Workshop on
“Investing in Innovative Research for Nature and our livelihoods: Strengthening the research strategy to reinforce the ERA on Biodiversity-
April 11-12 2013
Report
2013/05/10
Table of contents
Introduction and Methodology......
Workshop Results......
Overview of participants......
Breakout group 1: Improving the biodiversity research strategy function in Europe (A “refurbished or New born” EPBRS?).
Summary of results Round 1: Vision and objectives of an improved research strategy Function.....
Summary of results Round 2: Structure, mandate and processes of an improved research strategy function
Summary of results Round 3: Activities and output of an improved research strategy Function.....
Results of the plenary discussion on risks and opportunities for biodiversity research in the framework of Horizon 2020.
Breakout group 2: Generate innovative ideas and recommendations for identifying research priorities at the cross road between identified biodiversity research areas and current H2020 requirements/framework
Conclusions and Next Steps:......
List of Annexes......
Introduction and Methodology
The European Commission- General Directorate for Research and Innovation and the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy[1] (EPBRS) with the support of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform, organised a workshop on April 11- 12 2013 in Brussels, on:“ Investing in Innovative Research for Nature and our livelihoods: Strengthening the research strategy to reinforce the ERA on Biodiversity”
The aim of the workshop was to identify ways forward to consolidate the ERA on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and to explore research priorities in the current research and environment policy context.
The specific objectives of the workshop were to:
➢ Explore current priorities for the biodiversity research agenda in relation to Horizon 2020,
➢ Review the strategic functions of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) and its added value to support the research strategy development,
➢ Identify links between the biodiversity research agenda and the broader European policies e.g. EU 2020 Agenda.
Participants included Member State representatives with policy and technical/scientific expertise, EU project coordinators, EPBRS representatives, stakeholders from public and private sector and selected experts (Annex 1 List of participants).
Workshop programme and methodology (Annex 2: Workshop programme)
An introductory presentation of the present participants, their expectations & concerns about the workshop, was a good opportunity to break the ice.
The first session (Day 1 Session I) was dedicated to policy framing presentations providing an overview of the current Horizon 2020 research programme, of Marine and Agriculture key policies and of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020. This session provided the overall policy context relevant to the following sessions.
The second session (Day 1 Session II) focused on strengthening/shaping the biodiversity research strategy in Europe. It started with a panel of expertsto share their perspectives and needs with regards to how the biodiversity research strategies are currently developed in Europe and what key principles/recommendations could be identified to improve it based on existing international, regional and national experiences. The panel provided a good set of views and lessons learned to feed into the afternoon breakout groups.
The objective of the afternoon breakout group session was to generate innovative ideas and recommendations for improving the biodiversity research strategy function in Europe (A “refurbished or New born” EPBRS?). More specifically, participants were asked to build on lessons learned from EPBRS and others, brainstorm on what would be needed in terms of : 1) vision/goals, 2) mandate, structure and processes, and 3) activities & outputs; for a research strategy function in Europe to be efficient.
A background document was produced and circulated before the workshop to provide information on EPBRS current modus operandi, achievements and challenges (Annex 3 Background Paper 1). The session followed a participatory approached based on the world café methodology. Participants were invited to join one of the five facilitated round tables (one or two facilitators moderated each table) and discussed in parallel the same question for 30-40’. They were then invited to change tables, form new discussion groups, to tackle a second question (all tables would again discuss the same question) for 30’. Finally participants changed table for a last third round that would address a third questions. The questions addressed were the following:
1st round: Vision & goals/objectives: From your experience what would be the vision & goals and the specific objectives of an improved biodiversity research strategy function?
2nd round: Mandate, structure, processes (e.g. membership): 1- What would you keep from lessons learned from existing initiatives (morning panel examples)? 2- From your experience what would be the key recommendations in terms of structure, mandate, processes…?
3rd Round: Activities/outputs & outcomes: 1- What would you keep from existing initiatives? 2- From your experience what would be key recommendations in terms of what activities it should perform to reach its goals.
The carousel of discussions was then followed by a brief reporting from the table facilitators summarizing the key points each table had identified for each question.
The Day 2 Session III focused on the links between Agenda 2020 and Biodiversity Research to identify potential opportunities for Biodiversity Research in the current Horizon 2020 framework. The session started again with a panel of experts presenting some innovative ideas regarding biodiversity research to help participants think out of the box.
The agenda was amended and this panel was followed by a plenary discussion on frustrations and opportunities with regards to Horizon 2020 and Biodiversity research. Participants were asked by the moderator (Jurgen Tack) to write on a post-it their main frustration/concern about Horizon 2020 and then to identify a “counter balancing” opportunity for biodiversity research. This highly participative and interactive plenary discussion allowed for an open exchange on what risks participants could see in the current framework but also how biodiversity research could take up opportunities within this framework.
The afternoon breakout group session aimed at generating innovative ideas and recommendations for identifying research priorities at the cross road between identified biodiversity research areas and current H2020 requirements/framework
The discussions were again organised in round tables but following a different approach as this time tables would keep a specific topic and participants would have a chance to change table 2 times and contribute to discussions on 3 topics. So for each round, each table would address a different topic. The topics were identified in the background paper 2 that provided an analysis of current European and International biodiversity research strategies and key environmental documents (Annex 4: background paper 2). Tables were moderated by two facilitators and organised as followed
Table 1: Documenting and Monitoring biodiversity (moderators: Jurgen tack (INBO-EPBRS) and Sarah Rousseaux (BBPF))
Table 2: Drivers of change and responses to/ impacts from anthropogenic pressures (moderators: Allan Watt (CEH-EPBRS) and Louise Scally (Irish Biodiversity Platform-EPBRS)
Table 3: Capacity to forecast, identify evidence-based options and scenarios and adapt to change (moderators: Stefan Schindler (University of Vienna-EPBRS and Hilde Eggermont (BBPF))
Table 4: Better understanding underlying causes of biodiversity loss linked to life-style, economies and human well-being (moderators: Juliette Young (CEH-SPIRAL and Marie van de Walle (UFZ-KNEU))
Table 5: Research to support conservation, management and sustainable use of natural resources (Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (moderators: Sybille van den Hove (MEDIAN-SPIRAL and Rob Tinch (IODINE-OPERAS))
Table 6: Innovative ways of doing research (moderator: Heidi Wittmer (UFZ- TEEB)
Ecosystem Services and Potential for Innovation were considered as cross-cutting themes and addressed at each table
Participants were invited to prioritize the top five research priorities for each thematic. These five priorities were presented by moderators during a short reporting round were participants could have a look at the posters and results of each table.
Workshop Results
Overview of participants
The workshop gathered a total of 65 participants. During the short introductory session we gathered information on participants by asking some questions. About 75% had a background in Ecology/biology and related, 13% being from Economics/humanities. There was a good geographical balance with 38 % from Northern EU, 38% from Southern EU and 22% from Eastern EU. 50% of the participants were from research, 33% from policy and 14% from NGOs/consultancy/private sector. For most participants, biodiversity is the main focus of their work (54%) or one topic among others (43%). An interesting aspect was the diversity in terms of experience with EPBRS: 23% of the participants were members of EPBRS, 34% had participated to some EPBRS activities but 42% had no experience of EPBRS or just heard of it.
Breakout group 1: Improving the biodiversity research strategy function in Europe (A “refurbished or New born” EPBRS?).
Summary of results Round 1: Vision and objectives of an improved research strategy Function
Participants were invited to brainstorm on a potential vision and desirable key functions/objectives of a “new born” EPBRS. In fact the discussions resulted in identifying current needs for a general science policy interface “mechanism” on Biodiversity in Europe. We report here all these potential functions. They will serve as basis to identify different scenarios for a “new” EPBRS taking in consideration which functions it can best address as it is unlikely EPBRS could/should address all of them.
Current desirable functions identified by participants:
All groups identified the need to be a main interface between biodiversity research, funding agencies and policy makers from environment and other sectors.
We compiled the discussion results in 5 main functions/objectives (all results are captured and available in Annex 5)
-Objective/Function 1: Developing research strategies: Identification of Knowledge gaps/needs and how to address them:
Participants highlighted both the role of defining research priorities that would take in consideration research needs in relation to policy (not just from the environmental sectors but also from other sectors), and the importance of including blue skies research to remain at the forefront of emerging issues not yet visible on the radar of policy makers. A few participants even considered that EPBRS should be an independent Think Tank totally free to develop new ideas that are interdisciplinary and relate to emerging issues.
Specific points:
- Help generate calls by identifying research priorities
- Build and facilitate constructive dialogue between scientists and policy makers
- Involve all sectors (environment and others) in identification of Biodiversity research needs and strategies
- Define research needs for EU policies in all sectors
- Increase policy relevance of Biodiversity research by a stronger involvement of other sectors
- Target specific policy relevant issues (by ad hoc workshops)
- Help translating concerns and needs in Research questions
- Bring scientists from different disciplines
- Facilitate paradigm shifts in research and interdisciplinarity
- Include blue skies research and Horizon scanningbecause what is policy relevant in the futureis unknown, and ensure that research remains creative
- Establish a citizen science agenda
- Link with IPBES identification of Knowledge gaps function
-Objective/Function 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity
Participants identified several objectives that all relate to a more pro-active role in mainstreaming biodiversity at different levels of governance, in all policy sectors and for all types of stakeholders.
Specific points:
- Improve links between Biodiversity all sectors with across all European Commission DGs
- Communicate the benefits and values of Biodiversity as “centre “of all issues not add-on
- Bridge functions between Biodiversity, Health, Food and Energy
- Support the integration of Biodiversity in all human activities and all sector policies
- Integrate the social, Environmental and Economic aspects in decision making
- Enhance awareness in Member States of the “internationality” of biodiversity (e.g. our footprint is traceable globally)
- Lobby for mainstreaming biodiversity
- Defend public interests and protect citizens against short-term vision of current policies
- Ask to place “impact on biodiversity” into the list of topics that need to be considered in research proposals from all sectors (alongside gender and ethics…)
- Support research and develop tools to quantify the benefits of integrating biodiversity into sectoral policies
-Objective/Function 3: Facilitating knowledge transfer
The role of facilitating the dialogue between science, policy and users was highlighted in a sense of increasing the capacity of all these actors to better understand each other and to improve the exchange of knowledge. We decided to separate this function from the role of supporting policy decision-making, which will be addressed below, although both are of course tightly related. We included here the aspects related to promoting biodiversity research and the value of the scientific work.
Specific points:
- Promote the Exchange/Transfer of knowledge between all actors and from national to international
- Support capacity building on Knowledge Transfer
- Address national specificities and needs for good methodologies, knowledge transfer...
- Connect research with policy practice
- Promote ways to better communicate research results and especially uncertainty
- Promote biodiversity research by explaining the nature and value of science
-Objective/Function 4: Supporting policy decision-making
This function refers to providing an authoritative source of knowledge to answer policy questions.
Specific points:
- Provide realistic and pragmatic assumptions for establishing biodiversity indicators and baseline.
- Support implementation of Directives, including providing methodologies for assessments
- Target specific policy relevant issues (by ad hoc workshops)
- Provide overview of all conservation approaches
- Develop a flexible mechanism for rapidly delivering answers to policy questions from different sectors
- Provide information on Biodiversity trends
- Facilitate dialogue across sectors and ministries
- Provide support to IPBES assessments
Two additional functions are listed but could be considered as enabling functions for the ones above: they relate to the need to improve networking and to generate knowledge reviews and synthesis.
Networking and coordinating is needed among various disciplines and sectors but also between national platforms, European initiatives and global players to best support the functions a new EPBRS might address.
- Coordination and Integration of all players (Member States to Global) at EU level to produce Biodiversity research and innovation policy
- Establish a strong network with links to different disciplines, policy sectors and stakeholders
- A coordinating/leading role for national Biodiversity platforms
- A role in coordinating, networking and awareness raising for large biodiversity related projects (e.g. clearing house)
Knowledge reviews and synthesis can be provided on a regular or ad hoc way and generate basis to identify knowledge gaps, to base policy decisions on best available knowledge and to facilitate knowledge transfer.
Some participants highlighted that there is a risk if EPBRS acts as an advocate or lobbyist for some specific policies that it might lose its credibility. They suggest that reinforcing its credibility and ensuring it is widely connected and recognised should contribute to trigger change either by providing valuable information to advocacy organisations (e.g. NGOs) or by improving the influence of research on policy design and implementation. However many participants highlighted the need that EPBRS should promote biodiversity research as a key to address current and future societal challenges.
Summary of results Round 2: Structure, mandate and processes of an improved research strategy function
There was a general strong agreement that the Research Strategy Function/New EPBRS should be “secured” and not rely only on voluntary contributions but benefit from a stable long-term funding.
Discussions on the mandate of a new EPBRS highlighted that a clear mandate might be needed, although some participants mentioned that if the products are of high quality the mandate might be less necessary. Participants considered that the mandate could come from the EC, maybe from chief adviser or from several DGs. The same divergent opinions on functions are reflected here as the mandate is seen either for mainstreaming biodiversity or for developing research strategies. In the later case, the question was raised again about science driven strategy or policy driven strategy and the risk for the platform’s credibility if it is too tightly linked to some specific policies. Although there is also a risk of losing its legitimacy and usefulness if it totally disconnects from policy.
All groups agreed that the structure should allow for a more stable status and funding so a new EPBRS would not rely on voluntary contributions and ensure continuity and ownership.
Participants suggested different potential options for the structure including: a coordinating platform initiated by the Commission and funded by several DGs and Member States, or a flexible and light structure building on an alliance of different bodies involving a broad set of different actors.
There was a proposal to keep a core group including policy makers, scientists and funders and then to have ad hoc invited representatives from Members States, various sectors and relevant disciplines depending on the topic of meetings. Setting up topical ad-hoc working groups involving specific experts to carry out tasks on a topic (e.g. reviews) was also considered. In terms of principles, the structure needs to ensure long-term perspective, be attractive especially for policy makers and target all levels from member states to EU to Global level.
In complement, discussions focused on membership and involvement of relevant experts and stakeholders. There was a call to maintain the mix of scientists and policy makers but to open up to a larger variety of scientific disciplines and sectors especially for meetings and working groups addressing specific topics and requiring particular expertise. The geographical coverage and balance of countries is also an important point. The question of opening up to a wide scope of stakeholders at EU and Member state level was discussed