements is covered. Under the

pressure there are some attempts to lover the standards. The sectoral approach is still

dominant, and this problem is difficult to solve as this is linked to strong economic interests.

In the same time, the necessity to finance research on specific national topics is discussed

several years, the regional reflection of global topics incl.

The same problem is in the research. This is on one hand because of much more easy

understanding of analytical and integrative aspects, on the other hand because of much

more easy possibility to present and to assess the outputs / e.g. access to respective more

scientific field than interdisciplinary oriented scientific journals. This leads to low ability to

subordinate particular analytical research to integrative overlapping scheme.

“Societal” demands accept integrative approach only in the conceptual level. In real use of

landscape are sectoral, group of individual interest dominant. The research has not to follow

this approach, not to build on it. In this context, the financing musses not follow these

schemes. In the policies as well institutional arrangements in the field of research and

executive land management the integrative approaches have to be implemented (there are

preconditions in the SR, only the realisation is not adequate). This should be mirrored in the

financing schemes as well, including interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.




57

This is opinion shared by the majority of 60% of respondents and workshops participants

underlining that even supported integrative projects earlier or later end in the sectoral

approaches. As examples can be listed the Integrative regional operational programs

prepared on integrative principles, but ending with the support of particular sectoral projects

as sewage systems building, regeneration of yards in the neighbourhoods, elements of green

infrastructure etc. Both groups of NKSs – users and policy makers share opinion, that the

Slovak Republic finances a lot of programs without priorities and with not proper financial

amounts. Very week is support of environmental projects by private sector. Not satisfying is

the situation of the involvement into the FP and HORIZON2020.

This is partially due the handicaps of Slovak teams (language, administration, capacities

to prepare the applications), but the main reason is strong lobbing, preferences on “big

players”, presence of the representatives of them among evaluators and in Brussels of more

or less the same organisations. The main administrative load is on the shoulders of

academicians – scientists and researchers teams, starting with the monitoring of information,

via administration of the project proposals up to administration of the projects themselves. In

many environmentally oriented projects are not represented the partners from all affected

countries, which is the precondition for successful efficient solutions as the problems do not

know administrative territorial borders (e.g. Danube Strategy). Insufficient is complemental

research at the regional and local level which needs support from the state level.

Summarising it is necessary to underline long term problem in Slovakia – very low

proportion of the GDP flowing to the R&D in the comparison with the EU, Eurozone (see the

table below)

Source: Eurostat

The participation of private sector on financial support for R&D is very low, current legal

environment as well as mechanism are not enough motivating for them. Only seldom the

private sector feel the need to establish permanent flow of information form the R&D

institutions to them. The proportion of the private sector on financing the R&D in the SR in

comparison with EU and Eurozone shows following table:

Source: Eurostat




58

Positive aspects of the development so far can be from the perspective of NKSs

defined as follows:

Definition of the needs of interdisciplinary approach in the field of protection and use

of natural resources.

Implementation of available knowledge into the legal framework and partially in

planning and programming practice, harmonisation of the law with the EU.

Elaboration of several strategic documents under the participation of professionals,

researchers and scientists.

Availability of the knowledge for the policy makers and broad public.

Support of larger environmentally oriented projects.

Involvement of broader spectrum of stakeholders into the research projects (limited).

Development of planning documents for catchment areas and for flood prevention

reflecting recent knowledge.

Negative aspects of the development so far can be from the perspective of NKSs

defined as follows:

Sustaining formal approaches to the problems of sustainable development, much

more declarative than practical strategic documents and their implementation.

Low level of coordination among subjects responsible for implementation of policies

and strategies starting with EU ending with local level, incl. research activities, data

collections, sectoral policies and their effects.

Gap between available knowledge and real life due the lack of capacities, finances,

awareness on the side of the subjects responsible for implementation of the policies

across different levels of government and governance.

Not sufficient activation of different disciplines into the integrated research,

dominance of natural sciences, lack of complex approaches including social,

economy and technology sciences, lack of methodologic, terminological and

instrumental coordination.

Lack of financial resources for integrative research and lack of institutional support for

such research on land-soil-water-landscape issues.

Insufficient awareness about need of new knowledge, need of integrative research on

land-soil-water-landscape issues, marginalisation of environmental research against

technology research.




59

To face the above mentioned problems and to use efficiently potentials the NKSs see the

necessity:

to improve the financing incl. activation of private resources, to provide stabile

environment for systematic research,

to solve the problem of co-financing by research institutions of the research in which

the public sector is the target sector for the outputs,

to improve preconditions for involvement of Slovak scientists in international research,

to establish fair and equal payments for equal performance in EU funded projects,

to support interdisciplinary and complexity of related disciplines in respective research

projects,

to improve communication among subjects in the research arena and decision

makers in the field of R&D,

to apply new criteria for the assessment of the research projects with the focus on

research outputs quality and not on formal administration of the projects like spent

time reporting,

to support investments into the knowledge implementation in the private as well as in

the public sector,

to improve accessibility of the data,

to support local and regional research,

to develop state programmes for research support in national specific fields.

It is necessary to avoid:

Preference the sectoral approaches to the research on land-soil-water-landscape

topics.

To accept formal assessment instead of assessment of the quality and quantity of

outputs.

To prefer specific research topics instead of cross-oriented topics with high relevance

for practice.

Contradicting interests in research.

Subjective assessment of the projects and negative lobbing influence.




60

2.7 Annexes

Annex Ia: NKS interviews in Slovakia (Ruzomberok, Bratislava, Zvolen)

Date of

interview Organisation Interview funder

end

user

knowledge

provider

Nat.reg.loc.

authority

Univ./

research

inst

SME

/consultant

business

&

industry

NGO network other soil sediment water land use-

management

17-08-15 Catholic Univ.

Ruzomberok Maria Kozova 1 1 1 1

27-09 -

15

Ministry of

education,

science...

Peter

Plavcan 1 1 1 1 1 1

17-08-15 Catholic Univ.

Ruzomberok

Jaroslav

Demko 1 1 1 1 1

11-09-15

Slovak Land

Office in

Liptovsky

Mikulas

Metod Simun 1 1 1 1

11-09-15

District Office

in Liptovsky

Mikulas

Katarina

Uhriková 1 1 1 1

14-09-15

Research

Institute for

Soil Science

and

Conservation

in Bratislave

Jaroslava

Sobocka 1 1 1 1

18-09-15

Distric Office

in

Ružomberok

Milan Filo 1 1 1 1 1

01-10-15 MONDI, SCP,

Ruzomberok

Milada

Macholova 1 1 1 1

02-10-15 City Office in

Ruzomberok

Michal

Slastan 1 1 1




61

08-10-15

Water

Research

Institute in

Bratislava

Radoslav

Bujnovsky 1 1 1 1

13-10-15

Catholic

University in

Ruzomberok

Eduard

Bublinec 1 1 1 1

29-10-15

Slovak

Environmental

Agency in

Zilina

Slamkova

Marta 1 1 1 1 1

03-11-15

Water

Company in

Ruzomberok

Jan Bednarik 1 1 1

03-11-15

Urban Forest

in

Ruzomberok

Milan Slavka 1 1 1 1

09-11-15

Regional

Public Health

Office in

Banska

Bystrica

Daniela

Borosova 1 1 1 1

15-11-15

Laboratory

monitoring of

air quality,

ENVItech

Trencin

Marcel

Ochodnicky 1 1 1 1

21-09-15 Biosfíra Frantiešk

Petrovič 1 1 1 1 1

10-11-15 MŠ 1 1

14-09-15 Esprit, s.r.o. Dušan

Kočický 1 1 1 1 1 1




62

17-09-15 Krajina 21 Tatiana

Hrnčiarová 1 1 1 1

21-09-15

Európska

Akadémia

vied a umení

Štefan Luby 1 1 1

17-09-15 Regioplán Peter Mederly 1 1 1 1 1

15-09-15

Ústav

krajinnej

ekológie SAV

Dagmar

Štefunková 1 1 1 1

30-09-15 SPU Nitra Ján Supuka 1 1 1 1

20-09-15 SPU Nitra Ľuboš Jurík 1 1 1 1

21-09-15 UKF Nitra Juraj Hreško 1 1 1 1 1 1

27-09-15 MAB

UNESCO

Július

Oszlányi 1 1 1 1 1 1

31-08-15 Zuzana

Gúziová 1 1 1 1

08-10-15 VÚVH Radoslav

Bujnovský 1 1 1 1

02-10-15 GÚ SAV Milan

Lehotský 1 1 1 1 1 1

09-09-15 STU Zvolen László Miklós 1 1 1 1 1

25-09-15 Magistrát

Bratislava 1 1 1 1

03-11-15 PriF UK Vladimír

Kováč 1 1 1 1

04-11-15 GI PriF UK Michal Kováč 1 1 1 1

03-11-15 PriF UK Alexandra

Šimonovičová 1 1 1 1

05-11-15 PriF UK Zlatica

Ženišová 1 1 1 1

06-11-15 PriF UK David Krčmář 1 1 1 1

11-9-15 Cetip Veronika

Gežík 1 1 1 1




63

18-9-15 ŠOP SR Saxa Andrej,

Černecký Ján 1 1 1 1 1 1

18-9-15 ŠOP SR Kadlečík Ján 1 1 1 1 1 1

10-9-15 SAŽP Pastorek

Peter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

17-09-15 Štátne lesy Mika

Ľuboslav 1 1 1

16-9-15 ÚEL SAV Ľubica

Ditmarová 1 1 1 1 1

21-9-15 SEVS Jozef Minďáš 1 1 1

16-9-15 Univerzita

Zvolen

Rastislav

Šulek 1 1 1 1 1

04-9-15 MŽP Rastislav

Rybanič 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7-10-15 SvF STU Viliam

Macura 1 1 1

7-10-15 EURAS Lubomir

Jamecny 1 1 1 1




64

Annex Ib: NKS questionnaire template

Slovak version of the questionnaire

INtegrated Spatial PlannIng, Land Use and Soil Management Research AcTION

(INSPIRATION)

Výskumné opatrenia pre integrované priestorové plánovanie, využívanie zeme

a manažment pôdy

Dobrý deň,

oslovili sme Vás v rámci projektu INSPIRATION financovaného Európskou Komisiou, ktorý je

zameraný na formuláciu strategického plánu výskumu a vylepšenie systému financovania v

oblastiach výskumu využitia pôdy, vody, manažmentu územia, ochrany prírody a krajiny. V

rámci projektu bude oslovených 20 respondentov za každú krajinu EÚ (územní plánovači,

odborníci na pôdu, vodu, lesy, manažéri, politici, členovia záujmových organizácií). Tento

rozhovor je dôležitý pre získanie poznatkov o aktuálnom stave vývoja výskumu v našej

krajine ako vstupný materiál do EU výskumného programu. Vďaka rozhovoru máte aj vy

možnosť ovplyvniť ďalšie smerovanie strategického plánu výskumu a systému jeho

financovania. Výsledky rozhovorov budú prediskutovane na workshopoch, ktoré sa na SR

budú konať v mestách Bratislava, Zvolen a Ružomberok v priebehu októbra (Bratislava: 09.

10. 2015, Ružomberok: 12. 10. 2015 a Zvolen 16. 10. 2015) a budú využité pre správu

Európskej komisie ako podklad pre tvorbu strategického plánu výskumu v problematike

efektívneho a udržateľného využitia pôdy a územia.

Prikladáme otázky pre rozhovor:

A. Informácie z rozhovoru

Krajina: SLOVENSKO

Meno INSPIRATION výskumníka:

Dátum rozhovoru: .............................

B. Predstavenie projektu a jeho cieľov (pozrite si predchádzajúce dve úvodné strany)

C. Základné informácie o respondentovi:

1. Meno respondenta (NKS – National Key Stakeholders, Národné kľúčové zainteresované

organizácie/záujmové skupiny) s ktorým sa realizoval rozhovor:

2. Inštitúcia:

3. Postavenie v inštitúcii:




65

4. Inštitúcia v ktorej pracujete (viac možných odpovedí) je :

- Národný - regionálny - lokálny orgán

- Univerzita / výskumný ústav

- Malý alebo stredne veľký podnik (MSP, t.j. < 500 zamestnancov) / konzultant

- Obchod a priemysel

- Mimovládna organizácia

- Zástupca reťazca / vedúci

- Iné, špecifikujte:…

5. Oblasti špecializácie vo vzťahu k problematike efektívneho a udržateľného využitia pôdy /

územia (viac možných odpovedí)

- Pôda

- Voda

- Sedimenty

- Urbanizmus/priestorové plánovanie

- Krajinný dizajn (tvorba krajiny)

- Pôdohospodárstvo

- Iné, špecifikujte

6. Financuje vaša organizácia externý výskum v problematike efektívneho a udržateľného

využitia pôdy / územia (realizovaný mimo vlastnej inštitúcie)?

- Áno. Prosíme spresniť:

- Nie

D. SRA – Strategický plán výskumu

7.A Aké spoločenské výzvy považujete za dôležité vo vzťahu k problematike efektívneho

a udržateľného využitia pôdy / územia?

- Prispieť k potravinovej bezpečnosti a bezpečnosti potravín;

- Zaistiť bezpečné dodávky pitnej vody;

- Zabezpečiť dodávku a distribúciu energie;

- Znížiť spotrebu primárnych surovín a zdrojov, Zabezpečenie efektívneho využívania

prírodných zdrojov.

- Participovať na zmierňovaní klimatických zmien a sociálne prispôsobenie;

- Prispievať k zdravému životnému prostrediu;

- Zabezpečiť bezpečnú infraštruktúru

7.B Pokiaľ je možné, aké ďalšie, iné alebo alternatívne výzvy v problematike efektívneho

a udržateľného využitia pôdy/územia považujete za dôležité?




66

8. Na základe vlastných skúseností aké konkrétne témy (potreby skúmať) by mali byť

zahrnuté do strategického plánu výskumu v problematike efektívneho a udržateľného

využitia pôdy/územia?

Prosíme pre každú Vami uvedenú tému skúste povedať:

8.A. - Kto bude ovplyvnený?

- Kto je zodpovedný?

- Je táto téma témou Vašej organizácie/oddelenia?

- Je to len národná téma, alebo zdieľaná s ďalšími krajinami?

- Kde sme teraz a kde chceme byť o X rokov (výhľadovo/cieľovo) pri riešení tejto témy?

(či vidí nejakú zmenu, podnikli sa kroky na zlepšenie?)

- Ako môžu byť novo získané poznatky efektívne využívané?

8 B. Prosíme pre každú Vami uvedenú tému skúste definovať jej prioritu (Akú prioritu v rámci

strategickej agendy výskumu by ste jej pridelili):

1. Vysoká priorita

2. Čiastočná priorita

3. Neutrálna priorita

4. Nízka priorita

5. Žiadna priorita

- Ak sa s touto problematikou nič neurobí, aké budú podľa Vás následky do budúcna?

8.C Prosíme skúste definovať, kto chce/ resp. kto by mal financovať výskumu

v nasledujúcich oblastiach?

- hodnotenie pôdneho fondu

- potenciálna produktivita územia a pôdy

- dopyt po pôdnych/krajinných zdrojoch, import a export

- konkurencia vo využívaní územia (konflikty využívania krajiny)

- koncepty pre identifikáciu a kvantifikáciu relevantných dopadov

- výskum nástrojov na zabránenie / minimalizovanie dopadov ( spätná väzba na

rozhodovací proces)

- možnosti inovatívnych technológií pri využívaní územia

- zdrojovo-orientované systémy hospodárenia s pôdou

- regenerácia pôdy

- sanácia pôdy a spodnej vody

9. V súvislosti s témami, ktoré ste uviedli ako dôležité z Vášho pohľadu ako témy pre výskum

problematiky efektívneho a udržateľného využitia pôdy/územia v predošlej otázke (8A)

prosíme uveďte:




67

9.A. Aké sú dôležité / relevantné dokumenty, výskumné programy a agendy podporujúce

tieto témy v súčasnosti?

9.B. V súvislosti s týmito agendami a programami: Aké sú časové možnosti ovplyvniť ich

agendy (je možné ich ešte ovplyvniť, je možné ich ovplyvniť v ich behu? Periodicky?)

9.C Poskytujete krátkodobé granty vo vzťahu k problematike efektívneho a udržateľného

využitia pôdy / územia. Ak áno, aké?

9.D Využili ste vy/vaša inštitúcia tieto krátkodobé granty vo vzťahu k problematike

efektívneho a udržateľného využitia pôdy / územia? Ak áno, aké?

E. Veda-politika-vzájomné vzťahy (SPI)

10. Ako by ste definovali “vedecké poznatky”?

11. Na čo používate vedecké poznatky vo svojej práci?

12. Aké zdroje (vedeckých) poznatkov využívate vo svojej práci?

- vedecké články

- konzultanti

- správy

- kolegovia

- skúsenosti / príklady v mojej vlastnej krajine

- skúsenosti / príklady v zahraničí

- denná tlač (noviny)

- televízia

- konferencie, účasť na výskumných projektoch

- dáta (databázy)

- webové stránky, ako napr.:

- iné, uveďte:

13. Do akej miery využívate najnovšie/nové vedecké poznatky pri svojej práci?

14. Do akej miery ste schopný ovplyvniť (a ako) smerovanie (nastavenie) vedeckých

výskumných politík/agend vo vašej krajine?




68

15. Do akej miery vaše národné politiky/agendy odzrkadľujú vaše špecifické potreby a

priority?

16. Do akej miery boli využité najnovšie vedecké poznatky pri formulovaní existujúcich

politík vo vašej krajine?

(ak ste v pozícii zodpovedných za tvorbu politík - keď plánujete politiky, do akej miery Vás

ovplyvňuje výskum/výsledky výskumu? Využívate/ aplikujete do tvorby nových politík

výsledky najnovšieho výskumu s cieľom vylepšiť existujúce politiky?)

Nasledujúca otázka 17 je iba pre respondentov, ktorí sú k mimo akademického sektora

(priemysel, riadenie...)

17. Boli ste už niekedy zapojený do: (odpovedáte za inštitúciu, možnosť výberu viacerých

odpovedí)

a. formulácie otázok vedeckému výskumu?

b. robiť vedecký výskum (teda do spoluvytvárania poznatkov)?

c. syntetizovanie/integrácia vedeckých poznatkov, napr. preniesť vedu do tvorby

politiky, alebo zlepšiť ekonomiku?

Ak áno prosíme posúďte

- Ako úspešné /uspokojujúce to bolo, stupnica od 1-5?

1. Veľmi úspešný/uspokojujúci

2. Úspešné/uspokojujúce

3. Neutrálny

4. Neúspešný/neuspokojivý

5. Veľmi neúspešný/neuspokojivý

- Čo sa podarilo?

- Čo by sa dalo zlepšiť?

- Čoho sa vyvarovať ?

- Ďalšie poznámky?

Nasledujúca otázka 18 je pre respondentov, ktorí majú prehľad o tejto téme (týka sa napr.

tých, ktorí financujú výskum)




69

18. Aký spoločenský dopad má vedecký výskum v oblasti efektívneho a udržateľného

využitia pôdy / územia na Slovensku (do akej miery sú výsledky výskumu aplikované do

praxe, politík,...?)

Prosíme skúste tento dopad aj zhodnotiť

- Ako úspešné/uspokojivé je to na stupnici 1-5?



3. Neutrálny



- Aké indikátory sú používané pre hodnotenie spoločenského dopadu? (počet článkov

s impact factorom, množstvo podaných a schválených projektov,...)

- Čo vidíte pozitívne v SR v rámci tejto problematiky?


- Čoho sa vyvarovať ?


19. Ktoré národné dokumenty zamerané na interface/prepojenie medzi politikou

(myslí sa politika v oblastiach praktického života ako napr. politika životného prostredia,

politika bytová a pod.) a vedou poznáte alebo môžete ich odporučiť? (RIS) – Regionálna

inovačná stratégia, resp. (RVIS) Regionálny výskumná a inovačná stratégia alebo podobné

dokumenty, ktoré sa vypracovali pre celé Slovensko.

F. Financovanie

20. Aké skúsenosti a očakávania zo systému financovania (verejné/súkromné) máte vo

svojej oblasti, ktoré môžu byť užitočné pre budúci výskum využívania územia/manažmentu

územia a súvisiacich vplyvov na systém pôda/sedimenty/voda:

- Vnútroštátne / regionálne?

- Národné?

- Európske [napr. H2020, Interreg, multi-laterálne ako sú iniciatívy spoločného plánovania]

- Medzinárodné? [Belmont Forum, nadácie a pod.]

21. Ako zvýšiť pridanú hodnotu rôznych finančných zdrojov (t.j. dosiahnuť multiplikáciu) pre

výskum, ktorý prispieva k potrebám EÚ a národným potrebám (najmä pre požiadavky

výskumu a Inovácií pre krajinu a SSW systém: pôda – sedimenty – voda?)




70

22. Existujú oblasti výskumu a inovácií (R&I) pri ktorých ste si vedomí že nie sú (v

súčasnosti) zastrešené súčasným mechanizmom financovania a ktoré potrebujú nový/iný

spôsob financovania ako v súčasnosti majú?

23. Integrované prístupy (nutné na riešenie konkrétnych spoločenských výziev spojených s

užívaním a hospodárením s územím a súvisiacich vplyvov na systém pôda – sedimenty –

voda) sú zvyčajne veľmi komplikovane financovateľné lebo reagujú na rôzne spoločenské

výzvy – potreby, ktoré sú sledované rôznymi zodpovednými subjektmi.

Máte návrhy na vylepšenie integrovaného systému financovania, do ktorého je zapojených

viacero oblastí/sektorov a je ťažké rozhodnúť o alokovaní finančných zdrojov jednotlivými

subjektmi samostatne? (Akým spôsobom by systém alokovania finančných zdrojov mohol

byť transparentnejším, jednoduchším?

24. Na základe predchádzajúcich skúseností z praxe a podľa vášho názoru: ako najlepšie

nastaviť/upraviť možnosti systému financovania strategického výskumu tak, aby boli

naplnené spoločenské požiadavky a vedomosti získané realizáciou strategickej agendy

výskumu v oblasti efektívneho a udržateľného využívania územia/pôdy boli naozaj

využívané?

- Ako by ste hodnotili doterajšie využitie poznatkov z výskumu v tejto oblasti na stupnici 1-5?



3. Neutrálny



- Čo sa podarilo/čo vidíte ako pozitívne?


- Čoho sa vyvarovať / nerobiť?


G. Vaše ďalšie doplnenia (poznámky, námety, príklady)




71

H. Ukončenie rozhovoru

Ďakujeme, že ste sa zúčastnili tohto rozhovoru. Želáte si byť ďalej informovaný o ďalších

výsledkoch projektu INSPIRATION?

1. Chceli by ste navrhnúť ešte niekoho pre takýto rozhovor?

2. Navrhovali by ste ešte nejakú inú otázku/tému, ktorá by mala byť zaradená do

informácie pre Európsku komisiu?

3. Akú informáciu ako spätnú väzbu si želáte:

Oficiálnu adresovanú inštitúcii

Neformálnu, napr. na Váš email

Neželáte si spätnú väzbu

Celú správu

Sumár zo správy

Národnú správu

Sumár z rozhovorov

Pokiaľ si želáte, aby Vám boli zasielané informácie o priebehu projektu INSPIRATION,

vyplývajú z toho pre Vašu inštitúciu výhody ako vytvorenie nových kontaktov, prehľad

o aktuálnej situácii výskumu a systéme financovania nielen v SR ale aj v ostatných krajinách

EÚ a aká bude ďalšia Agenda strategického výskumu.

Výsledky rozhovoru budú zverejnené za inštitúciu, nie za osobu (pokiaľ si neželáte inak).

Veľmi pekne Vám ďakujeme za Váš čas, ktorý ste venovali vyplneniu vybraných otázok

dotazníka.

Za riešiteľský kolektív, ....

Podrobné informácie o projekte INSPIRATION získate na stránkach:

http://www.inspiration-h2020.eu

http://www.spectra-perseus.org/index.php/Projects/INSPIRATION-H2020


http://www.spectra-perseus.org/index.php/Projects/INSPIRATION-H2020




72

Annex Ic: NKS hand-out: INSPIRATION interview at a glance

See Chapter1, Annex II




73

Annex Id: R&I funding options collated for Slovakia

R&I funding options collated for

country: Slovakia

Name*

Research and

Innovation funder**

What and/or whom do they

fund?*** More info****

Regional

1 Fund for rural development

Private/public

subjects, members

of consortium

expertise for self-governance

subjects and NGO in the

region Banska Bystrica (and

other regions), only transfer of

know-how. Miestny rozvoj je

vedený komunitou (CLLD),

resp. metódou LEADER.

http://rozvojvidieka.webnode.sk/o-nas/,

http://nsrv.sk/index.php

2

Small environmental funds

established by large companies

e.g. Orange, Slovnaft, banks, non-

profit funds e.g. EkoPolis

Foundation and other (in limited

scope also municipalities and

regional self-government

Private parties and

non-profit sector

small environmentally and

community oriented mainly

implementation oriented

projects and transfer of know

how

https://www.nadaciaorange.sk/sk/granty-

komunitny-rozvoj-teraz-realizujeme-sanca-pre-

vas-region-2015 , http://www.ekopolis.sk/tlacove-

spravy-1/nadacia-ekopolis-a-slovnaft-vyhlasuju-6-

rocnik-grantoveho-programu-zelene-oazy.html,




74

National

3 KEGA / Cultural and Educational

Grant Agency

State via Ministry of

Education, Science,

Research and Sport

of the SR

small applied research linked

to the education only

https://www.minedu.sk/kulturna-a-edukacna-

grantova-agentura-msvvas-sr-kega/

4 Environmental Fund State via Ministry of

Environment

very limited scope on chosen

environmentally oriented

activities directly for chosen

institutions or in competition

www.envirofond.sk

5 VEGA /(Scientific Grant Agency


Education, Science,

Research and Sport

of the SR and Slovak

Academy of Science

small research grants for

universities and Slovak

Academy of Science

https://www.minedu.sk/vedecka-grantova-

agentura-msvvas-sr-a-sav-vega/

6 APVV / Slovak Research and

Development Agency


Education, Science,

Research and Sport

of the SR

research and development

promotion in all research

fields, including international

research cooperation.

www.apvv.sk, http://www.apvv.sk/grantove-

schemy/multilateralne-vyzvy




75

European/International

7 Horizon 2020 (and before EU

Framework Programmes).

EU and private

investments

EU Research and Innovation

programme (2014 to 2020).

Open for consortia, with

different parties on different

topics (e.g. societal

challenges)

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

8 JPI - Joint Programming Initiatives

Member States

commit to Joint

Programming

Initiatives (JPIs)

open for consortia of the

contributing member states

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/joint-

programming_en.html

9 Interreg

Financed by the

European Regional

Development Fund

helps regions of Europe share

knowledge and transfer

experience to improve

regional policy

http://www.interreg4c.eu/

10 ERANET - European Research

Area Network

instrument under

Horizon 2020

instrument to support public-

public partnerships in their

preparation, establishment of

networking structures, design,

implementation and

coordination of joint activities

as well as topping up of single

joint calls and of actions of a

transnational nature

http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/era-net-in-

horizon-2020_en.html

11 LIFE + instrument under

Horizon 2021

EU's financial instrument

supporting environmental,

nature conservation and

climate action projects

throughout the EU

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/




76

12 European structural funds EU

Structural Funds play a

substantial role to help all

regions build research and

innovation capacities

corresponding to their

situation and priorities:

Operational Programme

Quality of the Environment,

Research and Innovation,

Education...

http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_

en.cfm?pg=structural_funds

13

COST - European Cooperation in

Science and Technology

EU

European framework

supporting trans-national

cooperation among

researchers, engineers and

scholars across Europe.

http://www.cost.eu/

14 Norway Fund / EEA - Iceland,

Liechtenstein, Norway Fund

Norway Grants /

EEA Grants -

Bilateral Fund at

National Level aimed

at the

implementation of

activities for

strengthening of the

bilateral relations

between the Slovak

Republic and the

Donor States

(Norway,

Liechtenstein and

Increasing competitiveness of

green enterprises and green

job creation. The Programme

also focuses on adaptation to

climate change issues, the

protection of water retention

capacity of soil, forest and

meadows; restoring forest

ecosystems, increased soil

erosion protection and

revitalising waterways;

improving the definition of

flood plains and areas at disk

during flooding; and informing

http://eeagrants.org/Where-we-work/Slovakia




77

Iceland). the public about flood

prevention measures and

preparedness.

15 Future Earth

the International

Council for Science

(ICSU), the

International Social

Science Council

(ISSC), the Belmont

Forum of funding

agencies, the

Sustainable

Development

Solutions Network

(SDSN), STS

forum, the United

Nations Educational,

Scientific, and

Cultural Organization

(UNESCO), the

United Nations

Environment

Programme (UNEP),

the United Nations

University (UNU),

and the World

Meteorological

Organization.

international research platform

providing the knowledge and

support to accelerate our

transformations to a

sustainable world

http://www.futureearth.org/who-we-are




78

16

'Intergovernmental Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services' (IPBES)

United Nations

mechanism recognized by

both the scientific and policy

communities to synthesize,

review, assess and critically

evaluate relevant information

and knowledge generated

worldwide by governments,

academia, scientific

organizations, non-

governmental organizations

and indigenous communities.

http://www.ipbes.net/index.php/about-ipbes

17 Man and the Biosphere

Programme (MAB) UNESCO

develops the basis within the

natural and social sciences for

the rational and sustainable

use and conservation of the

resources of the biosphere

and for the improvement of

the overall relationship

between people and their

environment. It predicts the

consequences of today’s

actions on tomorrow’s world

and thereby increases

people’s ability to efficiently

manage natural resources for

the well-being of both human

populations and the

environment.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-

and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/




79

18 Swiss/Slovak Cooperation

Programme

Swiss and Slovak

governments

grant scheme to support

projects of Slovak social and

environmental NGOs through

so called Small projects and

The Block Grant for

Partnership Support is aimed

at supporting partnership

projects of Slovak and Swiss

institutions through so called

Joint projects.

http://www.ekopolis.sk/en/programs/grant-

programs/swiss-slovak-cooperation-program.html

19 Revolving funds

Different funds.

Examples:

some European

structural funds, e.g.

JESSICA (Joint

European Support

for Sustainable

Investment in City

Areas)

Improving flood resilience and

raising public awareness of

flood prevention,

Strengthening cross-border

cooperation with Ukraine

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/fu

nding/special-support-instruments/jessica/

20

"International Co-operation in

Education and Research - Central,

Eastern and South Eastern

European Region Programme

German government

via Federal Ministry

of Education and

Research (BMBF)

selected projects following

defined priorities incl.

environmental topics

Environment and Sustainability

(http://www.bmbf.de/en/502.php )

- Framework Programme Research for

Sustainability "FoNa"


- The Earth System

(http://www.bmbf.de/en/917.php ) , Life Sciences


- Health Research

(http://www.bmbf.de/en/gesundheitsforschung.php

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/special-support-instruments/jessica/

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/special-support-instruments/jessica/




80

) , Economic sciences for sustainability


21 European subsidies EU

e.g. for agricultural sector,

European rural development

programs

not for research, only in some cases

implementation

22 Visegrad Fund Visegrad countries

short and long term grands

supporting collaboration

among Visegrad countries in

the culture, research and

other activities. The purpose

of the fund is also to facilitate

and promote the development

of closer cooperation among

citizens and institutions in the

region as well as between the

V4 region and other countries,

especially in the Western

Balkan and Eastern

Partnership regions.

www.visegradfund.org

23 European Union Strategy for the

Danube Region

The area covered by

the EU Strategy for

the Danube Region

stretches from the

Black Forest

(Germany) to the

Black Sea (Romania-

Ukraine-Moldova)

Financed through European

Structural and Investment

funds (ESIF)

http://www.danube-region.eu/




81

International

1 none mentioned

*

Include full name and (if available) acronym of the R&I

funding option

**

Include name of the R&I funder/funding institute or

authority

*** Detail which type of programme, projects, partners or infrastructures they are funding

**** Include weblink and/or other reference for more information on this R&I funding option




82

Annex II: Documents used for the SK desk study

1. Akčný plán implementácie Stratégie výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú špecializáciu SR

na roky 2014 – 2016 marec 2015, Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu SR a

Ministerstvo hospodárstva SR (Action Plan for implementing research and innovation

strategy for smart specialization SR for the years 2014 - 2016 in March 2015, the Ministry

of Education, Science, Research and Sport SR and the Ministry of Economy SR)

2. Aktualizácia dlhodobého zámeru štátnej vednej a technickej politiky do roku 2015

(Stratégia Fénix) (Updating long-term state science and technology policy to the year

2015)

3. OPERAČNÝ PROGRAM VÝSKUM A INOVÁCIE 2014-2020, 2014, Ministerstvo školstva,

vedy, výskumu a športu SR (OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH AND

INNOVATION 2014-2020, 2014, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports

SR)

4. Otvorene o problémoch výskumu na Slovensku, rozhovor s prorektorom UK pre

vedeckovýskumnú činnosť a doktorandské štúdium prof. RNDr. Petrom Moczom, DrSc.

Publikovaný v časopise Naša Univerzita, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, október

2015 (Openly about the problems of research in Slovakia, interview with Pro-Rector for

scientific research and doctoral studies prof. Mgr. Peter Moczo, PhD. Published in the

journal Our University, Comenius University in Bratislava, October 2015)

5. Poznatkami k prosperite - Stratégia výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú špecializáciu

Slovenskej republiky (RIS3 SK). 13. november 2013 (Knowledge to prosperity - research

and innovation strategy for smart specialization of the Slovak Republic)

6. Regionálna výskumná a inovačná stratégia Žilinského kraja 2014+ Akčný plán, 31. 5.

2015, VTP Žilina (Regional Research and Innovation Strategy 2014+ Žilina region, Action

Plan)

7. Regionálna výskumná a inovačná stratégia Žilinského kraja 2014+, február 2015, VTP

Žilina (Regional Research and Innovation Strategy 2014+ Žilina region)

8. Správa o stave výskumu a vývoja za rok 2014, Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a

športu SR, Bratislava, september 2015. (Report on the state of research and

development for the year 2014, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport SR,

Bratislava, September 2015)

9. Zákon č. 194/2014, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 172/2005 Z. z. o organizácii štátnej

podpory výskumu a vývoja a o doplnení zákona č. 575/2001 Z. z. o organizácii činnosti

vlády a organizácii ústrednej štátnej správy v znení neskorších predpisov (Act no.

194/2014 amending and supplementing Law no. 172/2005 Coll. on organization of state

support for research and development and amendment of Act no. 575/2001 Coll. the

organization of government activities and the organization of central state administration

as amended)

https://www.vedatechnika.sk/SK/VedaATechnikaVSR/Legislatva/2014-z194_novela_172-2005_o_podpore_VaV.pdf






83

10. Zákon č. 23/2015, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon č. 185/2009 Z. z. o stimuloch pre

výskum a vývoj a o doplnení zákona č. 595/2003 Z. z. o dani z príjmov v znení

neskorších predpisov (Act no. 23/2015 amending and supplementing Law no. 185/2009

Coll. Incentives for research and development and amendment of Act no. 595/2003 Coll.

on income tax, as amended)

11. Audit výdavkov rozpočtu verejnej správy na výskum a inovácie v rámci Slovenskej

republiky, MINISTERSTVO FINANCIÍ SR Číslo: 07/02/2015 Materiál na rokovanie Rady

vlády SR na podporu exportu a investícií, Bratislava 17. júna 2015

12. Najvyšší kontrolný úrad Slovenskej republiky 3 Súhrnná správa o výsledku kontroly

financovania vedecko-výskumnej činnosti zo zahraničných zdrojov na vybraných

vysokých školách a univerzitách, Bratislava, október 201

13. https://www.vedatechnika.sk/SK/Financovanie/Stranky/StatneZdroje.aspx




84

Annex III:

Critical comment to the state science and research policy management

The governmental board for science, technology and innovation should be the stabile

professional advisory coordination board of the government for science, technology

and innovations incl. the innovations in the field of forestry, wood production,

biotechnologies, food industry, building materials, and innovations in the health care

and agriculture,

but it is a board directly created from the government members incl. the prime

minister, and ministers. The only representative of the science is the president of the

Slovak Academy of Sciences.

Kritický komentár k riadeniu štátnej vedecko-technickej politiky

Rada vlády SR pre vedu, techniku a inovácie (ďalej len „rada“) by mala byť podľa

štatútu stálym odborným, poradným, iniciatívnym a koordinačným orgánom vlády pre

oblasť vedy a techniky a oblasť inovácií vrátane inovácií v oblasti produkcie a

spracovania dreva, lesníctva, biotechnológií, potravinárstva, stavebných výrobkov a

inovácií v zdravotníctve a pôdohospodárstve.




85

Ide však o orgán priamo prepojený a riadený vládou a rezortmi (t. j. vláda radí sama

sebe), keďže orgánmi rady sú predseda rady a predsedníctvo rady. Predsedom rady

je predseda vlády Slovenskej republiky. Predsedníctvo rady tvoria predseda rady a

podpredsedovia rady. Podpredsedami rady sú minister školstva, vedy, výskumu a

športu Slovenskej republiky, minister hospodárstva Slovenskej republiky,

podpredseda vlády a minister financií Slovenskej republiky; z vedeckých ustanovizní

je v predsedníctve iba predseda Slovenskej akadémie vied.

Source:

https://www.vedatechnika.sk/SK/VedaATechnikaVSR/Stranky/Riadenie%C5%A1t%C3%A1tn

ejatechnickejpolitiky.aspx (overené 4. 11. 2015)

Kritický komentár k Správe o stave výskumu a vývoja za rok 2014 (1)

Vice-rector of the Commenius University the largest and oldest university in Slovakia

provided broader comment (in addition to the review) to the Report on the state of art of the

research and development in the SR in the year 2014. The main comments and critical

points are included in the national report. Here the quotations from his statement.

Prorektor UK pre vedeckovýskumnú činnosť a doktorandské štúdium prof. RNDr. Petrom

Moczom, DrSc. Sa na základe otázok MŠVVŠ SR v rámci dotazníka k vyjadril veľmi

otvorene a kriticky K Správe o stave výskumu a vývoja za rok 2014. Z jeho názorov

vyberáme tie podstatné, ktoré sa priamo dotýkajú projektu INSPIRATION, najmä otázky

financovania vedy a výskumu a spolupráce vedeckých inštitúcií s podnikateľskou sférou a

praxou:

Absencia dôležitých nástrojov a podfinancovanie vedy a výskumu

Na konci roka 2013 schválila vláda Stratégiu výskumu a inovácií pre inteligentnú

špecializáciu Slovenskej republiky (ďalej „RIS3 SK“). RIS3 SK nie je komplexným

dokumentom charakteru formulovania vednej politiky štátu. Takýto dokument

Slovensku zreteľne chýba. Absencia je dôsledkom aj rastúcej falošnej ilúzie vo

vzťahu k slobodnému základnému výskumu a výskumu vyžiadanému praxou.

Opatrenia v dokumente nie sú dostačujúce pre rozvoj vedy a techniky.

V politike výskumu a vývoja na Slovensku absentujú viaceré dôležité nástroje. Chýba

vedná politika štátu už na úrovni dokumentu a adekvátna realizácia správne

formulovaného programového vyhlásenia vlády.

Neskutočné podfinancovanie Agentúry na podporu výskumu a vývoja (APVV)

spôsobuje, že APVV prestáva byť nástrojom podpory vedy a výskumu. Chýba

rozumná väzba medzi kvalitou a financovaním univerzít a vysokých škôl. Chýba

systémové opatrenie pre post-doktorandov. Celková podpora nie je dostatočná.

Poskytovaná podpora nie je rozumne štruktúrovaná a hierarchizovaná.

Výskum na Slovensku je dlhodobo významne podfinancovaný – približne 0,5 % HDP

je absolútne málo a aj relatívne málo vzhľadom k výdavkom v ostatných krajinách

(priemer v 27 krajinách EÚ je 1,82 % HDP) a vzhľadom k 3 % doporučeným EÚ.




86

Výsledky, dôsledky a aplikácie slobodného základného výskumu a bádania priniesli

viac technického a spoločenského pokroku a finančného zisku ako výskum na

základe priamej objednávky z priemyslu a poľnohospodárstva. Rastie rozpor medzi

mierou podielu výsledkov základného výskumu na každodennom živote jednotlivcov i

celej spoločnosti na jednej strane a mierou toho, ako si verejnosť, podnikatelia a

politici tento podiel uvedomujú.

Chýba dostatočné stabilné (predvídateľné) inštitucionálne financovanie. Chýba

dostatočné stabilné grantové financovanie (prostriedky na prístroje, softvér, služby,

mzdy pre doktorandov a post-doktorandov). Zbytočne budú vybudované nové

infraštruktúry a vedecké parky zo štrukturálnych fondov, ak nebudú dostatočné

grantové prostriedky na výskum v týchto zariadeniach a ak v nich nebudú pracovať

špičkoví vedci napríklad preto, lebo odídu do zahraničia.

Na financovaní výskumu sa nedostatočne podieľa súkromný sektor. Súkromný sektor

sa primárne zaujíma o krátkodobé finančné aspekty viac ako o perspektívnu a

zmysluplnú spoluprácu.

Výrazným a bolestivým problémom je verejné obstarávanie. Reálne znamená

zvýšenie nákladov o 20 %, v prípade štrukturálnych projektov až o 50 – 100 %.

Verejné obstarávanie je v súčasnej podobe kontraproduktívne aj z pohľadu časovej a

administratívnej náročnosti.

Návrhy ako zlepšiť spoluprácu vysokých škôl a verejných organizácií výskumu a

vývoja s podnikateľskou sférou

Treba začať formulovaním vednej politiky za účasti najlepších vedcov

reprezentujúcich základný a aplikovaný výskum rešpektujúci slobodu bádania,

výskum zameraný na priemysel, výskum zameraný na spoločenské výzvy, výskum

zameraný na bezpečnosť a ochranu štátu, národne a regionálne orientovaný výskum.

Podnikateľská sféra by sa mala orientovať nielen krátkodobo – finančne ale skutočne

aj v prospech spoločnosti a dlhodobej perspektívy Slovenska. Na to je potrebné, aby

úlohe, významu a nutnosti všetkých druhov výskumov porozumela.

Source: Otvorene o problémoch výskumu na Slovensku, rozhovor s prorektorom UK pre

vedeckovýskumnú činnosť a doktorandské štúdium prof. RNDr. Petrom Moczom, DrSc.

Publikovaný v časopise Naša Univerzita, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, október 2015

(Openly about the problems of research in Slovakia, interview with Pro-Rector for scientific

research and doctoral studies prof. Mgr. Peter Moczo, PhD. Published in the journal Our

University, Comenius University in Bratislava, October 2015)




87

Comparation with the EU member states

Porovnanie so zahraničím

Expenditures for research and development 2010-2013 in % from the GDP

Výdavky na výskum a vývoj, 2010–13 (% HDP). Source/ Zdroj: EUROSTAT.

Source: Správa o stave výskumu a vývoja za rok 2014, Ministerstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu

a športu SR, Bratislava, september 2015. (Report on the state of research and development

for the year 2014, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport SR, Bratislava,

September 2015)




88

Critical comment to the state of art of human resources in the research and

development, unbalanced financing of basic and applied research and lacking behind

interrelations between science and practice

Kritický komentár k stavu ľudských zdrojov vo výskume a vývoji, financovaniu vedy

a výskumu, nevyváženosti financovania základného a aplikovaného výskumu

a zaostávaniu prepojenia vedy s praxou

Based on the data from the Up-date of the long term strategy of state science and

technology policy (Stratégia Fénix – source: OECD, Science, Technology and Innovation

Scoreboard, 2009) Slovakia is the country with largest decrease of the number of

researchers in private sector between1997 and 2007, average 7,5 % yearly. Only in 3

countries was decline and average growth in OECD countries was 3,5 %. Slovakia is one of

5 countries with total decline of the number of employees – 0.5 % yearly. Here some

examples of the comparation of the Slovakia and other OECD countries.

Podľa údajov uvedených v Aktualizácii dlhodobého zámeru štátnej vednej a technickej

politiky do roku 2015 (Stratégia Fénix – zdroj: OECD, Science, Technology and Innovation

Scoreboard, 2009) Slovensko je krajina s najväčším poklesom počtu výskumníkov v

súkromnom sektore za roky 1997– 2007, priemerne 7,5 % medziročne. Iba v troch krajinách

tento počet klesal, priemerný medziročný rast v krajinách OECD je cca 3,5%. Navyše sme

jedna z piatich krajín, kde za roky 1998 – 2008 poklesol podiel všetkých ľudí zamestnaných

vo VaV – ročne priemerne o 0,5%. Počet samotných vedcov síce rástol, ale iba tempom 2%

za rok, čo je 7. najnižšia hodnota spomedzi krajín OECD. Vybrali sme niekoľko konkrétnych

príkladov zaostávania Slovenska v porovnaní s krajinami OECD.




89




90




91




92

Source: Aktualizácia dlhodobého zámeru štátnej vednej a technickej politiky do roku 2015 (Stratégia

Fénix) (Updating long-term state science and technology policy to the year 2015)




93


Deliverable D2.5 – National reports with a review and syntheseis of the collated information


94

INSPIRATION acknowledges the received funding from the

European Community's HORIZON2020 Framework Programme

under grant agreement no 642372