EOS4.1 | Science Policy Interface: Shaping Debates and building bridges
PICO
Science Policy Interface: Shaping Debates and building bridges
Co-organized by GM12
Convener: Marie Heidenreich | Co-conveners: Susann Birnstengel, Giorgia StasiECSECS, Chloe Hill, Maria Vittoria GargiuloECSECS
PICO
| Thu, 18 Apr, 16:15–18:00 (CEST)
 
PICO spot 2
Thu, 16:15
Scientific knowledge is crucial for shaping policies related to climate, environment, sustainability, and resources. To have an impact on politics, research needs to communicate in a way that addresses needs and offers solutions. However, it is important to identify the most effective science policy formats that can contribute to enriching political debates. While there are now many resources available to scientists who would like to engage in the policymaking process, finding specific information or practical examples that relate to a specific discipline or field of research can be challenging.

This session aims to bridge that gap by highlighting success stories from scientists who have engaged in policy and made critical societal impacts – either on a European, national, or local level – across different scientific disciplines and science officers who have facilitated successful science-policy-dialogues. It will also aim to examine the various challenges that researchers face when engaging on the science-policy interface and various strategies that others have taken to manage and overcome them.

This session is relevant for scientists and science officers from all career levels and science disciplines and will provide space for follow-up questions and a discussion with the participants at the session and at a splinter meeting on EGU Monday.

A warm welcome to anyone interested to our Science-Policy splinter meeting on the first day of the EGU 2024!

Splinter Meeting SPM26 "Science Policy Interface"
Monday, April 15, 2024 at 16:15–18:00
Room 2.61

PICO: Thu, 18 Apr | PICO spot 2

Chairpersons: Marie Heidenreich, Giorgia Stasi, Maria Vittoria Gargiulo
16:15–16:20
16:20–16:22
|
PICO2.1
|
EGU24-7902
|
On-site presentation
David Gallego Torres, Julie Oppenheimer, Noélie Auvergne, Jannik Sielmann, and Eystein Jansen

The European Research Council (ERC) aims to fund ground-breaking “bottom-up” research, with no predefined objectives or priorities. Moreover, evaluating panels are specifically instructed to evaluate proposals only based on scientific merits, and that societal impact is not an evaluation criterion. Nevertheless, projects that are originally unrelated to policy can produce results that are relevant for evidence-based policies and other public actions: public interest outcomes don’t necessarily come exclusively from research designed for societal purposes.

In this presentation, we will showcase some examples of ERC-funded projects in Earth Sciences that resulted in societal/policy actions. Topics covered range from physical oceanography, to hydrology, fire monitoring, or atmospheric pollution. We will explain how the researchers expanded their activities beyond academia to engage in Science for Policy and other public services. Indeed, to bridge this gap between research and public action, ERC grantees followed a variety of paths: they created their own consultancies, they were invited after posting a “tweet”, or they focused on journalism and outreach, to name a few. Featured projects are only a few examples of how curiosity-driven research may have an impact beyond academic knowledge. The paths to influencing public policy are many, and the extra effort is worthwhile to ensure policy actions are based on the most advanced research knowledge.

How to cite: Gallego Torres, D., Oppenheimer, J., Auvergne, N., Sielmann, J., and Jansen, E.: From Frontier Research to Public Action: Some examples from projects funded by the ERC, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-7902, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-7902, 2024.

16:22–16:24
|
PICO2.2
|
EGU24-5052
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Marylou Athanase, Alison Beamish, Séverine Furst, Almudena Garcia-Garcia, Marie Heidenreich, Hanna Joerss, Martina Klose, Mirjam Langhans, David Mengen, and Katharina Sielemann

In December 2023, the Helmholtz SynCom (Synthesis and Communication) traveled to Brussels with a delegation of selected scientists from the seven Helmholtz Earth and Environment Centres. This visit aimed at sharing current research findings and exchanging ideas with members of the European Parliament and other key stakeholders. The agenda included meetings with various entities such as the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA), the European Space Agency (ESA), and members of the European Parliament Niklas Nienaß and Jutta Paulus. 

This trip proved to be a valuable opportunity to connect European environmental and climate policy with fundamental research. When communicating scientific research, the importance of selecting a format suitable for the targeted audience constituted a key point. We discuss the lessons learned, and needs for user-oriented innovative tools for public outreach and for supporting policy decisions. Our exchanges also covered the potential impact of ongoing and upcoming European projects, like satellite-based Earth Observation missions and Digital Twins of the Earth, in providing crucial data for science-backed regulations. Lastly, we address the challenges faced in policymaking and the hurdles in integrating scientific discoveries into political decisions: we report suggested possibilities of including policy makers or the consideration of current regulatory questions within research projects.

How to cite: Athanase, M., Beamish, A., Furst, S., Garcia-Garcia, A., Heidenreich, M., Joerss, H., Klose, M., Langhans, M., Mengen, D., and Sielemann, K.: ‘EEmeetsEP’ - Helmholtz Earth and Environment meets the European Parliament and Stakeholders in Brussels, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-5052, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-5052, 2024.

16:24–16:26
|
PICO2.3
|
EGU24-4455
|
On-site presentation
Petra Seibert, Ivana Hughes, Noel Stott, Gerardo Suarez, and A. K. M. Raushan Kabir Zoardar

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was negotiated and adopted in 2017, entered into force 2021, and currently has been signed by 93 states, of which 69 have ratified. The Treaty was born out of concern about the devastating impact of nuclear war and growing frustration among non-nuclear-weapon states about the lack of progress with serious nuclear disarmament [1, 2]. It is built on a solid scientific base, laid during a series of conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons in 2013 and 2014, held in Norway, Mexico, and Austria [3]. The Treaty not only bans a wide range of activities related to nuclear weapons, but it also includes provisions for victim assistance and environmental remediation in places affected by nuclear weapons use and testing [4].

Recognising the importance of science for the implementation of the Treaty, the 1st Meeting of States Parties in summer 2022 decided to create a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) of 15 members, nominated by States parties, but acting independently. It mandated the SAG to produce a ”Report on the status and developments regarding nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon risks, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament and related issues”, which was delivered in autumn 2023. Furthermore, the SAG was tasked to ”identify and engage scientific and technical institutions in States parties and more broadly to establish a network of experts to support the goals of the Treaty”.

The presentation will highlight some key points of our first report [7], and outline our current plans for building the Scientific Network. We also plan to offer a Townhall Meeting for those interested in network membership.

References

[1] Alexander Kmentt, The Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, How it was Achieved and Why it Matters. Routledge 2021/2021. ISBN 9780367531959.

[2] Ray Acheson, Banning the Bomb, Smashing the Patriarchy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2021. ISBN 9781786614896.

[3] Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, 2014,

[4] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,

[5] ICAN, Intersessional Progress on the TPNW – Scientific Advisory Group,

[6] Institutionalizing scientific and technical advice for the effective implementation of the Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW /MSP/2022/WP.6,

[7] Report of the Scientific Advisory Group on the status and developments regarding nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon risks, the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons nuclear disarmament and related issues, 2023,

How to cite: Seibert, P., Hughes, I., Stott, N., Suarez, G., and Kabir Zoardar, A. K. M. R.: Scientific Support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-4455, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-4455, 2024.

16:26–16:28
|
PICO2.4
|
EGU24-2119
|
On-site presentation
Sebastian Wetterich

The Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina - founded in 1652 - is the world's oldest continuously existing academy of natural sciences and medicine and was appointed as the German National Academy of Sciences in 2008. In this capacity, the Leopoldina is commissioned with two major objectives: (1) representing the German scientific community internationally and (2) providing policymakers and the public with science-based advice. In recent years, the Leopoldina has increasingly focused on several aspects of the Earth System Science including climate change, sustainable development, biodiversity loss, and other challenges of the Anthropocene when human impact became a decisive force whose influence is drastically seen in all spheres of the planet.

The development of recommendations for adaptations of the scientific community in teaching and research as well as for societal change and policy-making are ongoing tasks of Leopoldina working groups. Such outcome of the Academy’s work is commonly communicated through rather classical channels such as statements, reports, fact sheets, workshops and symposia. In addition, interactive thematic websites are set up to enhance impact and increase audience.

One example is the Academy’s Report on Tomorrow’s Science: Earth System Science – Discovery, Diagnosis, and Solutions in Times of Global Change (2022). The report addresses German geosciences and the need to establish Earth System Science as the future operating framework for both education and research. Intense feedback from the community was received, which encouraged critical discussion. In addition, the main conclusions of the report were taken up by a private foundation, leading in substantial funding of new tenure-track junior professorships of Earth System Science at German universities starting this year. 

The challenges of the Anthropocene are currently being addressed by a new Leopoldina working group, which is attempting to incorporate interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches into a conceptual and structural framework in order to give new impetus to basic research and tackle societal challenges.

In summary, the further development of Earth system sciences as one of the key disciplines to provide understanding and solutions for urgent challenges of our planet’s present and future is in the focus of the Leopoldina activity. It calls for questioning traditional patterns of thinking in teaching and research and building sustainable structures that meet the major challenges. Only in this way is it possible to gain the necessary understanding of the changes in our living environment and to develop a corresponding science.

Reference

German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (2022). Report on Tomorrow’s Science. Earth System Science – Discovery, Diagnosis, and Solutions in Times of Global Change. Leopoldina, Halle (Saale). 100 pp. https://doi.org/10.26164/leopoldina_03_00591

How to cite: Wetterich, S.: The Leopoldina’s perspective on community and policy advice and the case of Earth System Sciences, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-2119, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-2119, 2024.

16:28–16:30
|
PICO2.5
|
EGU24-20315
|
On-site presentation
Meike Lohkamp

A popular instrument of the Science-Policy Dialogue in political Berlin is the Parliamentary Evening. A Parliamentary Evening is a closed event for members of state parliaments and the German Bundestag, as well as employees of ministries. The goal is to facilitate information exchange between politics, administration, and science. Parliament members are invited both as speakers and guests. Discussions cover strategic and current issues within the intersection of politics, science, and society, as well as specific topics from various societal domains. The long-term objective of these events is to engage members of parliament and ministry staff in political and public projects, establish connections between parliamentarians and institutions, and enhance the knowledge of the participants. Last year, we organized a Parliamentary Evening on climate-resilient cities. Here, we report on the preparation, implementation, and follow-up of the event, as well as its impact and challenges.

How to cite: Lohkamp, M.: The Parliamentary Evening – a successful instrument of the Science-Policy Dialogue, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-20315, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-20315, 2024.

16:30–16:32
|
PICO2.6
|
EGU24-1414
|
On-site presentation
Dr. Katharina Sielemann, Annette Kirschmann, Dr. Almut Brunner, and Marie Heidenreich

Achieving a successful science-policy dialogue requires aligning scientific data with the needs of decision-makers, ensuring political relevance, scientific expertise, and timeliness. Essential to this process are face-to-face interactions, which are crucial to develop a mutual understanding of the needs, requirements, and perspectives of both sides. This approach ensures that the information provided to policymakers is not only accurate but also actionable. Therefore, establishing a common understanding of the topic/issue and identifying mutual needs is central to this dialogue. Further, incorporating multiple perspectives and diverse expertise is key to increasing the credibility and impact of scientific information, providing a comprehensive view of complex issues.

In 2023, Helmholtz SynCom, together with scientists from the Helmholtz Centres AWI, GFZ, GEOMAR, and Hereon, has designed a parliamentary breakfast on the topic of sea level rise. This event aimed to inform political decision makers about the sources, impacts, and significance of sea level rise for Germany, with a further objective of fostering enduring relationships and promoting the dialogue between Helmholtz experts and federal politics. In summary, the parliamentary breakfast served as an effective instrument to initiate and strengthen the dialogue between science and politics. It also functioned as a platform to concisely present complex research topics, such as sea level rise, in a targeted manner from a holistic scientific perspective and to discuss the socio-political relevance and the current need for action with the responsible policymakers.

This case exemplifies how targeted, engaging events like parliamentary breakfasts can effectively bridge the gap between science and policy, fostering productive dialogues crucial for informed decision-making.

How to cite: Sielemann, Dr. K., Kirschmann, A., Brunner, Dr. A., and Heidenreich, M.: Integrating knowledge and establishing exchange on sea level rise to advance policies, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-1414, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-1414, 2024.

16:32–16:34
|
PICO2.7
|
EGU24-8519
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Scientific support on coastal vulnerability for a new urban master plan
(withdrawn)
Gianandrea Mannarini, Mario Leonardo Salinas, Giorgia Verri, Vladimir Santos Da Costa, Riccardo Barzaghi, and Daniela Carrion
16:34–16:36
|
PICO2.8
|
EGU24-20119
|
On-site presentation
Preserving geoheritage and stimulating nature-based solutions in floodplain environments through stakeholder engagement. A case study from Flanders, Belgium
(withdrawn)
Gert Verstraeten, Yves Segers, Bart Vanmontfort, Eline Lathouwers, Marleen Van Zon, and Renske Hoevers
16:36–16:38
|
PICO2.9
|
EGU24-36
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Ali Leonard, Jaime Amezaga, Richard Blackwell, Elizabeth Lewis, and Chris Kilsby

My PhD research project is titled ‘Multi-scale water resources planning in England and Wales’. Proposed by an industry leader, it evaluates the importance of scale in water resources planning since the recent establishment of regional and national planning alongside continuing company scale planning.

 

The project is part of the Water and Infrastructure Resilience Centre of Doctoral Training (WIRe CDT). The WIRe CDT’s close ties with industrial partners allows research projects such as mine to be applied in a real life setting which helps increase the impact and allows for skills development across industry and academia. Through this academic-industrial partnership I can benefit from observing the multi-scale planning process in practice.

 

Firstly, observations of the planning process draw from placements embedded in the national reconciliation processes (focused on aligning inter-regional schemes) and regional and company planning. Secondly, semi-structured interviews are being conducted with participants from across the water industry including regional planning leads, regulators, government officials, and water resources planners from water companies and consultancies. Thirdly, lessons learned workshops are being carried out with leads of the five regional planning groups (WRW, WRSE, WRE, WReN, & WCWRG) and regulators, with findings being presented to a national planning coordination group (RCG). Finally, policy and planning documents and academic literature are reviewed and analysed.

 

The data is collated and organised thematically to identify successes, failures, and recommendations in an iterative and collaborative way that follows the planning cycle as it evolves. Lessons learned through this transition to a multi-scale approach have been fed-back in real time to decision makers involved in strategic water resources planning in England and Wales.

 

The recommendations acknowledge the existing gaps and aim to start framing a collaborative, multi-scale model of planning that starts the process of building a better understanding of water requirements and strategies and managing issues as they arise, recognising that time and resourcing is needed to start building the relationships and levels of trust and confidence required for the long term goal of truly integrated management.

 

The emerging governance frameworks are attempting to establish and integrate multiple scales for the first time since the sixties in England and Wales, and ultimately will be judged to have succeeded if there is confidence and trust that the process delivered aligned plans across scales that meet long term water supply needs. Success or failure, lessons learned from this transition to a multi-scale approach may provide wider insight for decision makers involved in complex, long-term, multi-stakeholder decision making under uncertainty.

How to cite: Leonard, A., Amezaga, J., Blackwell, R., Lewis, E., and Kilsby, C.: Embedded research into collaborative multi-scale water resources planning in England and Wales, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-36, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-36, 2024.

16:38–16:40
|
PICO2.10
|
EGU24-10786
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Raffaella Russo, Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, Paolo Capuano, Andrew Staniforth, Dilanthi Amaratunga, Aino Ruggiero, Gabriella Duca, Irina Dallo, Nadejda Komendatova, Melissa Scott, Marie-Christine Bonnamour, Ortensia Amoroso, and Wojciech Piotrowicz

Shaping and favoring informed-based decisions is a pivotal responsibility for both scientists and policymakers. Lessons and insights drawn from analyzing past disasters should be documented and shared transparently, using clear and inclusive language. This facilitates identification of challenges that policymakers might face in implementing such findings, especially obstacles arising from end-users, such as citizens.

The H2020 CORE EU project entails developing public guidance for enhancing community readiness for emergencies, covering pre-event and post event-response knowledge, and consolidating findings into an accessible online repository, extending availability of findings beyond the project's duration.

The CORE project is aimed at building a chain of trust, credibility and citizen engagement, providing guidance and recommendations for policymakers and society, and distilling the project's essence into actionable advice, starting from case studies from Europe and beyond (i.e. L’Aquila earthquake,  Italy (2009), Manchester arena bombing, UK (2017), Venkatapuran industrial accident, India  (2020), Aude region flash flooding, France  (2018), Great east Japan earthquake and tsunami, Japan  (2011), Jerusalem wildfire, Israel (2021), and finally Covid-19 pandemic (2020-2023)).

Among its main achievements, CORE has produced a standardized system  template able to analyse disaster case studies, with the aim of fostering transparency and uniformity in data collection and simplifying comparisons across diverse EU regions. Moreover, the project has issued recommendations to governments aimed at enhancing companies' resilience in the face of supply chain disruptions to reduce goods shortages. Additionally, a safety culture toolkit within the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) context was developed, catering to diverse stakeholders, such as citizens, public authorities, and practitioners.

Furthermore, the project provided guidance to policymakers on understanding the public’s consumer behaviours of available information, identifying information needs, and determining preferred communication channels. Specifically, the initiative from CORE included recommendations to counter misinformation both before, during, and after disastrous events.

This work has been supported by the CORE ("sCience and human factor for Resilient sociEty") project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101021746.

How to cite: Russo, R., Gargiulo, M. V., Capuano, P., Staniforth, A., Amaratunga, D., Ruggiero, A., Duca, G., Dallo, I., Komendatova, N., Scott, M., Bonnamour, M.-C., Amoroso, O., and Piotrowicz, W.: Bridging the gap between scientists and policymakers: the experience of the H2020 CORE project , EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-10786, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-10786, 2024.

16:40–16:42
|
PICO2.11
|
EGU24-12061
|
On-site presentation
Massimo Carosella and Maria Vittoria Gargiulo

Disaster risk control and mitigation present both challenges and opportunities.

The critical aspect lies in the scientific research required to formulate policies that anticipate, manage, and alleviate catastrophic events, which increasingly affect human communities with unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences. Conversely, it is crucial to communicate scientific knowledge so that it addresses the needs of communities, policymakers, decision-makers, and practitioners while providing practical solutions. Identifying the most impactful science policy formats is essential for enhancing political discussions. Locating specific information or practical examples pertaining to a particular discipline or field of research can prove to be a daunting task.

An opportunity can come from the diffusion of communication devices that allow policy makers to share such knowledge with citizens establishing a mutual prompt and global communication exchange. Besides a widespread awareness in communities, the social value added is the minimal per-person-investment required to an organisation and no costs charged over the single citizen.
In such a context, we developed Bee, a software framework supporting the entire process for defining, implementing and managing a Risk Management model.

Both methodology and reference standards are globally accepted in the Risk Management area. The original strategic design choice was to make Bee fully customizable with regard to its functionality (through the development team in the pre-deployment process) and user-adjustable (at any time without developer’s intervention and costs) as to type of risks and data managed. Such features make it the tool of choice for diverse areas of application, even in the same organisation: it allows to receive any risk indicators through interfacing any data source, define any types of risk, select the most suitable risk assessment/incident management methodology (CRSA, FMECA/FMEA, RCA, FTA, etc.), assemble risk assessment checklists for any number and type of recipients, choose the most reliable risk scoring algorithm, and select the most effective actions to include in the risk mitigation action plan.

Nowadays such choice results in a strategic tool in the natural anthropogenic events related risk management and communication process, for both policy and decision makers and citizens communities.

On the first side it allows policy and decision makers, and pratictioners to have a easy-to-use tool to implement their knowledge and technologically support their event control policies; it eventually translates data detected by IoT sensors or coming from scientific documentation into evidence (alerts, dashboards, numeric reports and charts) of each risk’s likelihood and impact, suggestions about the actions needed to mitigate each risk, powerful action plan monitoring features.

On the community side, it is the solution for an effective bidirectional communication: policy makers can massively broadcast risk awareness and risk preparedness questionnaires to people over their smartphones; people answers can be processed and released in a risk scoring report; significant events address messages and alerts to all the citizens possibly affected; once the action plan is defined, recovery messages can be broadcasted to citizens, to make their participation to the mitigation process aware, controlled and effective while making the risk communication efforts consistently measurable for the policy makers.

How to cite: Carosella, M. and Gargiulo, M. V.: Bee – a tool to help policy and decision makers in understanding risks assessment and mitigation, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-12061, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-12061, 2024.

16:42–16:44
|
PICO2.12
|
EGU24-16003
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
Joel Gill

The SDGs are ‘science intensive’, with implementation of their targets requiring contributions by scientists focused on understanding, monitoring, protecting, managing, and restoring the natural environment. This includes Earth (or geo-)scientists. Their understanding of the Earth’s structure, processes, and resources, and how life of all kinds interacts with Earth systems can help (in partnership with others) to provide essential services, the growth of green and diverse economies, the development of sustainable and resilient cities and infrastructure, and effective protection of environmental systems. To ensure the relevance of their work to policy priorities and the unimpeded flow of knowledge between Earth scientists and decision makers, actions are needed to strengthen the (Earth) science-policy interface. Here we set out three examples: 

(1) Improve coherence between development, science, and higher education strategies. Delivering the ambitions of the SDGs in any national context will require Earth scientists with specialised training in (for example) groundwater management, natural hazard analysis, and mining geology. After evaluating what Earth science contributions are required to deliver their SDG implementation strategies, national governments should take appropriate steps to ensure the need for this capacity is reflected in science and higher education strategies. 

(2) Increase participation of Earth scientists in national and international policy mechanisms. Thousands of Earth scientists gather each year at major Earth science conventions (i.e., traditional scientific meetings) but are typically underrepresented at key sustainability meetings, resulting in missed opportunities to inform implementation strategies. Awareness raising to increase both physical attendance and active participation at such meetings and contributions to interdisciplinary reports (e.g., the Global Sustainable Development Report) is required. 

(3) Support Earth scientists to actively reflect on, and embed into their work, key aspects of social and political context. Enhanced socio-political understanding (e.g., how government works), recognition of the complexity of policymaking, and an introduction to the practical skills required to contribute to ‘science diplomacy’ can help Earth scientists to understand the information requirements of decision-makers and how to nurture relationships with these communities. 

Geology for Global Development, a UK based charitable organisation in special consultative status with UN-ECOSOC since 2022, are contributing to each of (1)–(3) through three interrelated work programmes. They have established a research programme with one focus being ‘education for sustainable development’ (e.g., an analysis of current Earth science education courses in Kenya, contrasting with Kenya’s renewable energy ambitions). They are facilitating the Earth science community, particularly early-career researchers, to be active in national and international policy mechanisms (e.g., convening a side event on Earth science education at the UN STI Forum), and are publishing open-access learning resources for use in higher education settings (e.g., a module on ‘geoscience and sustainable development’). 

Collectively these actions (and the practical examples from the work of Geology for Global Development) help to enhance Earth science education, strengthen the science-policy interface, and increase the relevance and impact of Earth scientists’ contributions to the implementation of the SDGs. 

How to cite: Gill, J.: Geology for Global Development: An International Initiative to Strengthen the (Earth) Science-Policy Interface and Help Catalyze SDG Implementation, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-16003, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-16003, 2024.

16:44–16:46
|
PICO2.13
|
EGU24-6524
|
On-site presentation
Aoife K. Braiden, Sarah Blake, and Koen Verbruggen

In recent years there is a growing focus, at both national and international levels, on increasing the impact of research and evidence for policy. For example, Ireland’s Civil Service Renewal 2030 Strategy includes 'Evidence-Informed Policy and Services' as one of three strategic themes. However, connecting researchers, research outputs and policy makers is not trivial. The lack of shared languages, timelines and priorities can result in missed opportunities, or worse, poorly informed policy.

There have been efforts by research funding agencies to focus research programmes on policy related topics or specify required outputs in funding call terms and conditions. However, this often yields impractical project outputs for policy makers, or results that are not effectively communicated to the relevant users. It can also deter researchers from some funding calls. 

Since 2015 Geological Survey Ireland has been developing and implementing a geothermal research programme to support the transition to renewable energy.  This has included shaping and funding research projects through national schemes and international co-funding programmes. Importantly, the outputs of these research projects have been used by Geological Survey Ireland to directly support the development of a new national geothermal energy framework, including government policy, developed by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Ireland’s policy statement for geothermal energy development was published by the Irish Government in July 2023.  This aims to promote the sustainable development of Ireland's geothermal resources in support of Ireland's climate action commitments by setting out;

  • the preferred approach to regulation, and
  • the scope of a strategy to promote the sustainable development of Ireland's geothermal resources to decarbonise the heating and cooling of buildings and for industrial uses and power generation.

The ongoing development of the regulations, further policy and the wider geothermal energy sector will require continued, bespoke research outputs and collaboration between academia, policy makers and expert national organisations and agencies.  This presentation will provide a case study for the type of collaborative work required to effecively integrate research into national policy. 

How to cite: Braiden, A. K., Blake, S., and Verbruggen, K.: Connecting geothermal energy research and policy – an example from Ireland, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-6524, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6524, 2024.

16:46–16:48
|
PICO2.14
|
EGU24-14177
|
ECS
|
On-site presentation
Yu-Hsien Chen

In response to global net-zero transition pressures, Taiwan has adopted a multifaceted approach in its policies, expanding beyond energy efficiency to prioritize fairness and justice, especially for marginalized communities. This commitment is exemplified in the residential and commercial electricity-saving policy. Since 2012, the central government, in collaboration with municipal governments, has progressively introduced more comprehensive initiatives. Notably, "energy vulnerability care measures" were incorporated from the 2018 Municipal Energy Conservation Plan for the Residential and Commercial Sector, adapting to the changing landscape.

 

However, the conditions of energy vulnerability in Taiwan deviate from the conventional discourse on energy poverty, which typically addresses winter heating needs within liberalized electricity markets. Unique characteristics, such as low electricity prices and peak consumption for cooling in the summer, demand a distinct approach. Notably, energy-vulnerable care measures are situated within the broader framework of "energy conservation policies," with each county and city tasked with planning and executing these measures independently. In this context, bureaucratic inertia, rooted in a historical adherence to central directives, presents difficulties, especially in policies demanding local knowledge and frontline experience. The existing disparities in resources and capabilities among counties and cities further compound the challenges faced by local administrations.

 

This study aims to bridge the gap between the Western-centric discourse on energy poverty and the evaluation of vulnerable groups within Taiwan's net-zero transition. It seeks to comprehend the challenges faced by local governments in implementing these policies and aspires to enhance the well-being of energy-vulnerable groups. To achieve these goals, the researcher initially conducted a preliminary inventory by examining the energy-conservation reports of each county and city. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were undertaken to investigate not only the designation and implementation of these measures but also the horizontal and vertical obstacles to collaboration between local and central governments. The interviewees included project organizers, unit supervisors, commissioned companies, and their cooperative organizations.

 

The findings underscore a dual path dependence in the decentralized approach, revealing both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Local bureaucrats advocate for a mandatory policy coupled with central government guidance to provide clearer direction and momentum for implementation. Meanwhile, local governments tend to emulate measures from successful peers, even if these may not be the most critical for them. Despite hierarchical dominance in policy design within local government structures, interviews highlight that companies commissioned for implementation play a pivotal role. These entities exhibit a better understanding of the needs of vulnerable populations and policy shortcomings, which also makes local governments more inclined to rely on their expertise. The research advocates for a dual strategy: reinforcing top-down bureaucratic energy education while expanding bottom-up decision-making authority to empower relevant talents. Simultaneously, integrate energy-vulnerable care measures, currently under the environmental system, with the social welfare system. This alignment leverages existing trust foundations, integrating frontline knowledge and resources to effectively address energy vulnerability in Taiwan.

How to cite: Chen, Y.-H.: How can bureaucrats help change light bulbs? Evaluation of pro-poor energy initiatives in Taiwan, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-14177, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-14177, 2024.

16:48–16:50
|
EGU24-11604
|
Highlight
|
Virtual presentation
Noélie Auvergne, Jannik Sielmann, Julie Oppenheimer, and David Gallego Torres

The European Research Council (ERC) is the premier European funding organisation for excellent frontier research. Since 2007, it provides researchers with the autonomy to pursue ambitious research projects, fostering advances at the forefront of knowledge, without any expectations beyond excellent science. However, many ERC research projects do have an impact beyond science, address societal and policy-relevant questions, and provide knowledge to solve related challenges. 

With this poster, we will showcase how ERC grantees work at the interface of science and policy in the field of biodiversity. 

A recent report presents the contribution of curiosity-driven research funded by the ERC to EU policies that aim to protect and restore biodiversity and ecosystems. More than 230 research projects from a wide range of scientific disciplines - from the life sciences to physical sciences and social sciences and the humanities - were identified as producing knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystems relevant to policymaking. A subset contributed to shape the scientific evidence cited in policy documents, such as reports of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We will present examples of research working on e.g., reconstructing the baselines of ecosystems and estimating the impact of human activities; land use planning and resource allocation in conservation biology; land-climate dynamics in the context of climate change; or on the social impact of greening cities.

The Feedback to Policy team at the ERC Executive Agency (ERCEA) aims to identify, analyse, and communicate research results with policy relevance to European Commission services. This communication is presented by ERCEA scientific officers and policy advisers working on themes related to earth science, green transition, and sustainability.

How to cite: Auvergne, N., Sielmann, J., Oppenheimer, J., and Gallego Torres, D.: From frontier research to biodiversity conservation and restoration policies, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-11604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-11604, 2024.

16:50–16:52
|
PICO2.15
|
EGU24-19035
|
ECS
|
Highlight
|
On-site presentation
|
Georg Sebastian Voelker and Luisa Wirth

Anthropogenic climate change is to date one of the most pressing and challenging issues for our societies and their global interactions and dynamics. Although the material and societal causes and effects of climate change are well understood from different branches and fields of science such as natural and social sciences and the humanities, the implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures generally falls behind the self-set political goals. So why does the knowledge-action gap exist and how can it be addressed from the science community?

In Germany, the recently increasing political awareness among politicians and in the society as a whole, is generally followed by progressing climate legislation. However, some recent climate-related policy proposals on the German federal level were associated with a large amount of misinformation, public mistrust, and a largely uninformed public and political debate. On the local level we observe a similar increase in political dissent on climate policy in the city of Frankfurt (Main).

Aiming to inform societal processes and enable the necessary transformation to net carbon neutrality, scientists are more and more invested in both direct communication with a broader audience and direct interaction with politicians and policy-makers in science-society and science-policy interfaces, respectively. Based on our experience with both mentioned information pathways in the role of the honest broker, we argue that there is an additional need for integrated knowledge brokering in science-society-policy interactions including a larger number of stakeholders. Finally, we want to challenge the idea of science only brokering knowledge to individual stakeholders and put forward the aim of science not only informing but mediating the debate between the different agents. We are reshaping the role of scientists from being an informant to taking an active role in societal change and the debate about it.

How to cite: Voelker, G. S. and Wirth, L.: Reflecting on the role of science advice in theclimate crisis: The importance ofscience-society-policy interfaces, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-19035, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-19035, 2024.

16:52–18:00