John Seager


Introduction

Three Bridging the Gap conferences have been held so far: in London in June 1998, Stockholm in May 2001, and Dublin in April 2004. A fourth have been held in Slovenia in May 2008. To prepare for that conference, a short study was carried out to asses the progress made in Europe over the 10-year period since 1998 on the issues addressed by the conferences.

The Bridging the Gap conferences held have had two main strands of concern to date:

• the need for systems for the collection, analysis and presentation of environmental data to be more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of stakeholders; and 
• the ways in which we can enable science to play a more effective role in supporting policy-making processes.

Annex 1 summarises the main cross-cutting (rather than sector-specific) conclusions and recommendations of the London, Stockholm and Dublin conferences.

The preparatory study focused on three questions:

1. What progress has been made in Europe over the last 10 years on the issues addressed by the Bridging the Gap conferences?
2. Which gaps remain in our knowledge and capability, and what are the barriers to further advances?
3. Whichcontributions have the Bridging the Gap conferences made to progress on the issues?

The views of the following people provided the main basis for the findings of the study recorded in this note:

European Commission: DG Environment: Ian Clark, Irja Vounakis
European Environment Agency: Ingvar Andersson
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: Fred Langeweg
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Erik Fellenius
Ireland Environmental Protection Agency: Larry Stapleton
Environment Agency for England and Wales: John Seager
Joint Research Centre: Pamela Kennedy

Inputs were obtained through interviews – in most cases by telephone – except for Fred Langeweg who provided his comments by e-mail.

The responses to the three questions listed above are summarised in the following sections.


Progress over the last 10 years

Substantial progress is considered to have been made on improving the availability and accessibility of environmental monitoring information.  Recent, and linked, initiatives of particular note are:

• the INSPIRE directive to trigger the creation of a European spatial information infrastructure that delivers integrated spatial information services to users;
• the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS), a joint initiative of the European Environment Agency, the Commission and member states to establish an integrated, shared and sustained information system for environmental information in Europe; and
• the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative for the implementation of information services dealing with the environment and security.

While not as well publicised as they might have been, advances have also been made in streamlining environmental monitoring and reporting at the European level.  There has been a progressive shift from paper-based reporting to the use of electronic systems.

Similarly, there has been good progress on the development of environmental indicators. The European Environment Agency has developed a set of key indicators and prepared state of the environment reports presenting indicators on important sectors such as transport.  These have been influential documents in relation to policy development.  The presentation of environmental data has improved, now providing clear and persuasive information.

Although the uptake of environmental technologies has not be as rapid as one may have wished, improvements are still being made. The Environmental Technologies Action Plan has been jointly developed by DG Environment and DG Research and represents a significant initiative to accelerate the development and application of new technologies.

There have been some positive steps in terms of the integration of environmental and sustainability considerations in policy development in other sectors, although more remains to be done. Of particular note is the attention being paid to climate change, and the incorporation of adaptation and mitigation measures within sectoral policies.

Generally, closer links have been developed between the policy and research communities in establishing the needs for and communicating the results of, research.  For example, DG Environment and DG Research have worked closely together on the development of Framework Programme 7. However, we have yet to see whether the implementation of FP7 will deliver the outputs policymakers need.


Remaining gaps and challenges

While substantial progress has been made on environmental monitoring and information over the last 10 years, more has still to be done and the following issues were identified as priorities for further development:

• Indicators are needed to measure our efficiency in meeting environmental standards and delivering environmental improvements, and to evaluate the effectiveness of policies in securing environmental outcomes. Much of our monitoring effort is still driven by the hardwired requirements of legislation.  In order to evaluate efficiency and effectiveness we will need to measure different things, for example the human quality of life and its relationship with natural resources.  A further impetus comes from the fact that our environmental agencies are overstretched and need to target their resources.
• While steps forward have been taken with data quality and compatibility, further work is needed particularly to enable the integration of data across European member states. Also more remains to be done to enable free access to environmental data.
• Many member states have initiatives on horizon scanning and foresight in an attempt to acquire an early warning of environmental problems. More must be done to integrate these initiatives at the European level and to use them to identify long-term research questions.
• There is an urgent need to further develop monitoring systems for nature (LIFE+ may be an appropriate vehicle).

There is a general sense that progress has been slower in relation to the use of science in environmental policy-making. In order to enable science to play a more effective role in the development of environmental policies, the following developments were identified as vital:

• While there has been a lot of discussion and analysis (for example the Science Meets Policy series of workshops which have run in parallel to the Bridging the Gap conferences over the last 10 years), there is quite limited evidence that dialogue between the science and policy communities, and with stakeholders more generally, has improved.  Given the increasingly complex nature of the environmental challenges we must address, there is an urgent need to make progress in this area.
• Individuals and organisations acting as interpreters can play an important role in facilitating interactions between the science and policy communities.  However, initiatives to slim down administrations are eroding our interpretation capacity.  We need to develop a better understanding of the role of interpreters, the skills and experience required, and how the necessary capacity can be restored.
• More effort is needed to synthesise, and make accessible to policy makers and the public, the outputs of environmental research.
• Notwithstanding the advances made in establishing the European Research Area, more needs to be done to enable inter-institutional collaboration.  It remains difficult to know what other researchers are doing.

Necessary developments in the way policies are formulated, and particular issues requiring policy development, were identified as follows:

• Fully integrated assessments reflecting environmental, economic and social perspectives need to be more routinely carried out and reflected in a more integrated approach to policy development. A particular challenge of such integrated policy development is to address conflicting interests arising from the different perspectives.  Considerations of resource efficiency need to be built into new policies.
• While environmental protection agencies have become more outcome-oriented, there must be an increasing policy focus on delivering environmental outcomes.
• We need a better understanding of the mechanisms determining ecosystem goods and services and the associated security issues, including climate change and extreme events.
• The adoption of new technologies, for example bio-indicators and remote sensing, needs to be accelerated.
• The Stearn Report on climate change has been very influential: similar reports are required on other big environmental issues.

The contribution of the Bridging the Gap conferences

All those we interviewed considered that it is difficult to point unequivocally to particular developments as the result of Bridging the Gap conferences.  However, equally, they feel that the conferences have been influential.  A significant contribution has been to develop better mutual awareness between the scientific and policy communities.  The involvement of politicians and senior policy-makers has been particularly useful in enabling a dialogue with the science community and in keeping issues on the science and policy radars.

The conferences have also had a catalytic role, seeding new thinking on existing and emerging issues.


Concluding comments

These reflections on progress over the last 10 years have been able to point more readily to developments in environmental monitoring and information than they have to improvements in the effective use of science in environmental policy-making.  Nonetheless, significant remaining challenges were identified in relation to both strands which have run through the conferences hitherto. Some of these challenges may appropriately be addressed by the Bridging the Gap conference in Slovenia in 2008. 

It is perhaps helpful, finally, to record two comments made by the interviewees on the design of the next conference, in particular on the importance of focusing on a particular issue, or limited set of issues, and on the potential merit of distilling and articulating a Bridging the Gap process.


Annex 1: Conclusions and Recommendations of the Bridging the Gap conferences

London, June 1998: New Needs and Perspectives for Environmental Information

The focus of the conference was bridging the gap between the needs for environmental information to inform and influence policy, and the information which is available. Key conclusions of the conference were:

• That some of the systems for monitoring and gathering information about the environment in European countries were inefficient and wasteful.
• Consequently, there was a pressing need to update, streamline and rationalise systems for monitoring and gathering information: the European Environment Agency should co-ordinate an initial Europe-wide review of the potential for such streamlining and rationalisation, and for filling significant gaps in the systems.
• Such streamlining should release resources which could be used to improve the assembly and structuring of information on policy relevant subjects: an objective should be to develop a well-structured system of knowledge to serve the needs of many different stakeholders.
• Key indicator sets should be agreed: providing the data for them should be a main objective for the reform of monitoring and data gathering. They should be published regularly, on a consistent basis and in a policy-relevant way.

Stockholm, May 2001: Sustainability Research and Sectoral Integration

The objectives of the conference were to:

• identify gaps between research into sustainable development and sectoral integration, i.e. the integration of environmental requirements into different policy areas;
• identify key research and development issues for sectoral integration, focusing on environmental sustainability; and
• advise end-users on the research and development potential of sectoral integration.

Conclusions from the conference relating to general (rather than sector-specific) issues of the use of science in policy-making were:

• There is a need for a strong link between the Environmental Action Plans and the Framework Programmes: sustainability objectives must influence science policy trough the selection of topics, forcing integrated approaches and introducing new instruments of co-operation, engaging stakeholders in defining the R&D agenda.
• New kinds of multidisciplinary research are needed to support sustainable development, able to comment on the big picture as well as providing detailed information, and balancing innovation, possibilities and risks.
• Sustainability research must involve all stakeholders and there is a consequent need for research on the dialogue between science, society and citizens as a basis for a better understanding of user needs, decision-making amidst uncertainty and the nature of science.
• There is a need for research agencies that are independent of producers, consumers and political influence and have the capacity for transparent integrated assessments based on broad knowledge/values with authority/credibility to simplify complexity.
• There must be more incentives for researchers to engage with policy.
• There is a need to assess the effectiveness of policy measures and for research to underpin the setting of environmental objectives.

Dublin, April 2004: Information for Action

The focus of the conference was the need for a better linkage between the policy making process and monitoring, reporting and research. It had five main themes: environment and human health; climate change; impact assessment; biodiversity; and future environmental information needs.

The main conclusions of the conference in relation to the horizontal aspects of mobilising information for the environment were presented as follows:

Competitiveness/integration: EU competitiveness is strengthened by virtue of a high-quality environment. To safeguard competitiveness, EU policies that affect the environment need to be more strongly linked together and research needs to be focused to provide clearer guidance for policy. Gaps in knowledge and action include the following:

• In order to optimise growth, quantification is needed of the benefits of ecosystem services for both to human health and the supporting of competitiveness.
• Better understanding is needed of the consequences of overexploiting natural resources and of inaction leading to environmental degradation.
• The policy objectives (on competitiveness) agreed at Lisbon and the targets (on research funding) agreed at Barcelona need to be combined with those of the Cardiff process (on integration) and Goteborg (on sustainability) in order to progress the full integration of environment into other policy areas.
• The EU research budget must strongly support policy by funding environmental research, assessment, technology and innovation.
• Integrated multidisciplinary research is needed for a better analysis of policy conflicts and for a more comprehensive assessment of impacts on the environment (to balance assessment of impacts on society and the economy).

Focus on environmental outcomes: Policy and monitoring need to focus on environmental outcomes. Redundancy in long-standing reporting obligations should be removed and effort should be targeted in proportion to environmental risk. More specifically:

• There is a need for a more responsive legislative framework that delivers more timely information and a better quality environment.
• Environmental reporting needs to focus less on compliance and more on trends and changes in the quality of the environment (to be outcome-focused).
• New technologies need strong support because they provide opportunities for more comprehensive and cost-effective monitoring of environmental change.
• Research and monitoring need to focus more on the early warning of new and emerging risks.

Infrastructure for gathering and communicating information: Greater effort and resources are needed to improve the relevance, timeliness and accessibility of information derived from monitoring and research activities. In particular:

• An enhanced information and assessment infrastructure is needed to provide timely information for European decision-making. Information and communication technologies must be used to maximum effect for strengthening this infrastructure. Institutional arrangements must be in place to support an effective infrastructure.
• Innovation and science should be more effectively used to design more integrated and effective reporting on environmental change.
• Existing research results must be continuously and systematically reviewed and applied for a more comprehensive understanding of the environment.
• Support is needed to develop methods of presentation and communication that will influence individual behaviour and reduce lifestyle impacts on the environment.
• Overall, there is a need for improved communication and dialogue involving scientists, policy-makers and the public.