Pētniecība līdzsvarotai attīstībai , ziņojums EK , 2007

8/14/2019 Ptniecba ldzsvarotai attstbai , ziojums EK , 2007

1/10

1

Research for Sustainable Development:How to enhance connectivity?

Report of an EC Workshop, Brussels, 7-8 June 2007

1 Rationale for the meeting

On 7 and 8 June, 27 representatives of research agencies in Member States and AssociatedCountries (further simply countries), involved in financing or managing research forsustainable development, met in Brussels (for representatives, see Annex 1). On the agendawas the issue of connectivity in research for sustainable development in general, and of thisresearch in the context of the 7 th Framework Programme in particular.

The renewed Sustainable Development Strategy (renewed SDS) recognizes that the mainchallenge is to change the non-integrated approach to policy-making. This calls for the needto " break the link between economic growth and environmental degradation ", and at the sametime to promote " a democratic, socially inclusive, cohesive, healthy, safe and just society withrespect for fundamental rights and cultural diversity ".

All of these issues raise questions of complexity, integration, and inter- andtransdisciplinarity, which are the key characteristics of sustainable development, both at thepolicy-level and research-level. The aim of the workshop was threefold:

1. To share information of experiences between MS&AC.2. To build a comparative perspective, from which EU policy can learn.3. To explore opportunities for improved connectivity in and through the 7 th Framework

Programme.

In preparation, countries were asked to submit brief overviews of the current state of affairs intheir sustainable development policy (and the Strategy for Sustainable Development), currentefforts in Research for Sustainable Development (RSD), as well as issues of concern inrelation to connectivity problems. These overviews were distributed among the participantsand were used to formulate the tasks for the workshop more precisely.

2 Account of the workshop

The workshop was opened with a welcome from Manuela Soares, Director for environmentalresearch of DG RTD. She reminded us of the goals of the meeting and stressed theimportance of finding concrete ways to deal with complexity in integration, rather than to getstuck in diagnostics or, as she put it: We want to move beyond the curtain of acknowledgingcomplexity and enacting it.

The workshop started with a quick tour de table, in which participants introduced themselvesand their expectations. These included a common approach to bridge the gap between policy-makers and researchers, and how to use FP7 according to sustainability. While recognizingsuch needs in the quest for sustainable development, there were other common expectationssuch as: how to learn from each others experiences, how to strengthen process orientedresearch, to have concrete information and recommendations, to create a platform where like-minded people could gather regarding sustainability research, and how to strengthen theinvolvement of stakeholders.


2/10

2

The topic of the workshop was introduced by Nicole Dewandre (Head of Unit, Dir I, DGRTD) with an explanation of the tools and possibilities for RSD in FP7, stressing thatsustainability is a prominent theme in FP7 and that there are a lot of opportunities to addressconnectivity problems in FP7. Nevertheless, she also expressed the wish of DG RTD todevelop new instruments to develop connectivity further, and turn this high "sustainabilitypotential" into concrete reality.

As an extra input for our thinking on connectivity issues, Prof. Dr. Wiebe Bijker (Univ. of Maastricht, the Netherlands) provided a keynote presentation on interdisciplinarity. Prof.Bijker emphasised practical lessons for interdisciplinarity, focusing the challenge on theintegration of three major styles of research among the sciences: the natural sciences andengineering; the quantitative social sciences; and the qualitative/interpretative social sciencesand humanities. His main recommendation was that interdisciplinary works best whenfacilitated, rather than enforced. Interdisciplinarity is risky business for scientists (givenevaluation structures and publication possibilities) and stands the best chance when it isacknowledged that science requires strong disciplines as a basis for interdisciplinaryengagements. Since interdisciplinarity is risky business, Bijker argued, researchers should beallowed to make mistakes and to shape their interdisciplinary cooperation themselves.

Based on the written contributions of the participants, Willem Halffman (University of Amsterdam) presented a synopsis of the written contributions to the workshop, signalling thekinds of connectivity problems that are raised. This synopsis was followed by fourcontributions from participants that had been selected as typical examples of the wide rangeof concerns among participating countries, of stages in the development of sustainabilitypolicy and RSD, while covered small countries as well as big ones from different regions inthe Union: the UK, the Slovak Republic, Cyprus, and Sweden.

The UK presentation described how previously unconnected RSD programmes are now beingintegrated in an interdisciplinary context, such as in programmes on climate change, energy,and land use. Apart from more traditional instruments of science/policy integration, such ascommissioned research by government departments and the obligation by research councils toinclude end users, the presentation also addressed some innovative new methods. These

include a PhD placement scheme and the Sustainable Development Research Network thatinvolves researchers, policy makers, and other professionals in SDR.

The contribution from the Slovak Republic reminded us of the definition issues in sustainabledevelopment, but showed that for the Slovak Republic, the core of the concept is thebalancing of economic development with the protection of nature, natural and cultural-historical resources, and the environment. The presentation described the implementation of sustainable development policies and the installation of the Government Council forSustainable Development, in the face of strong institutional and cultural obstacles.

The presentation from Cyprus showed how smaller countries approach SDS and try to solveconnectivity issues, such as through the activities of the Research Promotion Foundation andnational policy plans such as the Strategy for the Environment. Cyprus has tried to improve

connectivity between science and policy by setting up an advisory committee on research,technology and innovation and a research council, by organising public debates, and bystimulating dissemination through end-user involvement.

The case of Sweden presented an interesting contrast of a country with a longer tradition andhigher degree of institutionalisation of sustainable development policies, such as in theSwedish Environmental Advisory Council. Following on from advising the Swedishgovernment on Sustainable Development policy, the Council took up the task of developing apaper with recommendations for research regarding sustainable development.


3/10

3

The presentations were followed by a more extensive discussion of the possibilities for furtheraction. Issues and measures discussed are presented in more detail below.

3 Diagnostics and actions identified from national experiences

Based on issues identified prior to the workshop and the contributions of the participants, six

broad issues of concern involving connectivities could be identified.

3.1 Pillars of sustainability

A first issue is the need to consider the three pillars of sustainable development, that is:people, planet, and profit concerns. This can be seen as a matter of balance or equilibrium,paying fair attention to each of the three pillars, but sustainable development researchtypically looks for ways to identify win-win strategies to get beyond the hard opposition of interests by means of new and creative solutions. However, this is not always so easy inpractice, as strong interests remain, stakeholders typically have different ideas of whatconstitutes a fair balance, and the need to include a wide variety of interests may lead tocomplicated negotiations to identify, define, and implement these win-win solutions. At thesame time, sustainability is not just a neutral connection between policy issues, but clearlyalso an attempt to put environment and social development more prominently on the agenda a project that may in itself lead to resistance or conflict.

Therefore, the connectivity of people, planet, and profit involves dealing with a variety of difficult problems. First, it implies the identification of where the balance lies, which involvescontentious policy priorities rather than a merely technical exercise in finding the correctequilibrium. (In this sense, the term balance is perhaps misleading.)

Second, as suggested in some of the contributions, it is easier to balance some pairs of pillarsthan others. Many European countries have a long experience with balancing people andprofit (see the welfare state), profit and planet has also proven increasingly successful (see thegreening of industry and a flourishing market for environmental technologies and products),while people and plant may seem more controversial (although there are also examples of successful integration here, such as in nature conservation and cultural heritage). Connectingall three pillars at the same time appears to be a lot harder.

Third, the definition of each of the three pillars themselves is also a topic for conflict anddebate. For example, the people pillar begs the question of which people are meant here, forexample citizens versus non-citizens (such a foreigners, immigrants, or people inneighbouring constituencies), workers versus the unemployed, split interests betweengenerations, regions, or language groups.

Naturally, such tensions and conflicts are resolved in different ways between differentcountries based on national patterns of development, cultural and political histories,population structure, natural resources, policy choices, etc. Such differences are clearly

visible in the contributions prepared for the meeting. For example, some countries pay moreattention to connectivity of planet and profit in their Sustainable Development Strategies,while for others the planet element is not very important at, focusing rather on people andprofit. Similar differences are also clear in strategies for SDR, with different national researchpriorities, and particularly different ways to position SDR in innovation policies. From thepoint of view of harmonization, such national differences are an obstacle, but they can also beseen as opportunities to learn from each other.

Contributions showed a wide variety of policy instruments to address the connectivity of thethree pillars. Some relied mostly on professionals in research agencies to establish the balance


4/10

4

in SDR: researchers and research managers who write research programmes or allocateresources. Others see this mostly as a problem of coordination between administrations andhence try to address PPP balance by setting up administrative structures such asinterdepartmental committees of civil servants. In countries where SDR is higher on thepolitical agenda, solving the problem of the connection between the three pillars involveselected representatives, such as a council of ministers to support the identification of nationalresearch priorities. Yet another strategy to draw the balance relies more on stakeholderparticipation, ranging from non-committal consultations to high levels of stakeholder control,such as in stakeholder steering boards for SDR programmes. Economic stakeholderinvolvements is sometimes also organised via the market, through systems of co-financedresearch.

Such different solutions show how the connectivity of the three pillars is sometimes seenmore as a technical matter of merely find the right equilibrium (that hence can be solved bycivil servants) or, on the other extreme, as a matter of political contention (and hence requiressolution by elected representatives or systems of stakeholder participation), which is theneither a matter of bargaining and compromising over fixed interests, or a matter of deliberatively finding win-win solutions that try to reconcile interests.

3.2 Connectivity of policy and researchSocial scientists studying how research results get used or ignored in policy systematicallycome to the conclusion that a linear process does not work: there is not a clear domain of science, that produces knowledge, that feeds into or impacts upon a separate system of policy. Rather, there is a set of multiple forms of knowledge, including a variety of researchfields, which have to relate to a variety of policy areas and specific policies. The integrationof both is most successful when there is a process of interaction rather than a one-waydelivery of knowledge on the doorstep of the policy maker. For example, policy makers andresearchers need to be able to deliberate the formulation of research questions, in order tocome to questions that are relevant to policy, while also researchable to the scientist.

Country contributions described a wide variety of instruments used to improve the

connectivity of science and policy. Ranging from one-directional to more fully developedinteractive instruments, such instruments could involve: dissemination activities, such astargeted policy reports; presentations and symposia to present research results; policyadvisory committees; contracted research; knowledge brokers; cooperative research, etc.

Even when interaction between producer and user of research can be organised, importanttensions remain. One involves the appropriate distance between research and policy. Distantresearchers can produce independence and the authority that comes with it, but may alsoproduce research that is not matched with policy agendas and needs. On the other extreme,research that is well-coordinated with policy may tend to become slavish and uncritical,reproducing questionable assumptions that can lead to dramatic policy failure. In addition, itis important to keep in mind that the tasks that research performs for policy are very diverse.Experts do not just provide instrumental knowledge, for example telling the policy makerwhether a policy has or is expected to work. Experts also review knowledge, identify the stateof knowledge in a certain domain, advocate the importance of issues for policy, reflect on thedevelopment of policies, perhaps even criticise this development, or mediate in conflictsbetween stakeholders over policies.


5/10

5

3.3 Connectivity between different forms of knowledge

Sustainable development involves many different forms of knowledge, i.e. different fields of research, disciplines, and in many cases also experiential or local knowledge. For policypurposes especially, this implies the need for cooperation in the form of multi-, inter-, or even

transdisciplinarity. The task is made more complex by the fact that the circumscription of policy problems suggests what knowledge is relevant, while at the same time different formsof knowledge may in turn define policy problems in their own specific way. For example,economics will tend to formulate sustainability issues differently than sociology. Similarly,different fields of knowledge will tend to suggest different solution strategies.

The need for interaction between policy and research thus leads to complications as to whichresearch should get involved. Here too, iterative processes are most appropriate, to keep adialogue between different fields of knowledge open. Even though specific projects maynarrow down the fields of knowledge involved at a certain point in time, there is a need tokeep the windows open for knowledge that was perhaps previously overlooked, but that couldprovide exactly the creative kinds of insights that can lead to win-win outcomes to seeminglygrid-locked dilemmas.

3.4 Connectivity between countries (and the EU level)

Contributions from some Member States stressed that there are currently many programmesfor SDR that run parallel, but may provide opportunities for cooperation or reducedredundancy. In addition to the SDR themes in FP7, national research agencies also run SDRprogrammes. It was suggested that these programmes could benefit from increasedcooperation. Such cooperation could consist of two elements. On the one hand, resourcescould be pooled or coordinated, looking for synergies in research projects. On the other hand,closer cooperation or at least increased contact between people running SDR programmes innational agencies could lead to mutual learning, for example from each others experienceswith attempts to increase interdisciplinarity. The need to learn from each other was alreadyclear from the motivation of a substantial part of the participants, who came to get a bettersense of how other countries tackled the problems they were facing in their own country.

Whatever forms such cooperation could take; it would have to take into account the largevariety in degrees of development and institutionalisation of SDR policies between countries.

3.5 Connectivity between administration and politicians

This problem was also put on the agenda by the national contributions. Some countriesmanaged to bridge the gap between the administration and politicians through personalnetworks, some by well-structured formal involvement of politicians in decision making,while others seem to get very limited attention from politicians at all. Especially participantsfrom smaller countries and new Member States struggle with the question of how to get more

attention for SDR from their politicians. Even though the research administration is trying toset up SDR programmes, this may only be possible if there is enough political support tocommit resources. One specific element in this is that these programmes need to be integratedaround the theme of sustainable development, rather than as dispersed elements in researchprogrammes that have other topics as main priorities. In this sense, integration around thesustainable development theme is a sign of policy priority.

Here to, some participants were interested to learn from others, for example with respect tolanguage and concepts that could help them to convince politicians of the importance of SDR.


6/10

6

3.6 Connectivity of research programmes and topicsThe last connectivity issue signalled by participants is the problem of how to make sure thatSDR topics and programmes remain connected. For example, research programmes that seemwell-structured because they lay out separate topics under clearly formulated headings, maythen run the risk that these headings become boxes that create unconnected research thatcould nevertheless benefit from each other.

Participants stressed the importance of several complicating factors for increasingconnectivity. For example, SDR operates at a variety of scales (e.g. the production of indicators from municipal via national to global levels), at which connectivity issues will playout differently. It was also stressed that national Sustainable Development Strategies shouldform the focal point for SDR and that hence connectivity issues between these specificpolicies and SDR are of highest importance. Another element suggested was the need toincrease the status of SDR in some academic circles, where the interdisciplinary or policy-oriented nature of SDR may not always provide sufficient recognition.

To sum up, there are a variety of connectivity problems in SDR. Not all play an equallyimportant role in each of the countries and national policies have developed a variety of strategies and levels of organisation to deal with these problems. This reflects national

patterns of institutionalisation, but also differing national policy priorities: SDR does not getthe same amount of support everywhere and is not necessarily thematised as such. What getsconnected and what is therefore not just a matter of optimal organisation of research policy,but also of political priorities. It is important to take this diversity into account in the creationof new European policy instruments for increasing SDR connectivity.

4. Actions to improve connectivity (or connectivities?)

Based on the presentations and contributions, several measures were suggested during theworkshop to improve connectivities.

A first suggestion was to set up a European platform for research councils active inSustainable Development Research. Such a platform could pool resources in shared researchprogrammes, coordinate research initiatives, or merely share experiences with connectivityissues in current SDR programmes.

A second proposal was to set up a network for professionals in sustainable development,spanning both researchers and policy makers in this field. This could be on experiences with asimilar network that was described in the contribution to the workshop from the UK and thatcould perhaps be scaled up to an international level. Including both policy makers andresearchers in this network could contribute to the science/policy connectivity issue.

The third proposal that was suggested by participants was to organise regional councils forSDR, based on the model of the Nordic Council. Such a council could complement (ratherthan replace) national initiatives in SDR. Such a council could, like its Nordic example,

address more experimental, interdisciplinary, risky kinds of SDR research. An advantage of such cooperation could be that concerns can be addressed that are typical for specific regions,such as the issues that new Member States need to address in developing new SDRprogrammes and policies, building on regional traditions and shared understandings.

A fourth proposal was to set up a monitoring scheme for SDR, as a means to make visible thedegree to which SDR actually contributes to sustainable development. This could involvespecifically the SDR performed under FP7 and contributions to the Strategies for SustainableDevelopment. Such monitoring would lead to periodic reports assessing progress on this


7/10

7

issue, allowing policy makers to signal shortcomings and take remediative action whereneeded to incrementally improve programmes.

A fifth proposal involved the creation of knowledge brokers that could address specificobstacles to connectivity. This could involve the problem of connectivity between science andpolicy, for example by having a second look at the results of valuable FP7 research that forsome reason has not been deserved the policy attention it deserves. In order not to reproducedisjunctures between researchers and policy makers, close involvement of both policy makersand researchers would have to be involved in this brokerage position. Also, such a brokercould facilitate contact between (researchers in) different sections of FP7 that could benefitfrom more intense cooperation.

This various suggestions need not be mutually exclusive and can be combined into newpolicy instruments. During the discussions, the five proposals were integrated into three, to bediscussed below.

5 ConclusionAfter exchange of views and wide- ranging discussions, three tracks for follow-up have beenidentified:

1. Towards a platform, network or ERA-NET?

2. Monitoring, Efficiency and Results;

3. Topic for WP 2008 in Theme 6- Broker between SD Research and Policy-makers.

5.1 Towards a platform, network or ERA-NET?

During the workshop, it was argued that better exploitation of the preparatory inputs would bea necessary step. In addition to general resources and examples of SDR policies (see Annex2); this information could be presented on the web, helping national authorities and DG RTDto get a better sense of what is happening in other countries, with an eye on cooperation ormutual learning.

This would allow identifying ways to reinforce the synergies between national and Europeanstrategies for putting research at the service of sustainable development strategies, whichwould enable to bring research for sustainable development together at the national andEuropean level, which could lead to set up a platform or network and lead to an ERA-NET ata later stage, as well.

Moreover, we have taken note the existence of ESDN (European Sustainable DevelopmentNetwork), which is " an informal network of public administrators and other experts dealingwith sustainable development (SD) strategies in Europe "1. Accordingly, Swiss representativeMr. Daniel Wachter informed about the upcoming questionnaire by ESDN on sustainabledevelopment and suggested to include the question of research for sustainable developmentinto this questionnaire.

1 http://www.sd-network.eu/


8/10

8

5.2 Monitoring, Efficiency and Results

After having acknowledged the sustainable potential of FP7, it was also recognized that thereis the need to monitor to what extent this potential will be translated into reality. Tools,methods and sharing best practices are vital to develop new knowledge for monitoring thecontribution of research to sustainable development. A methodology needs to be developedfor FP7, notably on the basis of relevant experiences in national and international settings.

5.3 Topic for WP 2008 in Theme 6- Broker between SD Research and Policy-makers

There was a wide consensus among the meeting's participants that research was underutilisedin policy making, due to a lack of links between disciplines and between research and policy.Hence, the conclusion was the suggestion to experiment with knowledge brokers to increaseconnectivity. Indeed, either this brokerage activity would prove useful and could bemultiplied. If it does not prove useful, it is also a useful lesson, and will help us moveforward, by refining our analyses of weaknesses of the current situation. This activity couldbe translated into a draft topic to be included in Work Programme 2008.


9/10

9

Annex: resources for Sustainable Development Research

F. Leone, K. Whitelegg, M. Weber, National research activities and sustainabledevelopment: a survey and assessment of national research initiatives in support of sustainable development , ESTO report, EUR 20389 EN, 2002.

http://esto.jrc.es/detailshort.cfm?ID_report=1017 (links to .pdf)

European Environment and Sustainable Development Advisory Councils (EEAC): 30advisory councils for environmental policy and sustainable development from 15 countries inthe European Union.http://www.eeac-net.org/

Nordic Council cooperation on sustainable development.http://www.norden.org/baeredygtig_udvikling/uk/index.asp?lang=6More detail on:http://www.sum.uio.no/susnordic/nordic_council/index.html

The European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN) is an informal network of publicadministrators and other experts dealing with sustainable development (SD) strategies inEurope. Includes a survey of national sustainable development strategieshttp://www.sd-network.eu/

ENSURE: The European Network for Sustainable Urban and Regional DevelopmentResearch is an international network of persons and institutions that are committed to theadvance of this scientific field.http://www.european-association.org/ensure/ (link may be outdated)

SDO: The role of Sustainable Development Online (SDO) is to map this sea of change andprovide access to significant web sites built by organisations supporting the move towardsSD. (Not specific to SDR.)http://sd-online.ewindows.eu.org/

EPIGOV research programme: EPIGOV is a research project on the modes of governanceemployed at global, EU, national and regional/local levels to support the integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas. Relevant policy areas are, for example,transport, agricultural, and energy policy.http://www.ecologic.de/projekte/epigov/

ESSP: The ESSP is a partnership for the integrated study of the Earth System, the ways thatit is changing, and the implications for global and regional sustainability.http:///www.essp.org

IGFA: The goal of the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global ChangeResearch (IGFA) is to foster Global Change Research. IGFA is a forum through whichnational agencies that fund Research on Global Change identify issues of mutual interest andways to address these through national and when appropriate through coordinatedinternational actions.http://www.igfagcr.org/

PINTS Policy Integration for Sustainability (PINTS) is a four-year research project (2002-2006) focused on the energy and agricultural sector in Sweden and EU. The project seeks tocontribute to a policy system that better integrates environmental concerns into its processesand structures.


10/10

10

http://www.sei.se/policy/PINTS/

Sustainable Development Research Network (SDRN): aims to facilitate and strengthen thelinks between providers of research and policymakers across government, in order to improveevidence-based policymaking to deliver the UK government's objectives for sustainabledevelopment.http://www.sd-research.org.uk/

Documents

Pētniecība līdzsvarotai attīstībai , ziņojums EK , 2007