Assessing and strengthening the science and EU environment policy interface.
Date: 2012-06-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, environmental monitoring, environmental research

Technical Report - 2012 - 059

Assessing and Strengthening the  
Science and EU Environment Policy Interface

Environment

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union

New freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu).

ISBN : 978-92-79-23532-0
doi : 10.2779/1028

© European Communities, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

This report has been prepared by Milieu Ltd. and Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd. for DG Environment 
of the European Commission under Contract No. 07.0307/2010/581217/SER/F4. The primary authors were Tony 
Zamparutti, Owen White, William Sheate and Jonathan Baker. Bernhard Borsche, Gretta Goldenman, Guillermo 
Hernández, John Holmes, Paula Orr, Florent Pelsy, Jenny Stafford and Clare Twigger-Ross contributed to the 
overall study tasks and reports. The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not 
represent the official views of the European Commission. 

Milieu Ltd. (Belgium), 15 rue Blanche, B-1050, Brussels, tel: 32 2 506 1000; Fax 32 2 514 3603; e-mail: zamparutti@
milieu.be; web address: www.milieu.be.

Collingwood  Environmental  Planning  Ltd  (United  Kingdom),  Unit  1E,  The  Chandlery,  50  Westminster 
Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY, tel: +44 20 7407 8700; email: r.eales@cep.co.uk; web address: www.cep.co.uk.

Table of Contents 

Preamble .......................................................................................................................................... 4 
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4 
1. 
1.1  Why is science important for Environment Policy? ......................................................... 4 
1.2  Policy relevance ................................................................................................................... 5 
The need to adapt to a fast-changing landscape .............................................................. 5 
2. 
3.  Common challenges to the take up of knowledge ............................................................ 7 
Lessons from the science/policy interface in Member States and beyond ..................... 8 
4. 
Tracking how science has contributed to European environmental policy ................... 12 
5. 
5.1  The policy cycle and the evidence cycle ..................................................................... 20 
6. 
Identifying options for action................................................................................................ 22 
7.  Recommended Actions ........................................................................................................ 23 
Cross-cutting action: strategy and knowledge management...................................................... 24 
Internal functioning (of DGs) ........................................................................................................ 25 
Foresight........................................................................................................................................ 25 
Knowledge providers .................................................................................................................... 26 
External communication, ICT and social media .......................................................................... 26 
Cooperation with Member States and regions ............................................................................ 27 
Building capacity ........................................................................................................................... 28 
8.  Final remarks .......................................................................................................................... 29 
Appendix 1: Study methodology ................................................................................................. 30 
Appendix 2: Methods and practices studied of science/policy interface in Member 
States and beyond ........................................................................................................................ 31 
Appendix 3: Full list of possible actions to improve the Science into European 
Environmental Policy interface.................................................................................................... 40 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preamble 

Solid  scientific  evidence  is  needed  to  underpin  EU  environment  policy.    The  increasing 
complexity  of  EU  environment  policy,  as  well as  emerging  trends in policy  governance  and 
public  demand  for  full  and  transparent  information,  all  suggest  that  a  stronger  scientific 
foundation for environment policy is necessary. 

Project objective and tasks 

The  overall  objective  of  this  study  was  to  support  the  European  Commission  in  exploring 
opportunities  to  reinforce  the  science  and  policy  interface  in  relation  to  EU  environment 
policy.  The project methodology is presented in Appendix 1. 

The study carried out analysis across a series of ‘building blocks’ related to the science and 
environment policy interface. Project tasks included the following: 

  Analysis of the scientific evidence used and science knowledge gaps in 10 key areas 

of environmental policy. 

  A  review  of  innovative  examples  of  how  international,  national  and  regional  policy-

makers consult with scientific advisers, focusing on the methods and practices. 

  Liaising  with  scientists  and  policy  experts  involved  in  integrating  sound  science  into 
policy,  to  further  explore  the  innovative  examples  and  to  use  their  lessons  to 
strengthen the EU science policy interface. 

On  the  basis  of  this  work,  the  study  prepared  a  series  of  recommendations  on  the  EU’s 
existing practices and strengthening the science and environment policy interface. 

1.  Introduction 

Over  the  past  decades,  the  EU  has  put  in  place  an  evidence-based  framework  of 
environmental policy and legislation. Scientific knowledge gathered from a broad range of 
sources underpins new and existing initiatives; the implementation and review of policies and 
legislation  draw  on  monitoring  data  and  on  scientific  knowledge  and  analysis.    However, 
important gaps and challenges nonetheless remain for the interface between science and 
policy.  

1.1  Why is science important for Environment Policy? 

To  be  robust  environment  policy  needs  to  be  based  on  sound  evidence,  and  in  the 
environment  field  that  means  sound  scientific  evidence  on  the  state  of  the  environment 
and  trends  in  environmental  indicators.  In  an  era  of  increasing  environmental  change  as  a 
result of human activity and climate change – to name just two pressures – policy responses 
for the future need to be based on as strong a scientific foundation as possible, particularly 
given increasing public demands for transparency and accountability.  

 

In  contrast  to  other  policy  areas,  environment  policy  has  been  generally  driven  by 
science (i.e.: side effects of pesticides, thinning of ozone, health effects of  mercury, 
CO2 for climate change). 

  Over  time,  environment  policies  have  evolved  from  being  strongly  targeted  to  being 
more  holistic,  implying  added  knowledge  demands,  in  particular  to  characterize  the 
complexities  and  uncertainties  of  integrated  issues  having  potentially  long  term  and 
irreversible consequences.  

  Policy  impact  assessments  call  for  the  most  up-to-date  scientific  evidence  and 

economic analysis. 

  Science is a key factor in generating acceptance and legitimizing policy intervention. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Scientific  evidence  ensures  a  greater  ability  to  withstand  and  counter  scrutiny  from 
those  who  are  adversely  affected  by  policy,  often  quick  to  challenge  the  scientific 
foundations of environment policy. 

  The  judicial  system  is  increasingly  faced  with  litigation  cases  that  present  complex 
issues of science and technology, and increasingly require access to sound science. 
  Evidence and analysis can play a decisive role in informing policy-makers’ judgments, 
and  can  condition  the  political  environment  in  which  those  judgments  need  to  be 
made. 

1.2 

Policy relevance 

The overall objective of this study was to provide new knowledge for a wider methodological 
framework to reinforce the capacity for evidence based policy making, through the improved 
use and take up of scientific evidence and knowledge.  

Although science is only one factor to be considered when making public policy, it is a critical 
one  because  of  its  limiting  or  empowering  effects  on  decisions.  An  accessible,  credible, 
legitimate  and  relevant  knowledge  base  can  lead  to  more  robust,  realistic,  cost  effective 
environment policies, and their successful implementation. 

The  2001  White  Paper  on  European  Governance1  stressed  the  need  to  enhance  the 
European  public's  confidence  in  policies  founded  on  expert  advice,  and  hence  lead  to  the 
establishment  of  guidelines2  on  the  collection  and  use  of  expertise  by  the  Commission 
towards  improving  the  knowledge  base  for  better  policies.  It  stressed  the  need  to  provide 
accountability, plurality and integrity of expertise as the basis for a common approach for all 
EU Institutions and Member States. The White paper also lead to the requirement for policy 
impact assessment3 to ensure that EC initiatives and legislation are prepared on the basis of 
transparent,  comprehensive  and  balanced  evidence  related  to  problem  definition,  impacts, 
advantages and disadvantages of options, and risk assessments. These formed part of the 
Commission's  wider  2002  Better  Regulation  Action  Plan4,  which  has  undergone  three 
successive  reviews.  The  2009  review  of  Better  Regulation5  called  for  an  increase  in 
transparency and accountability and the promotion of evidence-based policy making.  

2.  The need to adapt to a fast-changing landscape 

The  European  science  and  environment  policy  interface  needs  to  adapt  to  a  changing 
landscape.  In  an  increasingly  connected  and  dynamic  world,  the  crucial  environmental 
problems  to  be  tackled  today  are  in  many  ways  more  difficult  and  complex  than  those 
addressed  in  past  decades:  policies  for  climate  change  or  biodiversity  protection,  for 
example,  require  thinking  in  terms  of  long  time  horizons,  and  solutions  involve  improving 
economic  systems  and  changing  individual  behaviour  in  addition  to  setting  new  regulatory 
requirements.  

Current budgetary pressures are an important driver. In this part of the landscape as well, 
policy makers need to recognise that uncertainties and risks have grown. While a number of 
gaps  and  issues  for  the  Commission's  current  science/policy  interfaces  need  to  be 

1 COM(2001)428  
2 COM(2002/173 
3 COM(2002)276 and SEC(2009) 
4 COM(2002)278 
5 COM(2009)15 

5 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
addressed,  it  is  as  important  to  acknowledge  the  technological,  social  and  economic 
changes that are posing new challenges for environmental policy and their links to science.6 

One key factor is technological innovation. The EEA’s report on The European Environment: 
State  and  Outlook  2010  identifies  accelerating  technological  change  as  a  global 
‘megatrend’: it can be seen in the rapid developments of nanomaterials and nanotechnology 
applications,  as  well  as  of  genetics  and  synthetic  biology.  Another  fast-moving  area  is 
information  and  communications  technology.  EEA  gives  this  megatrend  the  subtitle  “racing 
into  the  unknown”.  These  technological  advances  raise  questions  about  what  responses 
policy should take in terms of addressing potential benefits and risks (as well as how to use 
new technology to help address environmental problems). 

These  and  other  contextual  factors  contribute  to  a  situation  where  science,  environmental 
policy and related decision making are operating in conditions where “facts are uncertain, 
values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”7. As a result, environmental policy 
development  faces  difficult  challenges:  notably,  how  to  identify  and  make  use  of  the  most 
appropriate  evidence  where  there  is  a  lack  of  consensus  about  appropriate  policy;  how  to 
weigh  a  range  of  scientific  results;  how  to  act  in  the  face  of  scientific  uncertainty  and 
knowledge gaps.  These  are  key  issues  for  the  Commission  to  address  in  its  science/policy 
interfaces.   

Another factor is that societal and technological changes are opening up policy debates. The 
Internet and social media are changing the way science itself works, strengthening informal 
networks  and  the  rapid  exchange  of  information.  They  are  also  changing  relationships 
among  science,  society  and  government.  These  developments  create  opportunities  for  the 
science/policy  interface,  for  example  through  new  ways  of  monitoring  the  environment  and 
then  synthesising  and  disseminating  the  data  collected  and  improving  predictive  analytics. 
One  important  implication  is  that  the  relationship  between  science  and  policy  is  really  a 
triangle,  also  involving  the  public.  Social  media  poses  a  challenge  for  institutions,  as  it 
operates  so  differently  from  many  existing  administrative  procedures  and  structures 
that have grown over many decades and change only at a slow pace. 

There is a lot to learn from current social media. A variety of models exist, from Wikipedia to 
TED.com,  and  a  wide  range  of  participatory  techniques.  Some  models  are  mechanisms 
specifically for scientists to discuss research topics: for example, a growing number of web 
sites and forums are used for scientific knowledge exchange.8 In using such mechanisms, it 
is important to identify clearly the goal and audience. Moreover, social media are a difficult 
market: some are quickly adopted, others have little following. 

There are other relevant shifts in governance at play as well, such as increasing demands for 
and  rights  of  access  to  information,  participation  and  justice  –  in  other  words  greater 
accountability and transparency in policy making – which is increasingly also enshrined 
in  legislation  (e.g.  the  Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information  Directive  and  the  Aarhus 
Convention)9.  These shifts, along with changing information technology, are providing 
profound  changes  in  the  way  in  which  the  science  and  policy  communities  and  the 
public  communicate  with  each  other  and  ultimately  engage  in  decision-making.  The 
genie, effectively, is out of the bottle.  

6 This section draws also on the keynote presentation given by Miles Parker, Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser at 
UK Defra, to the September 2011 workshop, together with the discussions that followed. 
7 Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz 1993. Science for the post-normal age, Futures, Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 
739-755. 
8 See, for example, http://www.intute.ac.uk/  
9 Sheate, W.R (2012), Purposes, Paradigms and Pressure Groups: Accountability and Sustainability in EU 
Environmental Assessment, 1985-2010, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33 (1):91-102. 

6 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Common challenges to the take up of knowledge 

Some challenges to the take up of science in policy arise from the fact that the science and 
policy  communities  have  very  different  ‘cultures’:  not  only  do  most  members  of  each 
community understand the other poorly; in general, most scientists have few incentives, and 
consequently little time, to engage with policy makers, as their career paths usually depend 
instead  on  research  and  scientific  publications.  Similarly,  most  policy  officials  have  few 
incentives  and  little  time  to  engage  with  scientists  or  explore  in  depth  the  science  base  of 
their work, as policy assessments and decisions are the main areas for their work. The two 
communities, therefore, often find themselves working to very different timescales. 

Other  challenges  arise  due  to  the  nature  of  often  highly  technical  scientific  knowledge  in 
relation  to  the  information  needs  for  policy  decisions.  For  science  to  be  used  effectively  in 
policy, a potentially great volume of research findings need to be distilled and interpreted for 
policy  implications.  Further  problems  arise  as  results  are  often  not  available  when  policy 
makers  need  them:  the  timing  of  research  results  does  not  follow  the  needs  of  the  policy 
cycle. Often, scientific results are, by their nature, ambiguous and sometimes contradictory: 
consequently,  a  further  difficulty  is  how  to  communicate  the  uncertainty  and  complexity  of 
scientific results, and how to address these in policy decisions. 

The outcome of three science for environment policy workshops organised by the European 
Commission DG ENV (held in 2009, 2010, and 2011) highlighted the following barriers to the 
take up of knowledge and scientific findings in the environmental policy process:  

  Difficulty  in  communicating  and  disseminating  relevant  scientific  findings  to  policy 

makers and public at large. 

  Delivery of scientific results misaligned with the policy development cycle. 
  Vast  volume  of  information  and  difficulty  in  distilling  the  most  critical/recent/trusted/ 

relevant information. 

  Difficulty  in  influencing  the  research  policy  agenda  such  that  it  is  more  aligned  to 

meet specific policy needs. 

  The difficulty in conveying and handling scientific uncertainty and complexity to policy 

makers and the public at large. 

  The  sub-optimal  "policy  literacy"  of  scientific  communities,  and  "scientific  literacy"  of 

policy making communities. 

  Fewer  researchers  and  research  centres  interested  in  pursuing  genuinely  policy 

relevant, trans-disciplinary research. 

  Unclear  guidelines  regarding  how,  when  and  where  to  gather  to  gather  relevant 

knowledge for each phase of the EU environment policy cycle. 

  Difficulty  in  combining  and  handling  the  use  of  knowledge  relevant  to  cross-cutting 

policies. 

  Difficulty in generating the data needed to evaluate our own policies/programmes. In 
particular,  to  develop  the  baseline  data  and  indicators  essential  for  before-and-after 
comparisons (at both EU and MS level). 

  The inaccessibility/usability of data, models indicators, and trends needed to support 

decision making. 

Possible  ways  forward  towards  addressing  some  of  the  these  challenges  could  include: 
developing  new  mechanisms  for  dialogue  among  scientists,  policy-makers  and  other 
stakeholders; strengthening the ‘translation’ and brokerage of research results; strengthening 
links  with  science  brokerage  in  Member  States;  aligning  research  more  closely  with  policy 
needs; and developing foresight and other activities. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Lessons from the science/policy interface in Member States and beyond 

The  assessment  and  survey  of  how  policy-makers  consult  with  scientific  advisers  at  policy 
level, shows that a broad range of methods and practices have been used for the science-
environmental policy interface in Member States, in other countries such as the US, and at 
international level. 

The project made a brief review of more than 100 methods and practices, ranging from think 
tanks to science advisory committees to expert panels. These methods and practices were 
categorised into a simple typology based on the three knowledge exchange models outlined 
below. 

To understand the interfaces better, it is valuable to look at the types of mechanisms that are 
used  for  knowledge  exchange  between  science  and  policy.  The  analysis  followed  a 
framework proposed by Best and Holmes (2010)10 for knowledge exchange, which classifies 
approaches into three main types of “models”11: 

  Linear models – typified by knowledge transfer from science to policy 
  Relationship models – typified by knowledge exchange between science and policy 
  Systems models – typified by knowledge being embedded within organisations and 

systems, resulting in knowledge integration and translation 

Key characteristics and a visual representation of the three models are presented in Box 1. 

It should be noted that each model has its merits, but different models may be more effective 
or  appropriate  in  different  decision  making  and  policy  contexts.  In  the  context  of  EU 
environment  policy,  where  there  are  generally  a  large  number  of  potential  actors  and 
stakeholders and where the knowledge context may be very broad and potentially uncertain 
(or contested), relationships and systems models may be of particular value in supporting 
effective  policy  development  and  decision  making.  The  changing  landscape  described 
earlier,  highlights 
interactive  approaches  to  the 
science/policy  dialogue12,  which  presents  a  further  argument  for  the  development  of 
relationship and systems approaches to the European science/policy interface.   

for  greater  use  of 

the  need 

10 Best, A., and Holmes, B (2010) Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods, 
 Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, Volume 6, Number 2, May 2010, pp. 145-159. 
11 Other frameworks exist for framing science-policy interactions. The “three modes of science-policy dialogue”, 
presented by Dr Jason Chilvers at an EASAC workshop in 2010, has a similar structure: 1. Science speaks truth 
to power (Linear / technocratic); 2. Science-policy interaction (Interactive); 3. Science-policy-society interaction 
(Co-productive).  See: http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/dialogue_project/Presentation%20Chilvers.ppt  
12 Chilvers, J. (2010), Three modes of science-policy dialogue, presentation to the EASAC Dialogue Study 
Workshop, Berlin, 24-25 June 2010: 
http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/dialogue_project/Presentation%20Chilvers.ppt   

8 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 1: Characteristics of knowledge exchange models13 
Linear 

Scientific 
Scientific 
research / study 
research / study 
findings
findings

Research 
Research 
outcomes 
outcomes 
summarised or 
summarised or 
otherwise 
otherwise 
interpreted: 
interpreted: 
‘evidence’
‘evidence’

Relationship 

Participation
Participation

Need for or scope 
Need for or scope 
of policy options 
of policy options 
identified
identified

Policy approach 
Policy approach 
or goals modified
or goals modified

Need for or sc po e 
ope 
Need for or sc
tions 
tions 
of policy op
of policy op
d
identifie
identifie
d

Research 
Research 
Research 
organisation/s
organisation/s
organisation/s

Stakeholder 
Stakeholder 
Stakeholder 
groups
groups
groups

Scientific 
Scientific 
research / study 
research / study 
findings 
findings 
developed into 
developed into 
report or other 
report or other 
synthesis
synthesis

Policy 
Policy 
development 
development 
group: policy 
group: policy 
officials and other 
officials and other 
stakeholders
stakeholders

Policy approach 
Policy approach 
or goals modified
or goals modified

Feedback
Feedback

Systems 

Research 
Research 
Research 
Research 
organisation/s
organisation/s
organisation/s
organisation/s

Stakeholder 
Stakeholder 
Stakeholder 
Stakeholder 
groups
groups
groups
groups

Relationships
Relationships
Relationships

Informal 
Informal 
Informal 
and formal 
and formal 
and formal 
interactions
interactions
interactions

Foresight
Foresight
Foresight

Policy 
Policy 
Policy 
Policy 
development 
development 
development 
development 
group: policy 
group: policy 
group: policy 
group: policy 
officials and other 
officials and other 
officials and other 
officials and other 
stakeholders
stakeholders
stakeholders
stakeholders

Capacity 
Capacity 
Capacity 
& 
& 
& 
training
training
training

Evidence 
Evidence 
Evidence 
strategy
strategy
strategy

Experts
Experts
Experts

Linear
Linear
Linear

Organisations
Organisations
Organisations

Policy 
Policy 
Policy 
development
development
development

•  Generally transfer of 

“knowledge” in one 
direction 

•  Best suited to 

situations where 
evidence is clear and 
policy objectives / 
goals generally 
accepted 

•  Limited (or no) space 
for feedback and 
stakeholder 
participation 

•  Promote two-way or 
multilateral dialogue 

• 

Involve engagement 
and collaboration 

•  Give space for 
different 
interpretations and 
opinions 

•  Bring together actors 
and stakeholders 
where roles and 
interests may differ 

• 

Informal networks and 
contacts of individuals: 
‘communities of 
practice’ 

•  Education and 

capacity building: 
developing the 
expertise and capacity 
to communicate and 
engage 

13 Linear and Relationships figures adapted from figures in Shaxson, L (2010) Improving the impact of 
development research through better research communications and uptake, background paper for the AusAID, 
DFID and UKCDS funded workshop: London, November 29 – 30 2010 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
An  in-depth  analysis  looked  at  12  interfaces,  from  all  the  cases  studied,  focusing  on 
examples  that  appeared  innovative  based  on  the  initial  information  gathering  (Table  1). 
Summary posters presenting key features of each case study are presented in Appendix 2. 

Table 1:  Case studies of science/policy interfaces 
Interface / case study title 

Brief description of case study focus 

1.  Belgian Institute of Natural 

Sciences 

Cooperation on development policy, and in particular the 
Institute’s relationship with Belgian development institutions 
and its work bringing biodiversity into policy and 
development. 

2.  German Advisory Council on 

the Environment 

Role of the advisory council in policy development and 
decisions within the German government. 

3.  Finnish Government Foresight 

Network 

Role of foresight / horizon scanning in identifying upcoming 
and emerging policy (and science) issues. 

4.  Netherlands Environmental 
Assessment Agency (PBL) 

5.  Centre for Science and Policy 
(CSaP) Knowledge Exchange 
Fellows 

6.  Natural Environment Research 
Council (NERC) Science-policy 
placements 

7.  UK Government Chief Scientific 
Advisor and the Government 
Office for Science 

8.  UK Department for Environment 
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) 
Chief Scientific Advisor 

The case study explores the functioning of the Netherlands 
Environmental Assessment Agency and its role as a 
science policy interface for the Netherlands government. 
The study focuses on initiatives of the Cambridge Centre for 
Science and Policy (CSaP) and the Natural Environment 
Research Council (NERC).  CSaP coordinates capacity 
building and knowledge-exchange programmes for policy 
makers to meet and work with scientists. 
NERC coordinates placements for scientists and academics 
within policy making institutions (departments in UK 
government) and this case study explores the experiences 
and value-add of this process both from the perspective of 
the interface (NERC official) and a scientist placed in a 
policy environment. 
The role and responsibilities, and practical functioning of a 
very high-level scientific advisor within government, 
providing advice and opinion direct to the office of the Prime 
Minister.  The study explores the influence on policy and the 
skills, attributes and effectiveness of this method of 
interfacing. 

The functioning of the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor, and in 
particular how he operates in a policy environment, 
influences and contributes to environmental policy 
decisions, and provides policy relevant scientific information 
and evidence. 

9.  Resources for the Future, USA  Role of a think tank (US based) in influencing the US 

10. Danish Technology Board, 
including Parliamentary 
Technology Assessment, 
Denmark 

Government and other institutions such as the World Bank 
and UN Agencies. 

Exploration of this mechanism for providing the Danish 
Parliament with technical (scientific) information and 
analysis, its functioning and engagement processes.  
Effectiveness and roles of stakeholders and wider 
engagement / consultation. 

11. Observatory for Sustainability 

(Observatorio de 
Sostenibilidad), Spain 

Functioning of a dedicated organisation set up specifically 
to promote environmental sustainability within government 
decision making and policy development.  Role in and 
influence on national policy decisions. 

12. UN International Resource 

Role of an interface operating internationally.  Practical 

10 

 
Interface / case study title 

Panel 

Brief description of case study focus 
functioning of a very high-level interface.  Relationship with 
and influence on policy makers (at all levels relevant). 

The  review  sought  to  assess  the  strengths  that  contributed  to  their  success.  Key  factors 
include the following: 

  Reputation of the organisation or mechanism – this is often built up over years. 
  Transparency of its operating practices. 
  The existence of informal connections and networks alongside the formal interface 

(this is discussed further below). 

The  case  studies  revealed  that  some  of  these  interfaces  faced  problems  in  matching 
research activities with policy needs and the policy cycle (for example interviews related 
to  the  German  Advisory  Council  for  the  Environment  and  the  UN  International  Resource 
Panel both raised the difficulty of matching in-depth research and reporting with the day-to-
day  needs  of  policy  makers  /  decisions)  –  this  is  a  difficult  and  ongoing  problem  for  the 
relationship between science and policy. 

As  for  the  case  studies  within  European  environment  interfaces,  this  review  of 
interfaces  in  Member  States  and  beyond  grouped  approaches  used  under  the  different 
knowledge exchange models. The external studies show a much wider use of methods and 
practices  typical  of  the  systems  model.  This  is  in  part  due  to  the  approach  followed,  which 
sought  innovative  examples  of  the  science/policy  interface.  The  results  show,  nonetheless, 
that relationship and systems models can be employed effectively and are being used much 
more  frequently  in  the  external  examples  surveyed  than  is  the  case  within  the  European 
Commission (based on the case studies undertaken). 

These results reinforce the point that the science/policy interface can be strengthened in 
particular through greater use of relationship and systems approaches. 

Examples  of  the  case  studies  that  use  systems  models  include  the  Finnish  Foresight 
Network,  which  brings  together  officials  who  work  across  government  departments.  By 
providing a coordination role, the network increases the power of the smaller foresight teams 
within each department. The UK Government Chief Scientific Advisor also leads a network of 
advisors in government departments; moreover, his central office leads foresight work for UK 
government as a whole.  

Several  lessons  emerge  from  the  review.  The  importance  of  relationships  and  informal 
links  were  highlighted  throughout  the  case  studies.  Some  respondents  said  that  face-to-
face  discussion  was  the  most  important  interface  in  terms  of  efficiency  and  effectiveness, 
and that physical infrastructure – being across the hall or in the same building – can be a 
valuable enabling factor in developing and strengthening an interface. Where scientists and 
policy makers work in different organisations, exchanges and other network-building 
in  establishing  and  helping  to  maintain 
efforts  can  play  an 
relationships. 

important  role 

One example of how to do so is seen in the case study of the Centre for Science and Policy 
(CSaP)  at  Cambridge  University,  which  runs  an  exchange  programme  that  brings  policy 
officials  to  the  university  for  one-week  periods.  During  their  visits,  the  policy  officials  meet 
with researchers and present their scientific knowledge needs. A key goal of the programme 
is  to  build  a  long-term  self-sustaining  network  of  scientists  and  policy  makers,  which 
reinforces  the  idea  that  science/policy  interfaces  are  about  people;  a  focus  solely  on 
flows of information will not be able to build effective mechanisms.  

Many case studies illustrated an inter-disciplinary approach, which brings together a range 
of  scientific  perspectives.  This  is  seen,  for  example,  in  the  range  of  scientific  expertise 
11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
brought into the UN International Resources Panel. At the same time, there is an important 
trade-off  between  an  inter-disciplinary  approach  and  providing  in-depth  knowledge  for  a 
specific policy area. 

Another important factor seen in some case studies is growth over time. A sustained long-
term  interface  allows  the  strengthening  of  informal  relationships,  as  well  as  the 
development  of  formal  links  and  methods.  This  can  be  seen  in  the  Belgian  case  study, 
where  the  Royal  Institute  of  Natural  Sciences  has  worked  with  officials  in  charge  of 
development cooperation officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for over a decade. It also 
appears that individuals play an important role in bringing forward a method or practice.   

The availability of policy officials with a scientific background is likely to strengthen the 
potential  effectiveness  of  the  science/policy  interface.  In  the  US,  for  example, 
government  scientists  participate  in  expert-level  exchanges  with  the  staff  of  Resources  for 
the  Future  (RFF),  an  independent  think  tank,  and  occasionally  participate  in  RFF  research 
projects  as  well.  This  emphasises  the  need  to  support  science  students  at  university  level 
(and possibly before) to think about policy issues and to draw them into policy work. 

One  important  issue  is  that  each  of  the  interfaces  studied  fits  into  a  specific  context.  The 
immediate context can be quite important: for example, the German Advisory Council for the 
Environment (SRU) is one of several science/environmental policy interfaces for the German 
government: its effectiveness also depends on links with the other interfaces. 

A further point is that national administrative traditions play an important role. Among the 
case  studies,  the  Danish  Technology  Board  appears  to  have  gone  the  furthest  in  using 
participatory  methods.  These  are  not  seen  in  Spain,  for  example,  where  establishing  the 
legitimacy and independence of the OSE has been an important factor in its effectiveness. 
These  differences  may  be  linked  to  the  differences  in  government  approaches  to 
participation. A recently published European Environment Agency (EEA) study highlights the 
role of national administrative cultures in shaping interfaces for futures studies such as 
foresight  and  horizon  scanning:  for  example  Scandinavian  countries  such  as  Denmark  are 
notable for their participatory approaches to governance. At the same time, the report notes 
that  exchanges  among  Member  State  experts  are  leading  to  a  sharing  of  methods  and 
learning.14 

Both the broad review of interfaces and the in-depth case studies show that a wide range of 
approaches have been put in place to support the science/policy interface. The mechanisms 
in the Member States and beyond can provide ideas for new approaches at EU level.  

Moreover, the review shows that Member States hold a wealth of knowledge and science 
broker  experience  that  could  be  more  effectively  tapped  in  EU  policy  discussions.  The 
Commission  could  foster  better  harvesting  of  work  in  the  Member  States,  and  also  build 
stronger  networks  with  Member  State  institutions.  This  can  include  national  institutions, 
including  those  reviewed  in  the  case  studies,  as  well  as  others,  including  organisations  at 
regional level.  

5.  Tracking how science has contributed to European environmental policy  

The  study  carried  out  a  review  of  how  science  is  gathered  for,  and  used  in,  in  10  key 
European environment policy areas (Box 2), deemed to have the highest potential to benefit 
from an improved science/policy interface throughout the entire policy making cycle.  

14 EEA (2011), BLOSSOM — Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods (a 
cross-country analysis) EEA Technical Report 5/2011: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/blossom  

12 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  case  studies, 

Publically available documents formed the main information base 
including  European  Commission 
for 
documentation  (via  websites)  such  as  DG  Environment  and 
CIRCA16,  as  well  as  external  organisations  and  academic 
literature as appropriate. Examples of literature reviewed include: 
impact  assessment  reports;  research  reports  by  consultants 
commissioned  to  provide  policy  relevant  research;  technical 
reports  by  research  organisations;  academic  journal  articles;  and 
DG Environment programme review reports (e.g. LIFE+ mid-term 
review). For a few case studies, however, experts or officials were 
also contacted for further information. 

Box 2: Policy case 
studies 
Air Quality Directive 
Biocidal products 
Blueprint for Water 
Ecosystem Services 
Floods Directive 
LIFE+ 
Nanotechnology 
Natura 2000 
Noise Directive 
RoHs15  

Table 2 provides an overview of the stages in the policy cycle that 
activity in each policy issue assessed is considered to represent.  
It should be noted that the shaded areas in the table provide only 
an  indication  of  the  stages  of  the  policy  cycle  covered  in  the  case  studies  and  are  not 
indicative of each policy issue in its entirety. The assessment of each policy area is mainly 
based on the review of accessible formal documents.  

While the case studies of specific policy areas covered a broad range of environmental policy 
areas,  it  should  be  noted  that  they  were  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive  or  a  representative 
sample. 

15 Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHs) 
Directive (2002/95/EC). 
16 http://circa.europa.eu/ 

13 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
Table 2:  10 policy issues assessed 

Policy issue 

Notes on scope of assessment 

1.LIFE+ 

2.Inter-DG 
comparison – 
Nanotechnolo
gy within DG 
SANCO 

3.Blueprint for 
Water 

4.RoHs 

The extent to which projects funded under the LIFE 
programme have contributed science information useful 
to and used in policy development, decision making 
and implementation both at the EU and member state 
levels. The focus of the assessment was predominantly 
on the LIFE+ programme (2007 – 2013) but also 
considered earlier LIFE phases. 

Major nanotechnology science policy interfaces within 
DG SANCO, and looked in particular at the work of the 
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified 
Health Risks. As a case study exploring science/policy 
interface practice in a different DG, this assessment 
was intended to provide an element of inter-DG 
comparison. 

The extent to which the studies commissioned by DG 
Environment, DG Research, JRC, EEA and others are 
providing the knowledge base to develop policy options 
that are useful for and used in the Blueprint. One focus 
of the assessment was on the contribution of completed 
or ongoing relevant research projects (FP6/7 and ERA-
NET projects). 

The assessment focused on two areas: the granting of 
exemptions to the Directive’s restrictions on hazardous 
substances; and the process for the revision of the 
Directive (the revised Directive was approved in 
December 2010) 

5.Natura2000  How science has been used in the designation of 
Natura2000 sites through the requirements of the 
Habitats Directive only, and specifically how Member 
States and DG Environment have achieved this. The 
initial proposal for this policy assessment was to 
consider scientific knowledge in the potential interaction 
between site designation and other EU Directives 
(especially the Water Framework Directive and the 
Floods Directive). However very limited information was 
found to carry out such an assessment. 
The setting of standards for ambient air quality, 
particularly for particulate matter (PM) in the 
preparation of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on 
ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.  

6.Air Quality 
Directive 

7.Biocidal 
products 

8.Noise 
Directive 

How science has been used in the on-going review of 
an active substance, creosote, for its potential 
authorisation under Directive 98/8/EC 

How scientific inputs were provided in the background 
study for the mandated review of the Directive, which is 
to consider its possible revision 

Policy cycle stage 

e
c
n
e
d
i
v
E

g
n
i
r
e
h
t
a
g

A

I

d
n
a
g
n
i
t
f
a
r
D

-
r
e
t
n

I

l
a
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

s
s
e
c
o
r
p

n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
-
s
n
a
r
T

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

d
n
a
w
e
i
v
e
R

d
n
e
m
a

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
Policy cycle stage 

e
c
n
e
d
i
v
E

g
n
i
r
e
h
t
a
g

A

I

d
n
a
g
n
i
t
f
a
r
D

-
r
e
t
n

I

l
a
n
o
i
t
u
t
i
t
s
n

i

s
s
e
c
o
r
p

n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
-
s
n
a
r
T

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

d
n
a
w
e
i
v
e
R

d
n
e
m
a

Policy issue 

Notes on scope of assessment 

9.Floods 
Directive 

10.Ecosystem 
Services 

The use of science in the development of the Floods 
Directive (2007/60/EC). The initial proposal for this 
policy issue suggested this assessment would explore 
initial information on the implementation of the 
Directive, however, the level of information available 
and scale of the assessment excluding implementation 
mean this aspect has not been pursued. 
How science has been used within the development 
and implementation of the 2006 Biodiversity Action 
Plan, and specifically science relevant to the concept of 
ecosystem services. The assessment also considered 
the extent to which ecosystem services integrates two 
distinct areas of science (ecology and economics) to 
better incorporate a specific issues (biodiversity) into 
policy. 

The  first,  and  perhaps  most  important,  result  is  that  each  area  has  its  own  mix  of 
knowledge brokers, methods and practices. In some cases the interface is temporary, put 
in place for a specific need such as the review or amendment of a legislative instrument. In 
other words, rather than having a single approach to the science/policy interface, European 
environment policies use an evolving mosaic of interfaces. This structure has advantages, 
notably in that the interface is tailored to the needs of each policy area – the review showed 
that  the  knowledge  base  for  each  area  is  quite  specific,  and  thus  to  a  great  extent  the 
diversity of interfaces is understandable. At the same time, this system also raises important 
issues, such as the risk that the policy areas become ‘silos’ that do not seek or share 
cross-cutting scientific results, and that procedural efficiencies are missed, which may 
mean  opportunities  to  apply  good  practices  and  minimum  standards  in  the  processes  of 
science advice to policy are missed. 

The  review  found  that  several  methods  for  gathering  scientific  knowledge  and  advice  were 
used frequently across the case studies: 

  Reports  and  summaries  prepared  by  consultants,  by  organisations  and  by 
committees  were  used  in  all  policy  areas:  these  include  studies  to  support  impact 
assessments, reviews of scientific evidence, reports on stakeholder consultations as 
well as a range of other work. 

  A  broad  range  of  organisations  act  as  knowledge  brokers  for  DG  Environment  – 

these are discussed below. 
 
In a few policy areas, advisory groups and panels are used, often on an ad-hoc basis. 
  Stakeholder  consultations  also  played  an  important  role  in  policy  development, 
though  it  is  not  clear  how  much  scientific  evidence  is  provided  through  these 
mechanisms. 

The  different  policy  areas  thus  made  strong  use  of  knowledge  brokers  to  gather, 
synthesise and interpret scientific information. 

Each policy area was analysed based on the model framework presented in Section 4, and 
the  results  are  presented  in  Table  3  below.  A  first  conclusion  is  that  nearly  all  the  case 
studies  involved  more  than  one  knowledge  exchange  model.  In  particular,  while  the  linear 
model  was  used  across  all  the  case  studies  –  typified  by  reports  and  summaries 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
commissioned  for  a  specific  policy  need  –  the  relationship  model  is  also  widely  used.  The 
latter involves, for example, consultation methods and other knowledge exchange activities. 
In contrast, the systems model – involving practices such as dedicated capacity building as 
well as the use of networks and communities of practices – was little seen. The results are, 
as previously noted, dependent on the case studies chosen and are limited by the methods 
used.  

Table 3: Knowledge exchange models used in each case study 

Knowledge exchange model 

1. LINEAR 

2. RELATIONSHIP 

3. SYSTEMS 

Case study 

Air Quality Directive 

Biocidal products 

Blueprint for Water 

Ecosystem Services 

Floods Directive 

LIFE+ 

Nanotechnology 

Natura2000 

Noise Directive 

RoHs  

The  results  suggest  that  EU  environmental  policy  initiatives  can  strengthen  the  use  of 
knowledge  exchange  models  and  in  particular,  adopt  more  systems  approaches  for  the 
science/policy  interface.  This  would  provide  a  richer  participation  and  exchange  of 
information between the scientific and policy spheres, ensuring desirability and acceptability 
of outcomes. 

Knowledge brokers 

The  science/policy  interface  often  depends  on  knowledge  brokers  that  distil  and  interpret 
scientific  results,  knowledge  and  opinions  to  bring  out  their  policy  implications.  The  case 
studies  looked  at  the  knowledge  brokers  –  both  people  and  organisations  –  used  in  each 
policy area.  

In  nearly  all  case  studies,  consultants  were  seen  as  an  important  broker  (this  category 
includes all entities that provide support via consulting contracts, and thus includes research 
institutes,  universities,  non-profit  organisations  and  Member  State  agencies  in  addition  to 
private firms). 

The  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  was  found  to  be  an  important  broker  of 
scientific knowledge in four of the ten case studies, while the Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
was  seen  in  three.  The  EEA,  JRC  as  well  as  Eurostat,  are  currently  major  knowledge 
providers  for  DG  Environment.  However,  the  policy  documents  reviewed  during  the  study, 
did not sufficiently highlight their contribution. This raises an issue of traceability and visibility 
of  scientific  information,  which  in  most  cases  was  fundamental  to  environmental  policy 
development.  

It  is  notable  that  EU  research  projects  were  not  seen  prominently  among  the  knowledge 
brokers: these had an important role only in the case study on floods policy. One reason may 
be that these projects focus more on research than policy support: the results may thus 
be  used  by  other  knowledge  brokers,  and  are  subsequently  referenced  in  studies  and 
reports  commissioned  by  the  European  Commission,  so  these  outputs  are  indirectly 
contributing to the interface.  

16 

 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  the  same  time,  a  gap  does  exist  between  the  results  of  research  EU  funding  and  the 
policy  needs  for  environmental  policy  in  particular.  The  Commission  has  made  important 
efforts  to  strengthen  the  policy  relevance  of  the  research  projects,  for  example,  through 
requiring  a  policy  interface  component  for  each  FP7  project  as  well  as  meetings  that  bring 
together  researchers  and  policy  makers.  Moreover,  the  European  Commission’s  Green 
Paper  on  the  next  phase  of  research  and  innovation  funding,  Horizon  2020,  emphasises 
among  other  objectives  providing  greater  policy  relevance.17  Indeed,  there  is  a  need  for 
further  efforts  to  continue  closing  this  gap,  including  through  changes  to  the  design  of 
Commission research funding programmes and improved awareness. 

A notable exception is seen in the case study on floods, where EU research projects had a 
prominent role. This provides a good example of the value of, and opportunity to strengthen, 
links between research projects and policy. It is notable that one factor in this case study is 
that individuals and agencies involved in the research were close to the policy process (see 
Box  3  below).  More  generally,  it  appears  that  the  link  between  research  projects  and 
policy making is strong in the water sector (perhaps because the interaction in this policy 
area with society is so direct, as floods directly affect people and communities), and this may 
provide valuable lessons for other areas of environmental policy. 

Box 3: The science/policy interface for flood policy 

In  the  area  of  flooding,  a  number  of  mechanisms  have  been  used  to  bring  scientific 
knowledge into the policy sphere. For example, the Exchange Circle for Information on Flood 
Forecasting  (EXCIFF)  brought  together  EU  bodies,  Member  State  agencies  and  research 
centres  as  well  as  individual  experts  to  compare  flood  approaches,  review  forecasting 
methods and identify needs and gaps. A separate Exchange Circle covered information on 
flood  mapping.  Both  these  bodies  worked  on  the  development  of  the  new  Floods  Directive 
(2007/60/EC).  The  network  among  Member  States  officials  and  experts  was  maintained 
through  a  working  group  under  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)  developed  for 
the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Several  EU  funded  projects  –  such  as  FLOODSITE,  an 
integrated project on flood risk management funded under FP6 – fed into the overall process. 
In addition to these and other formal networks in this policy area, a broad array of informal 
relationships link together scientists and policy makers at both European and Member State 
levels. 

In  two  of  the  case  studies,  air  quality  and  noise,  the  Europe  regional  office  of  the  World 
Health  Organisation  (WHO/Europe)  was  consulted.  In  both  cases,  this  organisation  was 
asked  to  synthesise  scientific  knowledge  related  to  health  impacts:  for  air  quality,  for 
example,  WHO/Europe  set  up  a  scientific  panel  and  carried  out  a  systematic  review  of 
scientific  results.  WHO’s  guidelines  in  these  areas  have  also  influenced  European 
environment initiatives work. An example is the Night noise guidelines for Europe prepared in 
200918 which were used in the review of the Noise Directive.  

One  case  study,  on  nanotechnology,  focused  on  a  mechanism  in  another  part  of  the 
European  Commission:  the  use  of  scientific  committees  (this  case  study  looked  at  the 
Scientific  Committee  on  Emerging  and  Newly  Identified  Health  Risks,  SCENHIR).  This 
committee represents a much more formalised approach to the science/policy interface than 
that seen in DG Environment, and it has written procedures for the selection of its members, 

17 European Commission, Green Paper: From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic 
Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding, 9 February 2011. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/com_2011_0048_csf_green_paper_en.pdf#page=2  
18 World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe (2009) Night noise guidelines for Europe: available at 
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications/2009/night-
noise-guidelines-for-europe 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
for its operation and for addressing potential conflicts of interest. The committee works on the 
basis  of  requests  presented  by  the  European  Commission,  and  does  not  initiate  its  own 
work.  This  type  of  committee  provides  an  authoritative  review  of  scientific  issues;  it  can, 
however, be a rigid structure that has difficulty answering quick requests from policy makers. 

Another  case  study  looked  at  LIFE+  programme  that  could  function  as  a  science/policy 
interface,  which  funds  pilot  projects  to  support  the  implementation  of  environmental  policy.  
Their  work  ranges  greatly,  from  putting  in  place  new  approaches  for  protected  area 
management to testing more efficient waste management  techniques. The case study did 
not find evidence that new knowledge from the projects goes back to inform European 
environmental policy work. This issue may be addressed in the upcoming revision of the 
LIFE+  Programme,  where  strengthening  links  with  environment  policy  areas  has  been 
an important focus.19  

Issues and challenges 

One important challenge for Commission institutions that emerges from the analysis is that of 
retaining knowledge that has been gathered. This is a concern as many of the knowledge 
brokers lie outside its offices. In addition, the common practice for officials in the European 
Commission  to  change  positions  relatively  frequently,  in  some  cases  every  two  or  three 
years, compounds the risk that the knowledge capital (the ‘institutional memory’) gathered for 
a specific policy need – for example, the revision of legislation – may be lost or dispersed in 
future  years.  Reports  and  studies  make  up  part  of  this  capital;  so  do  the  contacts  and 
informal  relationships  that  officials  have  built  up  and  these  in  particular  risk  being  lost  with 
personnel turnover.20 

Another  concern  arises  where  key  information  for  policy  issues  is  held  by  the  private 
industries being regulated or related industry associations. This was seen, for example, in 
the  case  study  for  biocides,  where  the  main  scientific  data  for  the  authorisation  of  active 
substances is presented by the private groups making the request. This is also the case for 
exemptions  requested  by  companies  under  the  RoHS  (Restriction  of  the  Use  of  Certain 
Hazardous  Substances 
in  Electrical  and  Electronic  Equipment)  Directive:  here,  an 
organisation working under a consulting contract has undertaken the technical evaluation of 
the requests, and was also seeking information from other stakeholders via an Internet site 
as well as direct contacts. In this case, however, crucial information related to the availability 
of alternatives and their costs are difficult to identify and are often proprietary. 

A  further  issue  is  that  the  case  studies  did  not  identify  any  methods  and  approaches 
that  function  across  the  different  policy  areas.  Some  examples  of  specific  cross-cutting 
needs  are:  the  preparation  of  reference  documents  (called  BREFs)  on  best  available 
techniques  under  the  IPPC  Directive  could  be  better  informed  by  knowledge  generated  for 
water, waste and chemicals policies. 

A  further  area  for  work  is  bringing  together  cross-cutting  scientific  knowledge  for 
strategic  thinking.  Related  to  this,  only  one  case  study  found  examples  of  the  use  of 
forward-looking methods such as projections (for floods) or scenarios. Projections are known 
to  be  used  in  several  other  environment  areas,  including  air  quality  and  now  resource 
efficiency. However, a broad-based approach to foresight for European environmental policy 
as  a  whole  has  not  been  seen,  even  though  the  Commission  as  a  whole  is  engaged  in 

19 See for example: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/beyond2013.htm  
20 This is an issue also in Member States, highlighted in a recent EEA report on the relationship between future-
oriented studies and policy development: EEA (2011), BLOSSOM — Bridging long-term scenario and strategy 
analysis: organisation and methods (a cross-country analysis) EEA Technical Report 5/2011: 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/blossom  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
research  and  policy  foresight21.  Here,  foresight  is  meant  to  cover  a  broader  range  of  work 
than  quantitative  modelling:  it  can  include  horizon  scanning  as  well  as  a  consideration  of 
uncertainties and risks and potential tipping points.  

Another  area  of  concern,  raised  at  the  workshop,  is  the  need  to  improve  access  to  and 
use/re-use of monitoring and other data, and environmental information in policy making. 
This is an issue currently being tackled in collaboration with the EEA, Eurostat, JRC and the 
Member  States  through  a  number  of  initiatives  like  the  Shared  Environmental  Information 
System  (SEIS)22,  Infrastructure  for  Spatial  Information  in  the  European  Union  (INSPIRE)23 
and  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)24,  as  well  as  others  such  as 
Eye on Earth, being developed by EEA and partners.25   

21 Sheate, W, Zamparutti, T, Bennett, S and Rogeli, M (2007), Literature review and mega trends of driving 
forces of future environmental change Final Report by Collingwood Environmental Planning and Milieu Ltd to 
the European Environment Agency (November 2007) 
22 SEIS: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/ 
23 INSPIRE: http://www.inspire-geoportal.eu/ 
24 GMES: http://www.gmes.info/ 
25 Eye on Earth: http://www.eyeonearth.eu/ and . http://eyeonearthsummit.org/ in collaboration between EEA, 
Microsoft and ESRI.  

19 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
5.1 

The policy cycle and the evidence cycle 

Knowledge  needs  vary  at  different  stages  in  the  policy  cycle,  and  this  dynamic  is  an 
important 
interface  as  well  as 
opportunities  for  strengthening  this  interface.  Figure  1  provides  an  initial  overview  of  key 
links.   

the  Commission  science/policy 

in  assessing 

factor 

Figure 1: Scientific input to the policy cycle 

Science input: 
ascertain scope and 
scale of issue, and 
ability / relevance of 
EU action

Science input:
Assessment of 
existing information, 
filling gaps through 
new research

Scoping:
does the EU need to 
be concerned?

1. Evidence gathering

Science input:
Identifying new 
evidence, 
supporting and 
exploring need 
for revisions 

6. Review and amend

Science input:
Identifying and 
assessing options, 
evidence to support 
proposal/s.
Inter-service and 
stakeholder 
consultation

2a. Drafting legislation 
/ instrument

2b. Impact assessment

Reporting & 
Monitoring

5. Implementation

3. Inter-institutional 
process

Science input:
Evidence supporting 
action by MS and 
stakeholders – for 
infringement and 
enforcement processes

4. Transposition, entry 
into force

Science input:
Review of existing 
evidence.
Possible new 
evidence to 
assess new 
options and 
amendments

Note: Figure 1 presents a generic policy cycle.  The entire cycle is iterative: as a  policy or 
regulatory initiative is reviewed and amended, the cycle is repeated. 

The ‘evidence cycle’ of results from scientific projects in comparison with the policy cycle is 
less  clearly  defined  –  indeed,  new  scientific  knowledge  can  arrive  unexpectedly  –  however 
the  information  and  knowledge  from  the  ‘evidence  cycle’  is  often  not  aligned  with 
knowledge  needs  in  the  policy  cycle.  A  key  concern,  therefore,  is  to  link  the  cycle  of 
research funding more closely to policy needs.26 

26 This has been a concern in Member States as well, as noted in the EEA’s BLOSSOM study. That study also 
noted issues when the link is too strong: in such a case, research may miss emerging and unexpected topics and 
trends.  EEA (2011), BLOSSOM — Bridging long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and 
methods (a cross-country analysis) EEA Technical Report 5/2011: 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/blossom  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
New  issues  can  emerge  quickly,  so  the  importance  of  the  early  stages  of  the  cycle:  for 
example,  disasters  such  as  the  BP  Deepwater  oil  spill  can  push  an  issue  onto  the  policy 
agenda.  Here,  policy  makers  need  answers  relatively  quickly.  In  this  case  (which  was 
considered as part of the case studies), the US government, in reaction, set up a six-month 
panel, supported by commissioned studies and other inputs, to make recommendations for 
regulatory  reform.  An  expert  panel  is  thus  one  example  of  how  to  respond  to  a  major, 
unexpected event. At times, ho
wever, policy makers also need answers in a matter of days, 
fo
r example to requests from the European Parliament, and this is one area where a rapid 
response system is needed. 

Not  all  policy  issues  appear  suddenly.  In  many  cases,  an  accumulation  of  scientific  results 
brings  an  issue  onto  the  policy  agenda:  in  effect,  science  “pushes”  policy.  Policy  makers 
need to understand how to interpret new scientific evidence and decide when to act and in 
what fashion. Here, problems of uncertainty, ambiguity and complexity
 are important: policy 
m
aking  has  to  occur  before  results are  conclusive,  as  that would  be  too  late  –  the  impacts 
would be already strong, while the problem may be difficult to change.  

At  the  stage  of  identifying  policy  options  and  drafting  legislative  proposals,  there  is  a 
need for greater involvement of a broad range of scientists and scientific opinion, in particular 
a stronger role for Member State scientists: one criticism is that this work is restr
icted to 
e
xpert groups with a limited set of participants. Moreover, broader participation was seen as 
a key element for better transposition and implementation of new European policies.  

Impact assessment of policy and legislative proposals has become a crucial step for the EU 
policy cycle. At this stage, although the emphasis has often been primarily on understanding 
impacts  (economic  costs)  for  EU  industry,  the  intention  is  that  impact  assessment  brings 
together knowledge from physical and other sciences with economic analysis: policy makers 
use  the  results  to  assess  options  for  new  policies  and  choose  among  them.  Several  case 
studies  considered  impact  assessments.  The  analysis  showed  a  lack  of  clarity  in  the 
methods, if any, used for balancing scientific results and uncertainties against assessments 
of costs and benefits for key stakeholders. A further concern, is that the trail of studies and 
other sources used in an impact assessment needs to be better documented (a need which 
applies  more  generally  to  the  use  of  scientific  evidence  in  policy  making).  The  systematic 
use  of  frameworks  for  data  and  indicators,  such  as  DPSIR27  may  provide  a  way 
forward. Moreover, the impact assessment process could be used much more effectively to 
incorpora
te scientific knowledge and assess uncertainties and knowledge needs, although a 
p
otential downside here is that impact assessments are often conducted within limited time-
frames. 

While these issues were raised for the impact assessment process, the case studies as well 
as  workshop  discussions  showed  that  the  use  of  knowledge  in  the  next  step  in  the  policy 
cycle, the EU inter-institutional process, is even less clear. Legislative proposals are often 
amended  by  the  European  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  before  final  approval,  but 
impact  assessment  at  this  stage  or  other  background  analyses  were  not  found
.  Here,  it 
s
hould be noted that only a couple of case studies covered this stage of the policy cycle; the 
workshop discussions, however, supported the results seen in these case studies. 

At the implementation phase, the workshop discussions highlighted a paradox: a great deal 
of  monitoring  and  assessment  work,  including  by  EEA,  addresses  this  stage  in  the  cycle. 
Some participants from the European Commission, however, felt that better information was 

27 DPSIR is the Driving Forces – Pressures – State – Impact – Response framework developed by EEA and PBL. 
Other frameworks can include, for example, the STEEP approach (Society – Technology – Economy – 
Environment – Policy) sometimes used in foresight studies. See EEA (2011), Knowledge base for Forward-
Looking Information and Services (FLIS): http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/knowledge-base-for-forward-
looking  

21 

                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
needed  to  understand  implementation  issues  and  problems.  This  is  related  to  the  issue  of 
making the bes
t use of existing and future data (see section 2.1 above). More systematic use 
o
f  frameworks  for  data  and  indicators  and  integrated  assessment  modelling  can  provide  a 
way forward.  

The  links  between  work  at  EU  and  Member  State  level  is  a  particular  concern  in  the 
implementation stage, where Member States need to use science to inform implementation 
activities for EU policies. At the same time, this is an important issue throughout the policy 
cycle:  it  was  felt  that  existing  links  between  EU  discussions  and  Member  State 
representatives  are  overly  restricted  by  formal  committee  processes.  Broader,  more 
informal 
links  with  scientists  could  assist  in  supporting  more  effective  science/policy 
in
terfaces  at  Member  State  level,  which  in  turn  would  support  better  implementation  of  EU 
policies. 

The  stage  of  review  occurs  for  mature  policy  issues.  It  may  take  years  from  a  policy 
inception to arrive at this stage. For example, the policy cycle for water issues – from early 
discussions to the approval of the Water Framework Directive and now its implementation – 
has  taken  place  over  a  period  of  almost  20  years.  In  this  example,  water  policy  has 
broadened  and  evolved  over  the  course  of  the  policy  cycle  to  encompass  new  questions, 
such  as  floods,  water  scarcity  and  droughts,  climate  change  impacts  and  adaptation,  and 
also  the  impacts  of  sectors  such  as  agricultu
re.  The  workshop  discussions  underlined  that 
th
e  evidence  cycle  needs  to  broaden  as  well,  for  example,  linking  work  on  climate 
c
hange impacts with that on water issues. 

6.  Identifying options for action 

The  previous  sections  provide  an  overview  of  the  main  issues  arising  from  the  study.  The 
final stage of work has
 involved the development of a set of specific recommendations for the 
E
uropean  institutions  and  other  actors  to  improve  the  interface  of  science  into  European 
environmental policy. 

w  of  the  key  areas  for  action  identified  through  the  study 
s  well  as  in  previous  work,  notably  the  workshop  held  in  2010).  These  areas  have  been 

This  work  started  from  an  overvie
(a
grouped into eight major themes: 

the  need 

  Cross-cutting  action  –  strategy  and  knowledge  management:  the  review  of 
to 
environment  policy  areas  highlighted 
strengthening the science/policy interface within the Commission and with knowledge 
partners,  as  well  as  the  need  for  new  and/or  improved  knowledge  management 
systems  to  retain  information  within  the  Commission,  as  well  as  facilitate  sharing  of 
information  across  programmes  and  policy  areas.  These  actions  are  considered 
cross-cutting as they help underpin and facilitate all science/policy interface activities. 
Internal  functioning  (of  DGs):  the  review  of  environment  policy
  areas  also 
highlighted  the  need  for  cross-cutting  information  flows  and  other  links  among  the 
currently separate science/policy interfaces within different policy units. 

for  a  strategic  approach 

 

  Foresight: was identified as a key need in the study and worksho

p (and also in the 
previous  workshop,  held  in  2010)  to  identify  long-term  evidence  needs  and  be  in  a 
stronger position to respond to emerging policy issues and needs. 

  Knowledg

e providers: the workshop discussions called for better links between the 
Commission and existing environment knowledge providers and brokers such as EEA 
and JRC. 

  External communicatio

n, ICT & social media: the previous section has highlighted 
this as a key feature of the fast-changing landscape for policy development and the 
science/policy interface. 

  Cooperation  with  external  institutions  and  services:  the  review  of  the  current 
science/policy  interfaces  in  the  Commission  highlighted  the  role  of  consulting 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contracts,  and  this  is  a  key  area  to  develop  more  consistent  methods;  in  addition, 
relationship
s could be strengthened with EU institutions and services working at the 
interface.  

  Cooperation  with  Member  States  and  Regions:  the  case  studies  highlighted  the 
innovative work for science/policy brokerage in many Member States; moreover, the 
workshop discussions underlined the need for stronger networks with Member States.  
ce  will  require  the 

  Building  capacity:  strengthening  the  science/policy  interfa

development of new skills and capacity within the Commission. 

T

he key areas for action are presented in visual form in Figure 2. 

Figure 2: Proposed key areas for action to strengthen the SPI 

1. Cross cutting 
action: strategy 
and knowledge 
management

Establishing an overall 
interface for EU 
environmental policy 

6. Cooperation 
with external 
institutions and 
services

2. Internal 
functioning of 
DG 
Environment

4. Knowledge 
providers

Sci ence  input :
I denti fyi ng  and 
S cience  inp ut:
assessi ng  opti ons, 
I dent if ying  and 
evid ence t o supp ort  
assessing  opt ions,  
pro posal/ s.
evi dence t o  su ppor t 
I nter- servi ce an d 
proposal/ s.
st akehol der 

Scien ce i nput:
I dent if yin g and 
assessing  opt ions,  

Sci ence i nput :
Ident i fyi ng and  

S cience  input :
Assessm ent  of  
exist ing  in form ati on, 
f il li ng g aps t hrough 
new  resear ch

Science  in put:
A ssessment  o f 
exist i ng i nform ati on,  
f il li ng  gaps t hr ough 
new  r esearch

Sci ence i nput :
Assessmen t  of 
exi sti ng i nf orm at ion,  
fi ll ing  gaps  thr ough 
new  r esear ch

Sci ence i nput : 
ascert ain  scope  and 
Sci ence i nput : 
scal e of  i ssue,  and 
ascert ai n scope  and 
ab il it y /  relevanc e  of  
S cience  input :  
scal e of  i ssue,  and 
EU  acti on
ascertai n scope  and 
abil it y /  rel evance of  
Science  in put:  
scale  of  issue,  and  
EU  act ion
ascertai n  scope and 
abi li ty  /  rel evance o f 
Sci ence i nput : 
scale  of  issu e,  and 
E U act io n
ascert ain  scope an d 
abi li ty  /  r elevance  of 
Sci ence i nput : 
scal e  of  i ssue,  and 
EU  acti on
ascert ain  scope  and 
ab il it y /  relevance  of  
Sci ence  input :  
scal e of  i ssue,  and 
EU  acti on
ascert ai n scope  and 
abil it y /  rel evance of  
Science  inp ut:  
scal e o f  issue,  and 
EU  act ion
ascertai n sco pe and 
abil it y  /  rel evance of  
scale  of  issue,  an d 
EU  act ion
abi li ty  /  r el evance  of 
E U  acti on

S cop i ng:
be  c once rn ed?
d oes  t he  E U  ne ed  t o 
b e  conc er ned ?
d oes  t he  E U  n eed  t o 

Sc op in g:
be  co ncer n ed?
do es  th e  EU   nee d  to  

d oe s t he  E U  n eed  t o 

doe s  th e  EU   nee d  to  

b e  con cer ne d?

S co pi ng :

S co pi ng :

Sco pi ng :

S co pi ng :

1.  E vi de nce  g at h er in g

Sci ence i nput :
Assessm ent  of  
exi sti ng  inf ormat ion , 
fi ll in g gaps  thr oug h 
n ew resear ch

Sci ence  input :
Assessm ent  of  
exist ing  in form at i on, 
f il li ng gap s t hro ugh 
new  resear ch

consul tat i on

assessi ng opt io ns, 
evidence  to  support  

evi dence  to  support 
I nt er- ser vice  and 
proposal /s.
stakehol der 
Int er-ser vice  and 
consu lt ati on
proposal /s.
stakeh older 
In ter-ser vi ce and 
co nsult ati on
st akeholder  
consul tat ion

Sci ence  input :
Id enti fyi ng  and 
S cience  inpu t:
assessi ng o pti ons, 
I denti f ying  and 
eviden ce  t o suppo rt  
Science  in put:
assessi ng  opti ons,  
prop osal/ s.
I dent if ying  and 
evi dence t o su pport  
I nter- servi ce and 
assessing  opt ions,  
proposal/ s.
st akehol der 
evi dence t o  support 
I nt er- ser vice  and 
consul tat io n

Sci ence i nput :
Ident if yi ng and 

2a .  D raf t in g  l egi sl at i on  

/  i n st r um e nt

2 a.  D r af t i ng  l eg is la ti o n 
/   in st r um e nt

2a.   Dr a ft i ng  l eg i sl at io n 

Science  inp ut:
A ssessment  of  
Scien ce i nput:
exist in g i nfor m ati on,  
Assessmen t  of 
f il li ng  gaps t hr ough 
exi sti ng i nf orm at ion,  
new  r esearch
f i ll ing  gaps  thr ough 
new  r esear ch

Sci ence i nput :
Assessm ent  of  
exi sti ng  inf ormat ion,  
fi ll ing  gaps  thr ough 
new  resear ch

1 .  E vi den ce  g at he ri n g

1.  E vi de nce  g at he r in g

1.   Evi d enc e  ga th er i ng

1.   Ev id en ce  ga t her i ng

stakehol der 
consul t ati on

assessin g opt io ns, 
proposal /s.
evi dence  to  support  
Int er-ser vice  and 
proposal /s.
stakeho lder  
Int er-ser vi ce and 
co nsult ati on
st akeholder  
consult at ion

2b .  I m pa ct  a sse ssm e nt

/  i nst r u m ent

2a .  D ra f ti n g  le gi sl at i on  
/  i ns tr u m en t

2b .  I m p act   ass ess m en t

2a .  D raf t in g  l egi sl at i on  

6.   R evi ew   and   am en d

b e  con cer ne d?

6 .  R evi ew   an d  am e nd

doe s  the  E U  n eed  t o 

Sc op in g:
be  con cer ne d?
do es  th e  EU   nee d  to  

1.  E vi de nc e  gat h er i ng

1.   Ev id enc e  ga th er i ng

6.  R ev ie w  an d  am end

Sc op in g:
be  co nce rn ed?
do es  t he  E U  ne ed  t o 
be  c once r ned ?

6.  R e vi ew  a nd  a m en d

1 .  Ev id en ce  g at her i ng

2 b.   Im p act   as ses sm en t

/  i ns t r um en t

2 a.  D r af t i ng  l eg is la ti o n 
/   in st r um e nt

2b.   Im p ac t  as ses sm e nt

2a.   Dr a ft i ng  l eg i sl at io n 

Sci ence  input :
Id enti fyi ng  new 
evi dence,  

Science  inp ut:

suppor t ing  and 
expl ori ng  need 
f or  revisi ons 

I denti f ying  new 
Scien ce i nput:
evidence,  
I dent if ying  new 
suppo rt ing  and 
eviden ce, 
expl oring  need 
sup por ti ng and 
f or r evisi ons 
explorin g need 
for r evi sions 

Sci ence i nput :
Ident if yi ng new  
Sci ence  input :
evi dence, 
Iden ti fyi ng n ew 
suppor ti ng  and 
evi dence, 
explori ng need  
support ing  and 
for  revi sion s 

S cience  inpu t:
I denti f yi ng  new 

R epo r t in g  &  

5.   Im p l em en t at io n

6.   Re vi ew   and   am en d

M oni t or i n g

R ep or t i ng  &  

expl ori ng  need 
f or  revisi ons 

M on it o rin g

R ep or t i ng  &  

Scien ce  in put:
evidence,  
I dent if ying  new 
support ing  and 
evidence,  
expl oring  need 
supp ort i ng and 
f or r evisi ons 
exp loring  need 
f or r evi sions 

Sci ence i nput :
Ident if yin g new  
evi dence, 
suppor ti ng an d 
explori ng need 
for  revi sions 

R epo r t in g  &  

M o ni to ri ng

Re po r ti ng   & 

M o ni t or i ng

5 .  I m pl em e nt at i on

6 .  R evi ew   an d  am e nd

5.  I m pl em ent at i on

6 .  R ev ie w  an d  am e nd

5.  I m p le m en ta t io n

6.  R ev ie w  a nd  a m end

4.  T rans po si t io n,   ent ry 

5.   Im p l em en t at io n

i nt o  f orc e

5 .  I m pl em e nt at i on

4.   Tran sp osi t io n,   en try  
i nt o  f o rce

5 .  I m pl em e nt at i on

4.   Tra nsp os it i on ,  en t ry  
i n to   fo rce

4 .  Tr a ns pos it i on ,  e nt ry 

5.  I m p le m ent a ti o n

in t o  f orce

4.  T rans po si ti o n,  e nt ry 

Mo ni t or i ng

R ep or t in g  &  
Science  inp ut:
M on it o rin g
Evi dence supp ort in g 
R ep or t i ng  &  
Sci ence i nput:
act io n by  MS  and 
M on i to rin g
Evi dence su pporti ng 
st akeholder s  –f or 
acti on by  MS  and 
i nf ri ngem ent  and 
st akehol ders  –f or 
enfor cem ent  processes
inf r ingem ent  and 

Re po rt i ng   & 
Sci ence i nput :
M o ni t or i ng
Evi dence  supporti ng 
acti on  by M S and  

Sci ence  input :
Evidence  support ing 

enf orcem ent  processes

st akehol der s – for 
in fr ing em ent  and 
enf orcement  p rocesses

i nt o  f orc e

4.  T ran spo si t io n,   ent ry 

i nt o  f o rc e

4.   Tran sp os it i on ,  en tr y  

i nt o  f o rce

4 .  Tr a nsp os it i on ,  en t ry 
in t o  f orce

act ion  by M S  and 
stakehol der s – for 
i nfr i ngement   and 
enf orcemen t  pro cesses

S cience  inpu t:
Evid ence suppo rt ing  
Scien ce i nput:
act ion  by  MS  and 
Evi dence su pport i ng 
st akeholder s  –f or 
act i on by  MS  and 
i nf ri ngem ent  and 
st akehold ers  –f or 
enfor cem ent  processes
inf ri ngem ent  and 
enf orcem ent  pr ocesses

Sci ence i nput :
Evi dence  supporti ng 
acti on  by M S and 
st akehol ders  –f or 

Sci ence  input :
E vidence  support ing 

inf r ingem ent  and 
enf orcem ent  pr ocesses

act ion  by M S  and 
stakehol der s – for 
i nfr in gement  an d 
enf or cement   processes

3.   In te r - in st it u t io nal  

2b .  I m pa ct  a sse ssm e nt

/  i nst r um ent

2a.   Dr a f ti ng   le gi sl at i on 

p r oc ess

2b .  I m pa ct   ass ess m ent

/  i ns tru m en t

3.   In t er- in st i t ut io na l 
pr oc ess

3 .  I nt er- i nst i t ut i on al  

2 b.  I m p act   ass ess m en t

pr o ces s

3.  I nt er- i ns ti t ut i on al  

2b.   Im p ac t  as ses sm en t

p ro ce ss

3.  I n te r-i n st it u ti o nal  

p r oc ess

3.   In t er- in st i tu t io na l 

Sci ence i nput:
Revi ew  of  exi sti ng 
Sci ence i nput :
eviden ce.
R eview  of  exi sti ng 

E

Po ssibl e new  
evi dence t o 
assess n ew 
opt ions  and 
am endm ent s

pr oc ess

3 .  I nt er- i nst i t ut i ona l  

pr o ces s

Sci ence  input :
evi dence.
Review  of  exi st ing 
Possibl e n ew 
S cience  inpu t:
evi dence.
evi dence t o 
Revi ew  of  exist ing  
Possi ble  new 
assess  new 
Scien ce i nput:
evidence.
evi dence  to 
opt io ns and 
Revi ew  of  exist i ng 
Possi ble  new 
assess  new 
amendm ent s
Sci ence i nput :
eviden ce.
evidence  to  
op ti ons and  
R eview  of  exi sti ng 
Poss ibl e new  
assess new  

am endment s

pr o ce ss

3 .  I nt er- i ns ti t ut i on al  

opti ons  and 
am endm ents

Sci ence i nput :

evid ence t o 
assess new  
opt ions  and 
am endm ents

evi dence.
R eview  of  exi sti ng 
P ossibl e new  
S cience  inpu t:
evi dence.
evi dence t o 
Revi ew o f  exist ing 
Possib le  new 
assess  new 
evi dence.
evi dence  to 
opt ion s and 
Possi ble  new 
assess  new 
amendm ent s
evidence  to  
opt i ons and 
assess new  
amen dment s

o pti ons a nd 
am endmen ts

3. Foresight

5. External 
communication, 
ICT , new media

7. Capacity 
building

7.  Recommended Actions  

The next stage involved gathering a list of possible actions to be taken in each thematic area 
to improve the science into environmental policy interface at European level. Some of these 
possible actions were identified in the workshop discussions; others emerged from the case 
studies of science/policy interfaces in Member States and elsewhere; while some also came 
from  the  assessment  of  current 
science/policy  interface  practice  considered  in  the 
e
nvironmental policy case studies.  

37 discrete potential actions and 15 recommended key actions were identified. The full list of 
actions  is  presented  in  Appendix  3  and  the  sub-section
s  below  set  out  the  recommended 
s
hortlisted actions identified for each key area for action. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  evaluation  of  actions  was  made  against  a  series  of  criteria  to  arrive  at  an  overall 
assessment  of  their  potential  for  stren
gthening  the  science/environmental  policy  interface: 
high, medium and low. The evaluation criteria were: 

 

Institutional practicability: the extent to which each action could be delivered with
existing institutional structures. 

in 

  Costs: The expected

 relative costs – actions considered possible to implement within 

existing budgets or with limited additional financial impact received a higher score. 
  Human  resources:  The  extent  to  which  existing  human  resources  capacity  could 

deliver each action. 

  Urgency/meeting  needs:  The  extent  to  which  each  action  meets  or  addresses  an 
existing knowledge gap or need identified in the course of the project (including in the 
workshop discussions). 

T
he  evaluation  also  looked  at  the  time  scale  (short,  medium  and  long  term ),  as  well  as 
responsibilities:  whether  the  Commission  could  lead,  and  which  partners  would  be 
involved. Expected key benefits as well as issues and uncertainties were also identified. 

28

In the evaluation, all the criteria were considered to propose actions for initial consideration. 
During the evaluation one criterion, urgency, played a key role: only those items received top 
scores here were identified as being of high priority. A further goa
l was to seek to identify at 
ast  one  priority  action  for  each  key  area  identified  (however,  none  were  shortlisted  for 
le
recommendation for the area: ‘cooperation with external institutions and services’), although 
this does not preclude the Commission taking action in this area. 

The  evaluation  was  based  on  expert  judgment,  supported  by  evidence  from  the  research 
conducted  in  Tasks  1  and  2  and  the  views  expressed  during  the  workshops  in  2010  and 
2011.  The  study  gathered  only  limited  quantitative  data  on  issues  such  as  cost,  human 
resources  an
d  institutional  capacity.  For  this  reason,  it  is  recommended  that  in  the 
d
evelopment  of  a  strategy  (the  first,  cross-cutting  action  proposed)  a  more  detailed 
assessment  in  relation  to  costs,  human  resource  needs  and  institutional  practicability  is 
undertaken. 

It
  should  be  noted  that  many  of  the  actions  will  have  synergies:  for  example,  raising  the 
profile of the DG Environment Chief Science Advisor can play a role in building an effective 
network of environmental science advisors across Member States.  

ollowing  elements 
re  highlighted:  the  possible  timeframe  for  their  implementation  (short  being  1-2  years; 
 some of the key issues and 

For  each  recommended  action  described  in  the  sub-sections  below  the  f
a
medium 3-5 years; long, beyond 5 years); expected benefits; and
u

ncertainties to be addressed in  developing and implementing the action. 

Cro

ss-cutting action: strategy and knowledge management 

1. 

nowledge management strategy for policy DGs

Develop a k
This action would set out a
 programme of activities, responsibilities and budget to deliver 
the actions that policy DGs take forward, thus tying the individual actions into a coherent 
approach.  

•  Timeframe: Short 
•  Expected  benefits:  It  would  identify  a  clear  set  of  steps 

and  an  action  plan,  and 

• 

build on the momentum gathered through research and events since 2009.  
Issues  and  uncertainties:  the  action  will  likely  require  some  review  from  officials 
across the DGs; it will also depend on budget availability 

28 short being 1-2 years; medium 3-5 years; long, beyond 5 years 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                     
 
 
 
• 

• 

2.  Develop an overarching knowledge management system for policy DGs 

the  need 

the 
The  study  highlighted 
Commission, to establish links with knowledge across policy areas and also to facilitate 
the uptake of project results. This 
action  would prepare a web-based platform, together 
with  a  link  to  existing  databases,  such  as  CORDA  (DG  Research),  LIFE+  (DG 
Environment) and possibly other projects. 

to  retain  environmental  knowledge  within 

•  Timeframe: Short/Medium 
•  Expected b

enefits: The platform will support and facilitate a stronger interface in 
policy DGs, and improve access to existing as well as emerging knowledge. It is 
expected  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  work  and  the  effectiveness  of  knowledge 
gathered. 
Issues and uncertainties: The system will require financial investment (though it is 
expected  to  yield  lon
g-term  efficiencies).  Ensuring  that  the  system  is  useful  and 
regularly updated will be a key to its effectiveness. 

Inte

rnal functioning (of DGs) 

3. 

Develop guidelines and good practice for strengthening the science/policy interface 
This  action  would  address  the  following  key  areas:  gathering  and  using  evidence; 
presenting uncertainties in scientific results; elaboration of policy documents, to provide a 
clearer  ‘route’  in  for  and  in
terfacing  with  scientific  knowledge;  identifying  issues  for 
research funding. It would thus embed a common interface approach across the work of 
DG Environment 

•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Expected

 benefits: the action would contribute overall to a stronger science/policy 
interface  and  better  use  of  science  in  practice,  together  with  a  more  consistent 
approach  across  DGs.  It  should  lead  to  greater  efficiency  in  policy  development 
overall. 
Issues  and  concerns:  it  will  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  guidelines  and  good 
practice  are  employed:  training  and  awareness-raising  within  the  DG
s  may  be 
necessary. 

4. 

Raise the profile and visibility of the DG Environment Science Advisor’s office 
Raising  the  profile  of  the  office  would  play  a  key  in  strengthening  the  science/policy 
interface, providing a central office within DG Environment for science brokerage as well 
as a node for networks with Member States, other EU institutions and the scientific world. 

•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Expected benefits: This action would increase awareness of scientific knowledge 
across  the  DG,  and  provide  opportunities  to  improve  science  input  to  policy 
development. Moreover, it would provide a catalyst for other actions. 
Issues  and  uncertainties:  Raising  the  profile  of  DG  Environment’s  scientific 
advisor  would  need 
coordination  with  the  current  Chief  Science  Advisor  of  the 
Commission's President. The action would require greater staffing and resources.  

• 

For

esight 

5. 

Build on foresight work in the Commission, EEA, JRC an
The workshop discussions, b
oth in 2010 and 2011, called for DG Environment to work in 
this area. Through this action, DGs could develop its foresight capacity, while supporting 
synergies and tapping into existing foresight networks.  

d Member States 

•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Expected  benefits:  the  action 

will  bring  an  improved  understanding  of  emerging 
and  long-term  issues,  supporting  forward-looking  policies.  It  could  identify 
opportunities  to  develop  scientific  understanding  in  emerging  policy  areas,  and 
thus guide research strategy. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

uncertainties:  It  will  be  important  to  build  on  existing  work  and 
Issues  and 
networks, such as JRC’s work as well as EEA activities for the Knowledge base 
y 
for  Forward-Looking  Information  and  Services  (FLIS).  In  addition,  capacit
building  may  be  needed,  such  as  training  to  help  officials  understand  and  use 
foresight results. 

Knowledge providers 

6. 

Reinforce the roles of existing knowledge providers – including EEA, Eurostat and JRC 
The  workshop  discussions  noted  the  opportunities  and  need  to  strengthen  existing 
relationships. This action would seek to link the work of these bodies more closely to the 
environmental policy cycle. 
•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Key  benefits:  the  action  would  seek  to  strengthen  links  among  officials;  it  would 
improve  access  to  data  and  other  information,  and  overall  seek  to  make  policy 
making and knowledge acquisition more efficient. 
Issues  and  uncertainties:  Establishing  closer  working  relationships  may  require 
administrative  steps,  such  as  memoranda  of  understanding.  It  will  also  involve 
some discussion regarding methods and approaches. 

• 

7.  Establish closer cooperation with DG Research and DG INFSO to explore further ways of 

strengthening links between research projects and policy needs 
The  workshop  discussions  highlighted  improvements  in  the  policy-relevance 
of  DG 
Research projects – and the need to continue strengthening this area. Under this action,
DG  Environment  would  explore  and  seek
  to  put  in  place  further  mechanisms  to  link 
research projects with policy needs and with the policy cycle. 

•  Timeframe: Short (in terms of planning and discussion) / Medium (for initia

l results 

and further work)  

•  Expected benefits: improved policy relev

ance of research outputs; greater 

understanding of mutual needs and constraints for the research and policy sides; 
and strong links between the DGs  
Issues  and  uncertainties:  success  will  dep
research projects are designed, as well as their links to policy timeframes 

end  in  changes  in  the  ways  that 

• 

Ext

ernal communication, ICT and social media 

8.  Re-launch  DG  Environme

nt’s  science/policy  interface  web-pages  to  raise  its  profile  and 

to facilitate the creation of informal, virtual networks 
This action would raise the profile of the Science Advisor’s unit and would seek to use the 
web  to  create  informal,  virtual  networks  among  knowledge  broker  offices  in  Member 
States  and  the  regions, as  well  as  the  scientific  community  and  the  interested  public.  It 
would thus provide a key building block for other actions. 

•  Timeframe: Short 
•  Expected  benefits:  Overall,  the  action  would  create  stronger  visibility  for 
science/policy  work  in  DG  Environment,  and  support  the  development  of 
networks. 
Issues and uncertainties: the revised pages should be planned for growth, as DG 
Environment’s science/policy interfaces and networks evolve. This action may be 
tied to action on knowledge ma

nagement. 

• 

9.  Explore  and  capitalise  on  social  media  approaches  and  new  ICT  for  the  European 

science/policy interface 
The workshop highlighted this as a key area for attention. This action would seek to use 
social media approach to facilitate links with new knowledge providers in Member States, 
regions and perhaps third countries.  
•  Timeframe: Medium/Long 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

•  Expected  benefits:  the  action  would  broaden  access  to  knowledge;  it  could 
develop new approaches, thus reaching out to new audiences, and could be used 
to for consultation mechanisms.  
Issues and uncertainties: social me
dia represent a fast-changing area, and it will 
be important to keep up with this change. Further study may be required to better 
understand the role and potential of so
cial media in the European science/policy 
interface.  The  ongoing  SPIRAL  project29  on  the  science  and  biodiversity  policy 
interface,  supported  by  DG  Research,  might  provide  a  mechanism  for  an  initial 
exploration of these op

portunities. 

Co

operation with Member States and regions 

10. 

ter understand science/environmental policy interfaces in 

Launch a follow-up study to bet
Member States and Regions 
The  case  studies  and  workshop  discussions  highlighted  the  need  to  improve  links  with 
ongoing work and institutions in Member States. This action would review key interfaces 
in Member States and Regions; it would be directly tied to the development of networks 
(described in the next actions). 
•  Timeframe: Short  
•  Expected Benefits: the study would provide a basis to better link DGs' work with 
tates,  thus  strengthening  synergies.  It  could  support  informal 
that  in  Member  S
networks,  as  described  in  previous  actions,  and  thus  bring  knowledge  from 
Member States to the EU level. 
d uncertainties: undertaking research alone may lead to delay – for this 
Issues an
reason,  it  may  be  best  to  carry  out  this  action  at  same  time  as  initial  network-
building actions. 

• 

11. Develop  a  network  of  science  ad

visors  across  Member  States  (national  and  regional 

level) and DGs  
The goal of this action would be to create an informal network to support the European 
science/policy  interface,  rather  than  a  rigid  committee  structure.  The  network  might 
identify specific issues and areas for information exchange on a yearly basis.  

•  Timeframe: Short/Medium 
•  Expected  Benefits:  improved  access  to  policy  relevant  scientific  knowledge  and 
brokerage;  encouragement  of  a  consistent  approach  for  sharing  scientific 
evidence  across  Europe;  supporting  greater  involvement  of  Member  States  in 
policy discussions; and bringing more scientific evidence to the European level. 
Issues  and  uncertainties:  ensuring  an  active  network  may  require  support  from 
DGs.  As  noted,  the  network  is  better  as  an  informal  body,  to  ensure  flexibility. 
ience advisors only exist in some Member States, and the process for 
Formal sc
identifying  appropriate 
this  role  would  require  careful 
consideration. 

individuals 

fulfil 

to 

• 

12. Develop informal networks with kno

wledge broker offices and agencies in Member States 

and EU Regions 
This  action  would  go  further  than  the  previous  one  and  support  the  development  of 
networks at working level, focusing on specific themes, such as biodiversity or resource 
efficiency.  

•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Expected  benefits:  the  action  would  provide

  improve  access  to  policy  relevant 
scientific evidence. It could develop a ‘pool’ of expertise to draw on, and provide 
an opportunity for greater diversity of viewpoints and knowledge.  

29 http://www.spiral-project.eu/ 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                     
 
 
 
• 

Issues  a
nd  uncertainties:  ensuring  an  active  network  may  require  support  from 
DGs.  This  and  the  other  priority  options  in  this  area  might  be  combined  in  a 
common approach for developing networks.  

Bu

ilding capacity 

13. 

Set up a mechanism for DG Environment officials to undertake short-term (e.g. 1 week) 
exchanges at EEA, JRC and DG Research 
The  case  studies  included  examples  of  personnel  exchanges,  notably  the  CSaP  and 
which  support  the  development  of  networks  and 
NERC  mechanisms  in  the  UK, 
communities as well as provide learning for participants. The action is a complement to 
Action  6:  to  reinforce  the  roles  of  existing  knowledge  providers,  and  thus  focuses  on 
these institutions. 

•  Timeframe: Short/Medium 
•  Expected  benefits:  the  action  would  help  officials  better  understand  the  work  of 
conversely 
their  counterparts  in  other  institutions  (e.g.  EEA  and  JRC),  and 
strengthen knowledge of policy needs in these institutions; it would build informal 
networks and communities of practice for future work; and thus could play a role, 
on the one hand, in linking the institutions’ work more closely to the policy cycle 
while, on the other hand, help to bring new ideas to policy discussion. 
Issues  and  uncertainties:  officials  may
  find  it  difficult  to  devote  a  week  for  such 
placements. It may be challenging to organise productive exchanges that answer 
immediate questions (participants would have to develop an agenda of knowledg
e 
needs for their exchange): for these reasons, initial setup and the first exchanges 
in particular may require coordination. 

• 

14. 

Set up training courses for officials to improve their work at the science/policy interface 
This  action  could  support  training  courses  across  several  key  areas  identified  in  this 
report,  in  particular:  knowledge  brokerage  and  working  with  scientists;  addressing 
uncertainties and conflictin
g and incomplete scientific evidence; using foresight; and data 
and  indicators  (including  the  use  of  frameworks  such  as  DPSIR).  It  may  be  possible  to 
set up these courses through the Commission’s existing framework contracts for training 
or to use in-house expertise. 
•  Timeframe: Short 
•  Expected  benefits:  the  training  will  improve  the  capacity  of  Commission  staff  to 
work  at  the  science/policy  interface,  including  with  scientific  organisations. 
Moreover,  this  action  will  support  others  by  raising  awareness  and  improving 
science/policy ‘literacy’ 
Issues  and  uncertainties:  A  key  issue  is  whether  policy  officials  will  sign  up  for 
these  courses;  in  the  design,  it  will  be  important  to  prepare  courses  that  are 
directly relevant
 for their work. On the other hand, such courses may be valuable 
to officials in many Commission services. 

• 

15. 

Institutionalise  the  position  of  Knowledge  Management  Officer  (KMO)  within  each 
thematic / policy area  
While many officials in, for example DG Environment, have a scientific background, the 
workshop discussions noted that science has in some ways been “outsourced”. One key 
e share of officials who can interpret scientific knowledge for 
step would be to increase th
policy  needs:  knowledge  management  officers.  These  new  officers  would  handle 
knowledge needs for their unit or topic. They could be recruited, or this task could be a 
modification of existing roles. 
•  Timeframe: Medium 
•  Expected benefits: this would help to support a system

atic approach to knowledge 
needs.  Moreover,  increasing  the  number  of  officials  with  a  scientific  background 
could reduce the need for outside contracting.  
Issues  and  uncertainties:  there  may  be  resistance  to  change  within  DGs. 
Moreover, recruiting new officers would bring a cost. 

• 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
he recommended actions listed here, together with the full list presented in Appendix 2, are 
tended as a starting point for change: the next step would be for the Commission to review 
 to develop them further. This work could be a key building block of the 

T
in
these proposals and
fi

rst recommended action, the preparation of knowledge management strategy. 

8.  Final remarks 

O
ver  the  past  decades,  the  EU  has  put  in  place  an  evidence-based  framework  of 
environmental  policy  and  legislation.    Scientific  knowledge  gathered  from  a  broad  range  of 
sources underpins new and existing initiatives; the implementation and review of policies and 
legislation draw on monitoring data, scientific knowledge and analysis.  

Important  gaps  and  challenges  nonetheless  remain  for  the  interface  between  science  and 
policy.    Building  bridges  between  science  and  environmental  policy  can  be  difficult,  as  the 
two  spheres  frequently 
have  diverging  goals,  methods  and  time  scales.    Individual  policy 
a
reas  often  have  their  own  approach  to  the  science/environmental  policy  interface:  as  a 
result, while each policy area is interfacing with scientific evidence, there is a lack of cross-
cutting  work  to  share  common  areas  of  knowledge,  expertise  and  evidence  and  to  explore 
long-term uncertainties. 

The  European  science  and  environment  policy  interface  needs,  moreover,  to  adapt  to  a 
changing  landscape.  In  an  increasingly  connected  and  dynamic  world,  the  crucial 
environmental  problems  to  be  tackled  today  are  in  many  ways  more  difficult  and  complex 
than those addressed in past decades: policies for climate change or biodiversity protection, 
for example, require thinking in terms of long time 
horizons, and solutions involve improving 
e
conomic  systems  and  changing  individual  behaviour  in  addition  to  setting  new  regulatory 
requirements.  The  long  horizons  and  the  risks  of  future  tipping  points  mean  that  policy 
makers  face  greater  uncertainties  and  ambiguities  than  in  the  past,  while  the  risks  – 
environmental, social and economic – are higher.  

A traceable, more coherent and more responsive science/policy interface is therefore needed 
to  ensure  that  European  environmental  policy  addresses  these  challenges  and  is 
underpinned by the best available scientific knowledge and information. 

The  key  message  to  emerge  from  this  study  is  that  there  is  considerable  experience  out 
there – across the EU and beyond - of good practice at the science/po
licy interface. Those 
re
levant  lessons  need  to  be  applied  appropriately  in  order  to  enhance  the  science/policy 
interface  for  environment  policy  across  the  European  Commission.    The  recommendations 
above  provide  a  set  of  short,  medium  and  long-term  practical  actions  that  could  be 
implemented with a concerted effort and with the necessary resources. 

this  set  of  recommendations  would  contribute 

Applying 
the  development  and 
implementation  of  the  EU  environment  policies.  This  would  increase  transparency  in  the 
environmental  decision-making  process,  traceability  and  acceptability  of scientific  evidence. 
Moreover, it will enabl
e policy makers to design policies that work in the short and long term 
b
ecause  they  are  developed  on  scientifically-sound  and  up-to-date  information  and 
k
nowledge  of  the  environment.  With  credible  and  solid  science-based  arguments,  policy-
im
plementation will be more successful, because there will be greater  social consensus on 
e need for change. 
th

to 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 1: Study methodology 

T
his study, Assessing and Strengthening the Science and EU Environment Policy Interface, 
reviewed existing science/policy interfaces in environmental policies; undertook case studies 
of selected interfaces in Memb
er States, the US and the UN; and supported a workshop for 
officials and experts working in these interfaces. 

An  outline  of  the  study  tasks  is  shown  in  Figure  1  below;  this  figure  also  presents  the 
structure of the study reports. 

Figure 1: Overview of tasks and outputs of the SEPI study 

Task 1:
Case studies of 10 
environmental 
policy issues

Task 2.1:
Long-list of SPI 
‘methods and 
practices’

Task 2.2:
In depth analysis of 
12 SPI case studies

Task 2.3
Workshop of 
Member State, EU 
and international 
experts

Synthesis report of 
findings and 
recommendations 
(this report)

Detailed report on 
study tasks

Workshop 
summary report

Workshop record

Research

Stakeholder 
input

Reporting

 broad range of information sources have been used for this study: the key types of sources 

A
are listed in Box 1 below. 

Box 1: Information sources used in this study 

This study has drawn upon a wide variety of information sources, including: 

  Reports,  documents  and  other 

information  publically  available  on  European 
Commission  websites  and  the  websites  of  other  EU  institutions,  such  as  European 
Parliament and EEA: these include a wide range of materials, from policy strategies 
and  legislative  proposals  to  impact  assessment  reports,  consultant  studies  and 
programme evaluations  

  Reports,  documents  and  other  information  available  from  organisations  working  on 
science  and  policy,  such  as  environmental,  academic  and  policy  bodies  in  Member 
States, Europe and international 

  Peer reviewed academic papers and journal articles 
  Reports  and  other  documents  prepared  by  consultants,  research  institutes  and 
academic institutes in the context of EU and Member State science/policy activities 
Interviews  and  informal  discussions  with  officials  and  experts  both  in  relation  to 
specific case studies, and also through the workshop 

 

Detailed lists of sources can be found in the task reports for this study.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix 2: Method
tates and beyond 
S

s and practices studied of science/policy interface in Member 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
32 

 
 
 
 
 
33 

 
 
 
 
 
34 

 
 
 
 
 
35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
38 

 
 
 
 
 
39 

 
 
 
Appendix 3: Full list of possible actions to improve the Science into European 
Environmental Policy interface 

The table below presents all of the actions reviewed in the final stage of the study. Many of 
these  actions  were  identified  based  on  suggestions  at  the  study  workshop;  others  were 
developed  based  on  analysis  of  the  case  studies  of  science/policy  interfaces  in  Member 
States (as well as the US and the UN).  

In  total,  37  actions  were  identified:  two  cross-cutting  actions  (strategy  and  knowledge 
management), plus 35 actions in the following areas: 

Internal functioning (of DG Environment) 

 
  Foresight 
  Knowledge providers 
  External communication, ICT & social media 
  Cooperation with external institutions and services 
  Cooperation with Member States and Regions 
  Building capacity 

An assessment exercise was carried out to classify the actions by priority. The classification 
used the following topics: 

Institutional practicability 

 
  Costs 
  Human resource 
  Urgency / meeting needs 
  Overall potential impact 

The  overall  assessment  of  relative  potential  impact  of  each  action  is  indicated  in  the  table 
below. The full results were prepared in a separate Excel sheet. 

The  assessment  and  the  priorities  identified  are  intended  as  a  starting  point:  it  will  be  an 
important next step for DG Environment to review this analysis and to develop it further.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible areas for action 

S(1-2yrs) 
M(3-5yrs) 
L(5+yrs) 

Institutional 
practicability 

Costs 

Human 
resources 

Urgency 
/ meeting 
needs 

Expected benefits 

Issues and uncertainties 

Overall 
potential 
'impact' 
H/M/L 

Cross cutting: strategy and knowledge management 

Deliverable within 
current capacity? 

Develop a knowledge management 
strategy for the Commission: setting 
out a programme of activities, 
responsibilities and budget to deliver 
the actions identified, and additional 
actions as appropriate 

Develop a overarching 'knowledge 
management system' for the 
Commission, to include an ICT / web-
based platform / portal to link to DG 
Research CORDA project database, 
LIFE+ project database, relevant 
INTERREG projects etc., as well as a 
study outcomes database. 

Undertake studies of the legal and 
technical links among environment 
policy areas, in order to identify 
common knowledge needs and 
potential synergies  

Undertake a study (in cooperation 
together with EEA, JRC and other 
relevant institutions) on how DG 
Environment can further the 
implementation of and use the growing 
amount of data from SEIS, INSPIRE 
and Eye on Earth – and compare to 
on-going data needs  

Undertake a study of the legal and 
policy issues related to the use of 
proprietary industry data in policy 
making 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

S 

 

 

 

 

S/M 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

S 

 

 

 

 

- Set out a clear set of steps and an 
action plan for strengthening SPI in the 
Commission. 
- Help to ensure that momentum is 
maintained building on research and 
events since 2009. 

- Development of a platform to support 
and facilitate the strengthening of SPI in 
the Commission. 
- Access to existing and emerging 
knowledge / evidence. 
- Policy development efficiencies. 

- Strategy development requires time input 
from officers, who are likely stretched. 
- Budget uncertainties may limit possible 
actions, although a key outcome expected is 
increased efficiency (e.g. in policy 
development and use of consultancy 
contracts).  

- A new ICT system may require significant 
financial investment - although would be 
expected to lead to efficiencies in the long-
term. 
- Ensuring a system which is user friendly 
and actively used by Commission staff will 
be key - if system/portal is not used it will not 
achieve objectives. 

- Opportunity to build a clear 'policy map' 
environment policy areas, and identify 
links in relation to common information 
needs. 
- Policy development and research / 
evidence gathering / analysis efficiencies. 

- There may be practical barriers to the 
sharing of knowledge between policy areas: 
such as policy development on different 
time-scales; or need for different scales of 
data/information resolution: these 
complexities will need to be considered. 

- Access to emerging and new data / 
evidence. 
- Links between MS/Regional and EU 
level information (e.g. within SEIS). 
- Policy development efficiencies by 
drawing on existing / emerging evidence. 

- Data / information within these systems / 
initiatives are still evolving, may not need 
policy needs (this is also an opportunity). 
- Implementing the results would likely 
require adaptation across DG ENV and in 
other DGs as well. 

- access to data which is often protected 
and/or not made available for commercial 
reasons. 
- evidence gathering efficiencies as may 
reduce need for additional consultancy 
contracts. 

- Industry may be an important source of 
evidence in some policy areas (e.g. 
chemicals) and not others. 
- The study may identify problems but 
solutions could be difficult: e.g. legal and 
practical barriers to accessing these data 
likely to remain even following such a study. 

H 

H 

M 

M 

M 

Internal functioning (of DG Environment) 

41 

 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
Develop guidelines and good practice 
for strengthening the science/policy 
interface, including: 
- Good practice for gathering / use of 
evidence 
- Presenting uncertainties in scientific 
results, as well as divergences in 
opinion 
- Elaboration of policy documents, to 
provide a clearer route for interfacing 
with scientific knowledge 
- Issues for research contributing to 
the science/policy interface  

Launch a follow-up study to explore 
whether the policy impact assessment 
process is bringing in sufficient 
environmental evidence, and if not 
how this could be improved 

Use DPSIR approach more 
systematically to frame policy issues 
and determine impacts of policy 
decisions 

6 

7 

8 

M 

 

 

 

 

S 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

9 

Raise the profile and visibility of the 
DG Environment science advisor’s 
office 

M 

 

 

 

 

- Strengthened SPI knowledge and 
practice in the Commission.   
- More consistent approach to gathering 
and use of evidence within the 
Commission. 
- Greater efficiency in policy development 
possible as evidence available when 
needed. 

- Improved understanding of the role and 
function of impact assessment in 
environmental policy development. 
- Evidence to support possible revisions 
to impact assessment methodology or 
guidance. 
- More consistent approach to identifying 
and agreeing policy issues to be 
addressed. 
- Use of common methodology for policy 
need identification may encourage further 
systematisation of evidence processes 
(and facilitate easier science/policy 
interfacing). 
- Could strengthen links between EEA 
work and policy needs.  
- Increased profile and awareness of the 
value of scientific knowledge across the 
DG.   
- Opportunity to provide specific science 
input to policy development, due to 
greater prominence and stronger role for 
the science advisors office.  
- An important catalyst for implementing 
other priorities. 

- Developing guidance and good practice 
does not guarantee its use and to be 
effective this action would need to be 
supported by others, e.g. training / 
awareness raising 

- Impact assessment is a inter-institutional 
process (Commission-wide), thus changes 
to this process, if recommended, would 
require engagement across the Commission. 

H 

M 

- Putting this in place may require training for 
Commission staff.  

M 

- Establishing a higher profile for the science 
advisors office may require greater staffing 
and resourcing - as a higher profile may lead 
to wider activities within (and beyond) DG 
ENV. 
- This proposal could be linked to proposals 
for a Commission science advisor, giving it 
either greater support or slowing 
implementation 

H 

M 

10 

Create new EU level science advisory 
committees and explore opportunities 
to make greater use of existing 
scientific committees (e.g. under DG 
Sanco)  

M 

 

 

 

 

- Science committees can provide a 
useful space to bring together scientific 
evidence (and opinion) related to a policy 
issue. 
- Opportunities to 'translate' science for 
policy. 
- May help build consensus on 
contentious or new issues. 

- Identifying and engaging appropriate 
experts / scientists may be difficult. 
- The efficacy and legitimacy of such 
committees will depend on their membership 
as well as terms of reference etc. 
- Their creation, especially in the case of a 
formal body as used in DG Sanco, may 
involve a slow administrative process 

Foresight 

42 

  
11 

12 

Build on foresight work in the 
Commission, EEA, JRC and Member 
States with a view to developing 
further foresight capacity in the 
Commission and to tap into European 
foresight networks 

Establish foresight capability within the 
Commission with a specific emphasis 
on the science-policy interface, linking 
organisations that already work in this 
field  

M 

 

 

 

 

- Improved understanding of and 
preparedness for emerging and long-term 
policy issues.   
- Opportunities to develop and build 
scientific understanding / knowledge base 
in emerging policy areas – to develop a 
positive feedback between knowledge 
and policy and improve outcomes in both.  
- Foresight can guide research strategy 
and funding programmes. 

- Developing new / additional foresight 
capacity may require training and / or 
recruitment to bring in new expertise to the 
Commission. 
- Existing foresight networks and initiatives 
exist, offering opportunities to build on and 
work with other groups and activities. 

M 

 

 

 

 

As above 

As above 

13 

Set up high-level science seminars to 
encourage “visioning” 

S 

 

 

 

 

- 'Visioning' can help the Commission to 
prepare for emerging environmental and 
policy issues. 
- High-level seminars may raise 
awareness of the importance of visioning / 
horizon scanning in policy development. 

- Seminars in themselves may not be 
sufficient to influence decision making. 
- May require considerable administrative 
effort with no direct policy benefit. 

Knowledge providers 

14 

Reinforce the roles of existing 
environment knowledge providers - 
including EEA, Eurostat and JRC - and 
explore ways of linking their work more 
closely to the policy cycle 

15 

Seek out additional knowledge 
providers (e.g. EASAC) and 
strengthen cooperation with other SPI 
platforms (e.g. IPCC, IPBES etc.) 

16 

Establish closer cooperation with DG 
Research and DG INFSO to explore 
further ways of strengthening links 
between research projects and policy 
needs 

M 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

S/M 

 

 

 

 

- Improved access to data and other 
information in a timely manner.   
- Closer links between policy officials and 
scientific / research counterparts.   
- Policy development efficiencies, due to 
improved timeliness of data / evidence 
availability and reduced need to 
commission / rely on new research. 

- Improved access to data and other 
information in a timely manner. 
- Stronger links with other SPI platforms 
may broaden the availability of policy 
relevant evidence / scientific information. 
- Potential policy development 
efficiencies. 

- Improved policy relevance of research 
outputs from DG Research projects.   
- Greater understanding of the needs and 
constraints from both the policy (DG ENV) 
and science/research (DG Research) 
perspective.   
- Stronger links / communication between 
projects and officials between the 
research DGs and policy officials in DG 
ENV. 

- Closer working and stronger links to 
knowledge providers may require formalised 
new agreements (e.g. memoranda of 
understanding). 
- Discussion needed on methods and 
approaches 
- Stronger links may lead to the merging 
and/or rationalisation of certain functions 
within some organisations - to avoid 
duplication. 
- Initial scoping and investigative work 
required to identify potential knowledge 
providers. 
- Risk of duplication with existing providers 
and/or additional costs; this can be 
addressed by developing a strong network 
across SPI platforms. 

- Success of action would depend on 
modifications to the way that research 
projects (or a segment of them) are 
designed, selected and managed - e.g. to 
link better to policy timeframes. 

External communication, ICT & social media 

H 

M 

M 

H 

M 

H 

43 

  
  
Re-launch DG Environment’s 
science/policy interface web-pages to 
raise its profile and to facilitate the 
creation of informal, virtual networks 
among knowledge broker offices and 
agencies in the Member States and 
Regions. 

Explore and capitalise on social media 
approaches and new ICT for the 
European science/policy interface, in 
particular linking with new knowledge 
providers 

17 

18 

S 

 

 

 

 

M/L 

 

 

 

 

19 

Improve how science and evidence is 
communicated to and by the 
media/public 

M 

 

 

 

 

- Greater visibility for science/policy work 
at DG Environment, potentially increasing 
awareness of and support for new SPI 
actions.   
- Potential to use the website as a 
platform for work on other actions. 

- Broadening access to knowledge / 
evidence for policy.   
- Developing / exploiting new approaches 
to communication and dialogue / 
consultation; reaching out to new 
audiences.  
- Opportunities to build engagement and 
consensus; engaging new groups and 
widening participation. 
- More balanced reporting on scientific 
issues related to policy. 
- Potential opportunities to build stronger 
consensus on and support for 
environmental policy needs. 
- A better informed media and public - 
more able to engage in and contribute to 
decision making (e.g. through 
consultations). 

- Web pages should be designed for growth 
as DG ENV's SPI evolves. 
- Link to action A on knowledge 
management needs to be explored. 

- Social media and new ICT are fast moving 
areas and it will be important to implement 
appropriate new approches swiftly once 
identified. 
- Additional study would be required to clarify 
the role social media and ICT can play in 
policy development / decisions: some 
approaches may be more appropriate than 
others. 

- It may be considered inappropriate for a 
policy organisation to seek to influence 
media and/or public communication in this 
area: careful design of the approach would 
be needed. 

Cooperation with external institutions and services 

20 

Strengthen links with STOA (the 
Science and Technology Options 
Assessment) at the European 
Parliament, for example through a 
workshop between STOA and DG 
Environment 

21 

Explore opportunities for informal 
discussions with MEPs around 
emerging scientific issues 

22 

Improve how the Commission works 
with consultancies via calls for tender 
in terms of gathering and managing 
knowledge (e.g. developing terms of 
reference for consultancy 
studies/reports; quality assessments) 

S 

 

 

 

 

S 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

- Access to the science and technology 
assessment expertise within STOA and 
through its relationships with other 
organisations / experts. 
- Advice / evidence in policy areas where 
technology or science developments / 
changes may be of importance. 
- Better understanding of the interactions 
between science and technology and 
environmental issues. 

- May help strengthen awareness among 
key decision makers of the importance of 
scientific evidence related to 
environmental policy. 

- Opportunity to review all commissioning 
processes. 
- Better linking of consultancy study 
outputs and policies / evidence needs. 
- Rationalisation of consultancy work e.g. 
in combination with efforts to strengthen 
and enhance links with existing 
knowledge providers. 

- STOA currently supports the European 
Parliament.  Links with its work may raise 
institutional questions concerning Parliament 
- Commission relations. 

- This action may raise questions about 
institutional relationships (Parliament and 
Commission): this action might be more 
easily undertaken by independent groups, 
e.g., think tanks in Brussels. 

- Would require cross-DGs agreement within 
the Commission. 
- Additional quality assessment requirements 
may increase costs / timeframes of certain 
studies (though the aim would be to ensure 
quality). 

Cooperation with Member States and Regions 

H 

H 

L 

L 

L 

M 

44 

  
  
23 

Launch a follow-up study to better 
understand the science/environmental 
policy interface in Member State 
environment ministries and EPAs as 
well as EU Regions, linked to the 
development of networks 

S 

 

 

 

 

24 

Develop a network of science advisors 
across Member States (national and 
regional levels) and DGs 

S/M 

 

 

 

 

25 

Develop informal networks with 
knowledge broker offices and 
agencies in Member States and 
regions  

M 

 

 

 

 

- Provide information and 
recommendations to better link EU and 
sub-EU SPI activities. 
- Provide support a potential network of 
Member State and Regional SPI activities 
/ expertise. 
- Identify sources of evidence / 
information as well as SPI expertise which 
can support SPI within EU environment 
policy. 
- Improved access to policy relevant 
scientific evidence and knowledge. 
- Consistent approach to collating and 
translating scientific evidence across 
policy areas. 
- Greater awareness and engagement in 
policy among scientists. 
- Greater involvement of MS in policy 
formation and decision making. 
- Improved access to policy relevant 
scientific evidence and knowledge. 
- Access to good practice and capacity / 
expertise from across the EU 
- Establishment of a ‘pool’ of expertise to 
draw on as needed 
- Opportunity to draw on a greater 
diversity of view-points and knowledge. 

Building capacity 

26 

Set up a mechanism for DG 
Environment officials to undertake 
short-term (e.g. one week) exchanges 
at EEA, JRC and DG Research 

S/M 

 

 

 

 

27 

Bring scientists into the Commission 
for short-term placements in policy 
units 

S 

 

 

 

 

28 

Recruit more post-graduate 
interns/stagiaires with a science 
background 

S/M 

 

 

 

 

- Improving knowledge exchange and 
understanding (i.e. communication both 
ways between policy and science). 
- Building links and partnerships in policy 
areas: linking needs to solutions. 
- Establishment of informal networks / 
communities of practice. 

- Foundation of informal 'communities of 
practice' and lines of communication 
between policy officers and scientists. 
- Improved understanding within scientific 
community of the needs / requirements of 
policy makers. 

- Increase the number of 'science literate' 
staff available within policy units. 
- Provide opportunities to build informal 
and formal links with science institutions 
(i.e. where interns studied / were trained). 

- Initiating further research may lead to delay 
in implementing practical actions: it may be 
best to carry this out simultaneously with 
(and designed to support) on-going SPI 
strengthening activities, i.e., learning plus 
pilot actions. 

- Ensuring an active network may present a 
particular challenge, requiring support and/or 
new systems.  
- To avoid an unwieldy structure and a slow 
start, the network should be an informal 
body, at least in its first years. 

- Ensuring an active network may present a 
particular challenge, requiring support and/or 
new systems. 
- This and other options in this category 
might be combined into a common approach 
for broadening networks. 

- Officials may not have time for week long 
placements. 
- It may be challenging for EEA, JRC, DG 
Research officials to 'host' exchanges, and 
vice-versa. 
- Initial setup and first exchanges may 
require strong coordination to ensure that 
the system is an effective tool and provides 
good value 

- The Commission officers may not be willing 
to 'host' scientific placements. 
- Unclear what role / aim of such placements 
would be - this would require a structured 
programme to be established. 

- Interns / stagiaires may only have limited 
input to policy making. 
- The action would have only long-term 
benefits: e.g., a stronger pool of candidates 
with a scientific background for 
environmental posts; more scientists with 
policy awareness 

45 

H 

H 

H 

H 

L 

L 

  
29 

30 

31 

32 

Encourage Commission officials to 
participate in CSaP (Cambridge 
University) and similar programmes, 
and encourage the development of 
such programmes at other EU 
universities 

Contribute to journalism and science 
curricula to help enhance the 
environmental policy (and scientific) 
literacy of journalists 

Improve the policy relevance of 
scientific academic training / curricula.  
DG ENV to explore cooperation with 
DG EAC (education) as well as 
through links to academic bodies such 
as EASAC etc. 
Set up training courses for 
Commission officials to improve their 
work at the science/policy interface, for 
example on: 
- Knowledge brokerage and working 
with scientists  
- Working with uncertainties and 
conflicting and incomplete scientific 
evidence 
- Using foresight results and methods 
- Data and indicators, including 
frameworks for data and information 
such as DPSIR 

33 

Institutionalise the position of 
Knowledge Management Officer 
(KMO) within each thematic / policy 
area, either through recruitment or 
modification of existing roles (e.g. of 
research correspondents) 

S 

 

 

 

 

M/L 

 

 

 

 

M/L 

 

 

 

 

- Improve 'science literacy' of policy 
officials. 
- Encourage the establishment of informal 
networks and links with other experts and 
institutions. 

- Officials may not have time to participate in 
such programmes. 
- Results would appear over the long-term: 
i.e. Development of richer science-policy 
networks 

- In the long-term, improve the 'policy 
literacy' of journalists. 
- As a result of the above, improve the 
policy relevance of science research 
reported in science / environmental 
journalism. 
- In the long-term, improve the 'policy 
literacy' of scientific community. 
- As a result of the above, improve the 
policy relevance of scientific research / 
reporting, and understanding of policy 
needs. 

- Not clear what role the Commission could 
have in influencing curricular. 
- Identifying direct benefits may be difficult. 

- Not clear what role the Commission could 
have in influencing curricular. 
- Identifying direct benefits may be difficult. 
- May be a need (and an opportunity) to 
coordinate proposals with DG Education 

S 

 

 

 

 

M 

 

 

 

 

- Improved capacity among Commission 
staff to interpret science / evidence and to 
work with scientific organisations / 
commission policy relevant scientific 
research.   
- Can support all other actions by raising 
awareness and SPI ‘literacy’ and interface 
techniques among policy officials. 

- Establishment of a systematic approach 
to handling 'knowledge needs' and 
formulation of knowledge needs plans to 
identify evidence / science needs in the 
short, medium and longer-terms. 
- In longer term, more even balance within 
the Commission of policy officials with a 
scientific / science relevant background 
and those with a more pure policy 
background.   
- The above could help reduce contracting 
costs by enabling more science 
‘translation’ and knowledge brokerage to 
be undertaken in house.   
- Raise awareness of scientific evidence 
in relation to environment policy areas. 
- Increase 'science literacy' of policy 
officials. 
- Help establish links to scientific 
institutions / experts. 

- Ensuring participation of busy policy 
officials may be difficult. 
- It will be important to prepare courses that 
are directly relevant for the Commission 
work. 

- Possible resistance to change across 
policy areas, including costs associated with 
new recruitment where required. 
- Role of KMOs would need to be clearly 
defined to facilitate and support stronger 
SPI. 

- Informal presentations may have limited 
interest / influence. 

46 

M 

L 

L 

H 

H 

L 

34 

Bring scientists to the Commission for 
informal presentations (e.g. linked to 
SEP issues) 

S 

 

 

 

 

35 

Develop a roster of scientists who can 
be “on call” for short-term information 
requests 

36 

37 

Provide a ‘safe space’ for sustained 
inclusive and participatory dialogue 
between policy makers, knowledge 
providers, scientists and other 
stakeholders: face-to-face interactions 
Establish and eCommunity/ePlatform 
for experts in translating science for 
policy to respond to questions in areas 
of expertise.  Explore opportunities to 
use existing systems, such as 
SINAPSE 

M 

S 

M 

 

 

 

 

- Provision of timely information / 
evidence for specific policy needs. 
- Policy development efficiencies. 
- Establishment of links to scientific 
institutions / experts. 

- Establishing a 'roster' in practice may be 
complex and costly. 
- May be difficult to identify a sufficient 
number of scientists willing to participate in 
such a scheme to make it a success (critical 
mass). 

 

 

 

 

- Facilitates greater interaction and 
communication between knowledge 
providers and policy officials. 

- In itself a 'safe space' not likely to bring 
people together - other mechanisms would 
be required. 

 

 

 

 

- Facilitates greater interaction and 
communication between knowledge 
providers and policy officials. 

- In itself an eCommunity or ePlatform may 
not result in greater access to and exchange 
of evidence / knowledge for policy - other 
mechanisms would be required. 

M 

L 

M 

47 

K
H
-
3
1
-
1
2
-
5
9
0
-
E
N
N

-