RESCUE foresight initiative

Responses to Environmental and Societal

Challenges for our Unstable Earth

ESF-COST “Frontier of Science”

Look RESCUE

Last update: 8th February 2011

initiative & ESF Forward Look
RESCUE

developed after a request from the French CNRS

September 2009 – June 2011
Forward

www.esf.org/rescue
fl-rescue@esf.org

ESF – European Science Foundation COST – European Cooperation in Science & Technology
 2/24

Outline of the Presentation

1. RESCUE Objectives
RESCUE objectives

2. RESCUE Governance and Framework

3. Science Questions
4. Interdisciplinary Collaboration
5. Requirements for Methods and Data
6. Revolution in Education and Capacity-Building
7. Science-Policy Interface, Communication & Outreach
8. RESCUE Next Steps
 3/24

RESCUE Objectives
 ensuring strategic scientific advice and
approaches for sustainable development &
global sustainability governance
RESCUE objectives

1. interdisciplinary synergy between natural, social & human

sciences to respond efficiently to societal and policy-relevant
needs related to the global environmental changes;
2. definition of new scientific issues, especially those of trans-
disciplinary nature or of major society-driven relevance;
3. development of new institutional approaches towards
interdisciplinary science & to facilitate the ‘revolution’ in
education and capacity building it requires.
 4/27

RESCUE Leadership
RESCUE Scientific Steering Committee

Chair: Prof. Leen Hordijk (Inst. Environ. & Sustainability, EC-JRC, IT)
Vice-Chair: Prof. Gísli Pálsson (Social & Env. Anthrop., U. Iceland, IS)
Thematic Leaders:
Prof. Joseph Alcamo (UNEP Chief Scientist, KN)
Prof. Michael Goodsite (Aarhus U., DK)
Prof. Sierd Cloetingh (Free University, Amsterdam, NL)
Prof. Poul Holm (Trinity College Dublin, IE)
Prof. Claudia Pahl-Wostl (University of Osnabrück, DE)
Prof. Theo Toonen (Delft University of Technology, Delft, NL)
Prof. Karen O’Brien (University of Oslo, NO)
Prof. Jonathan Reams (N.U. Science & Technology, Trondheim, NO)
Dr. Jill Jäger (Vienna, AT)
Prof. Frans Berkhout (Free University, Amsterdam, NL)
 5/27

RESCUE Quality Reference Group (QRG)

 set up to ensure the optimal quality and impact of
the RESCUE activities and outputs
RESCUE Quality Reference Group

• Dr. Patrick Monfray (FR), initiator agency (CNRS) representative

• Prof. Sonja Lojen (SI), LESC member
• Prof. Luisa Lima (PT), SCSS member
• Prof. Ulrike Landfester (CH), SCH member
• Prof. Ole-John Nielsen (DK); Prof. M. Kaminska (PL), PESC members
• Dr. Ipek Erzi (TK), ESSEM Chair; J. Ingram (UK), ESSEM member
• Dr. Mehmet Güran (TK), ISCH member
• Prof. Giuseppe Scarascia-Mugnozza (IT), FPS member
• Dr. John Williams (FR), FA member
• Dr. Marc Heppener (ESF), Dir. of Science & Strategy Development
• Dr. Matthias Haury (COST), Head of Science Operations
 6/24

RESCUE membership (SSC, WGs, QRG)

RESCUE membership - disciplinary distribution

disciplinary distribution (as of June 2010)

Geosciences Environmental sciences
Social sciences Humanities
Technological sciences Foresight

10% 4%
3%

18% 32%
Humanities
and Social
Sciences
51%
33%

In cooperation with: ICSU, ISSC, GCR programmes & ESSP, European

Alliance for GCR, science funding and performing agencies, EC, …
 RESCUE general timeline

WGs &
RESCUE general timeline

Alignment Integration Stakeholders

Governance
Workshop Workshop Conference
setup

Launching Thematic Report Dissemination

Conference Activities Preparation & Monitoring
Sept. 2009 Sept. 2009 – Sept. 2010 – summer 2011
Nov. 2010 May 2011

SSC setup SSC + QRG SSC // QRG External Reviews

& meeting meeting meetings // Stakeholders’
validation
 8/24

WG “New, emerging and neglected scientific

questions in RESCUE remit”
 Articulate scientific issues related to Global
Change Research, esp. the society-driven ones
RESCUE Working Groups

1. Identify emerging, new or neglected areas;

2. Develop research & institutional recommendations & governance
priorities for conducting the next generation of global change
research;
3. Propose ideas for funding and support mechanisms as incentives
to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects in
Europe within a global context.
Cooperation with ICSU “Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability
Research” and ISSC, and linked to the Belmont Challenge Forum
- internal Delphi consultation on new science questions;
- survey of the strategies developed by key stakeholders;
- dedicated Task Force on “Science Questions” with a human focus;
- new dedicated activities to be organised with major actors.
 9/24

Science Questions - Key Elements

Update on “Science Questions”

 ICSU “Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research”

 Belmont Challenge forum “to deliver knowledge to support
human action and adaptation to regional environmental change”
 RESCUE foresight mission  recommendations & implementation
 integration of multiple factors existing in Europe: nature-culture;
post-normal research; geographical; political, societal dimensions;
disciplinary culture; fragmentation and creativity; mission-
oriented delivery; …
 examine, test and integrate specific science questions and hot
topics, especially with a driving human focus and Europe-relevant
 recommendations & roadmap for implementation
 10/24

WG “Collaboration between the natural,

social and human sciences in GCR”
 Develop a strategic vision to break down
individual & institutional barriers that hamper
RESCUE Working Groups

collaboration between scientific disciplines

Examples of key topics:
1. Balance between “classical” discipline-based research and inter-
disciplinary research?
2. Trigger effective and fruitful collaboration at the interface
between different fields?
3. Identify and mobilise “disciplinary” scientists, funding agencies
and stakeholders to participate and contribute to this joint effort
right from the start?
4. Good practices to be promoted between European research
organisations to support the next generation of GCR activities?
 11/24

WG “Collaboration”
Update on “Collaboration” (1/2)

Research Collaboration – considered in term of:

 Practice (what is it, are we doing, need to do?)
 Programming (How and what to fund)
 Balance (between classic mono-disciplines & scalars involved)
Preliminary WG recommendations
Agree on definitions of inter/trans/cross-disciplinarity;
Define a ”Radically Inter and Trans-disciplinary
Environments”(RITE) model for promoting European GCR;
Identify research areas where interdisciplinarity adds value and
areas where mono-disciplinary expertise alone is needed;
Strengthen the critical role of research councils in defining
research areas where marked interdisciplinarity is required;
Build on differences that emerge from different disciplinary
perspectives.
 Need a convergence of Reference Systems – ”systems’ approach”

Keywords between the Social Reference

systems need review System
Update on “Collaboration” (2/2)

Analytical power
Media Tourism, ICT

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

Heritage Urban development

Value
Environmental system Human Reference
Reference System for GCR System
Environment Coping with change

Social cohesion Cultural acceptance

Pride

Natural Reference
System
A systems’ approach is not always an interdisciplinary approach!
 13/24

WG “Requirements for research

methodologies and data”
 GCR crucially depends on observing & monitoring
many complex, natural, social & human processes,
RESCUE Working Groups

and on conceptualising /modelling them at different

space & time scales
1. Identify major strengths and weaknesses, knowledge gaps,
alternatives or extensions, and needs for innovation in
methodologies, observations, databases and integration for
interdisciplinary GCR and global assessments, across many scales;
2. Assess the state of integration of the human component and in
particular the “soft” aspects such as perceptions and beliefs,
situated knowledge;
3. Develop a list of priority actions to improve the current situation
 WG “Requirements”
Update on “Requirements” (2/3)

GCR challenges’ characteristics that make them not easily

amenable to policy solutions and how can innovation in data
and methods support identification and implementation
sustainable policy solutions?
• Overcome the lack of social engagement / participatory
processes in GEC research and understanding
• Establish global (multi-level) governance, through foresight
studies, robust decision making approaches, and adequate
institutional design for sustainability governance
• Assessing environmental and social vulnerability, through long-
term research for different GEC scenarios, and development of
responsive strategies to disaster risk
 WG “Requirements”
Update on “Requirements” (3/3)

How to manage system transitions to integrated, sustainability

governance? What data and methods are required to understand
such transition processes and support their management?
• Support long-term studies – change funding structure (database
infrastructure, action research programmes)
• Promote research institutions with integrated approaches
• Consider data, information, knowledge-base as common pool
resource, for wide-ranging comparative case-study analyses
• Improve access to, interoperability and comparability of large
data sets
• Develop tools/methods for monitoring change and embed them
in societal context (e.g., evolutionary perspectives on change)
 16/24

WG “Towards a ‘revolution’ in education

and capacity building”
 In education as in science related to GEC, the
dualism of nature and culture is a great challenge for
RESCUE Working Groups

the next generation of researchers and citizens

1. Responses to environmental and social challenges require new
and visionary approaches to interdisciplinary science, more than a
new type of “global change” curriculum with disciplinary courses
from the natural, social and human sciences.
2. Design, test, evaluate and diffuse a learning-by-doing process to
develop a vision for a revolution in education system and in
capacity building, to overcome current academic division of work,
especially in Europe.
3. Requires transformational changes, incentives and new
approaches at the individual and institutional levels to enhance
capacities to understand complex and interacting processes such
as those study in GCR.
 WG “Revolution”
Update on “Revolution” (1/3)

Visioning the Education / Capacity Revolution

The Goal: To change the way we think, and in doing so, change
our capacity to learn and act.
The Problem: The emergence of new, potentially powerful
capabilities for learning and acting exists alongside evidence
that existing capacities to learn and act are inadequate, even
dysfunctional to the point of being dangerous.
The Challenge: Can we imagine changes in the conditions of
change?
 Change of perspective needed!
Update on “Revolution” (2/3)

to mobilise
to inspire

to assess

to reflect

It is not just about changing the system, but also about changing
the way of looking at the system of education and capacity
building by those with the power to make the changes happen
 WG “Revolution”
Key Factors
Update on “Revolution” (3/3)

1: Education for social transformation

2: Multi-dimensionalizing GEC issues
3: An open future
4: Education for political change

Blind spots?
”We are often stuck in the ideology of a single truth. We isolate
ourselves from those parts of reality that don’t fit our ideology.”
... ”The picture of the whole you see should include yourself as
part of the system you are trying to fix.”
 20/24

WG “Interface between science and policy,

communication and outreach”
or “Opening science for a knowledge democracy”
 Develop good practices, scientific consensus and
RESCUE Working Groups

targets to be fed into research policy development for

the benefit of policy makers and other stakeholders
Future of knowledge systems: open; diverse; problem-oriented;
implementation-oriented; transformative; responsible; accountable
Work domains:
• Organising and performing science
• Incentives for stakeholders, and metrics
• Learning and feedbacks
• Demand for, production and use of knowledge
• Processes of engagement and accountability
• New challenges, new problems and tensions
• Redistribution of responsibility, power and
authority
 WG “Interface”
“Vision RD4SD” Concept
Update on “Interface” (2/4)

• Analysis of how research systems (i.e. organisations,

programmes and policies) are responsive to sustainability
requirements.
• Proposals for monitoring and enhancing this response.
• Iterative, structured dialogue between R&D policy makers,
with support of sustainability scientists.
 RESCUE Next Steps

8-9 Dec. 2010: Integration Workshop (Antwerp)

mid March 2011 : RESCUE Report – first draft
RESCUE Next Steps

early April 2011: RESCUE Report – second draft

late April 2011: RESCUE Report – third draft
16-17 May 2011: Stakeholders Conference (Brussels)
late May 2011: Report + Science Policy Briefing (SPB) – final draft
Late June 2011: Report – launching event (Brussels)
Fall 2011: SPB - launching event (location tbc)
2011-2012: continuous monitoring the implementation of RESCUE
recommendations and their impacts
 questions, comments, inputs are most welcome.
Contact: fl-rescue@esf.org
 24/24

ESF-COST “Frontier of Science” initiative

RESCUE Contacts
European Science Foundation (ESF)
Dr. Bernard Avril
RESCUE contacts

Life, Earth & Environmental Sciences (LESC)

Email: fl-rescue@esf.org; Website: www.esf.org/rescue

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)

Dr. Carine Petit
Earth System Science & Environmental Management (ESSEM)
Email: cpetit@cost.esf.org

Forward Looks enable Europe’s scientific community, in interaction

with policy makers, to develop mid- to long-term views and analyses
of future research developments with the aim of defining research
agendas on national and European level.
 General Forward Look Goals
• Forward Looks provide medium to long-term
authoritative visions on science perspectives in
broad areas of research bringing together ESF
ESF Foresight Activities

Member Organisations, other research institutions

and the scientific community, in creative interaction.
• Forward Look reports and other
outputs such as Science Policy
Briefings assist policy makers and
researchers in setting priorities and
in defining and implementing
optimal research agendas.
 Typical Forward Look Design
• State-of-the-Art review
– Current state of research in the area and highlights of the major advances
in the last years
• Scientific challenges
ESF Foresight Activities

– Impact of those advances on the research agenda

– Indication of major knowledge gaps and potential ‘hot topics’
– Identification of European strength and weakness
• Vision
– Presentation of a vision with major goals that could provide directions for
research in the medium and long term time frame
– Implementation plan (in terms of infrastructure, institutional innovation,
human resources, governance)
• Impact Monitoring and Implementation Follow-up
– Key stakeholders likely to play a key role in the implementation
– Targeted recommendations
– Follow-up mechanism to ensure delivery and avoid risks
 Typical Forward Looks Format

• Activities include preparatory study/expert groups,

high level overview papers, workshops and meetings
ESF Foresight Activities

• Main event: high-visibility conference

• Outputs: Policy Briefings, major reports,
action plans
• Scientific Steering Committee: 8-12 p.
• Lead time: 12-18 months
• Average budget: 120-240 k€