GeoLog

GeoLog

GeoPolicy: 8 ways to engage with policy makers

GeoPolicy: 8 ways to engage with policy makers

Scientific research is usually verbally communicated to policy officials or through purposefully written documents. This occurs at all levels of governance (local, national, and international). This month’s GeoPolicy post takes a look at the main methods in which scientists can assist in the policy process and describes a new method adopted by the European Commission (EC) that aims to enhance science advice to policy.

Contrary to what is commonly thought, science-for-policy communication can be instigated by both scientists and policy officials (not just from the policy end). Scientists are increasingly encouraged to step out of their ‘ivory tower’ and communicate their science to the glittering world of policy. During my PhD, I presented my thesis results to civil servants at the UK Government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change. That meeting was a result of me directly contacting the department with a summary of my work. Scientists should not feel afraid to contact relevant policy groups, although this is perhaps easier to do on the local / national scale rather than on the international level.

 

Types of policy engagement

Some of the commonly reported scientific evidence for policy methods are described below:

  1. Surveys: Government organisations may send out targeted or open questionnaires to learn stakeholders’ opinions on certain topics. This method is used for collecting larger sample sizes and when the general consensus and/or dominant views need to be known.
  2. Interviews: one-on-one meetings are commonly used for communicating science to policy officials; either by phone or in person. These provide opportunities for in-depth discussions and explanations.
  3. Discussion workshops: the term ‘workshop’ is loosely used when referring to science policy. It can describe a semi-structured meeting where no predefined agenda has been set, or the term can refer to participants systematically discussing a topic with specific aims to be achieved (Fischer al., 2013). Workshops can involve solely scientists or combine policy workers and scientists (examples of the latter at the UK Centre from Science and Policy). Workshops usually result in a written summary which can be used for policy purposes.
  4. Seminars: experts give talks on their research for interested policy officials to attend and ask questions afterwards. For more tips on ways to communicate science to policy officials please read May’s GeoPolicy post.
  5. Policy briefings: may refer to a several types of written document. They are usually written after a workshop or to summarise scientific literature. Briefings are usually written by so-called bridging organisations, which work at the science-policy interface. These documents can be relatively brief, e.g., the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have published several ‘factsheets’ on different Earth-science topics, or more detailed, e.g., the UK Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) regularly publishes ‘POSTnotes’.
  6. Reports: these are far longer documents which review the current scientific understanding. The IPCC reports are key examples of this, but it should be noted that any long report intended for wider-audiences should always contact a short summary for policymakers as they almost certainly do not possess the time to read full reports.
  7. The Delphi method: this less-commonly known practice combines both individual and group work and is supposed to reduce biases that can occur from open discussion platforms. Experts answer questions posed by policy workers in rounds. In between each round an anonymous summary of the opinions is presented to the participants, who are then asked if their opinions have changed. The resulting decisions can then draft a policy briefing.
  8. Pairing schemes: an alternative method used to bridge the science policy gap. This is a relatively new initiative but examples have occurred on the national (Royal Society and MPs paired together in the UK) and international level (EU MEPs paired with European-based scientists). These schemes involve an introductory event at the place of governance, which include seminars and discussions. Bilateral meetings are then organised at the Scientists’ institutions. These initiatives aim to help participants on both sides appreciate the different working conditions they experience. The EU-wide pairing scheme encourages pairs to work together producing a science policy event at a later date. This is still to be determined as the initial pairing only occurred in January.

 

Recruiting scientists

Different pathways exist for scientists to partake in these meetings. These include:

More commonly, scientists are contacted through the policy organisation’s extended personal network. This has been criticised as it can restrict the breadth of scientific evidence reaching policy, as well as it being not transparent. Under EC President Jean-Claude Junker, a Scientific Advice Mechanism has been defined, in which a more transparent framework for science advice to policy has been set out.

 

What is the Science Advice Mechanism? (SAM)

The Science Advice mechanism. Slide taken from presentation entitled “A new mechanism for independent scientific advice in the European Commission” available on the EC Website.

The Science Advice mechanism. Slide taken from presentation entitled “A new mechanism for independent scientific advice in the European Commission” available on the EC Website.

 

This mechanism aims to supply the EC with broad and representative scientific in a structured and transparent manner. The centre-point to this is the formation of a high level scientific group which will work closely with the EC services. This panel comprises seven members “with an outstanding level of expertise and who collectively cover a wide range of scientific fields and expertise relevant for EU policy making”. This panel provides a close working relationship with learned societies and the wider scientific community within the EU. Since its initiation is 2015 the panel has met twice to discuss formalising this mechanism further. The minutes for the meetings are publically available here. More information about SAM is available in the EPRS policy briefing ‘Scientific advice for policy-makers in the European Union’.

Previously, the EU had appointed a Chief Scientific Advisor, however this role was discontinued after 3 years as it was considered too dependent on one individual’s experience. A panel is thought to provide a broader range of scientific advice.

 

Imaggeo on Mondays: The glacial landscape of Yosemite

 Glacial erratic rocks . Credit: Yuval Sadeh (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)

Glacial erratic rocks . Credit: Yuval Sadeh (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)

Yosemite National Park, in California, is renowned for its beautiful and striking landscapes. So much so, this is the second time it has feature on the blog this summer. While our last post on the park focused on the ancient volcanic history of its landscape, in this post we fast forward to the Plesitocene (some 110,000 to 12,000 years ago) to discover more about how glaciers shaped Yosemite’s landscape. Indeed, it is the glacier carved landscape which has made the park so famous!

During the last ice age, the high peaks and valleys of the Sierra Nevada (of which Yosemite belongs to) were covered by ice.  A vast continental ice sheet spread across much of the United States and Canada. Local climate variations as well as the geographical position of Yosemite meant that the accumulation of ice in the region was particularly unique, and didn’t belong to the vast continental ice sheet. Nevertheless, glaciers dominated the landscape during this time and the scars left behind by their presence resulted in a range of landforms observable today: including chatter marks (gouges left in granite by moving glaciers), glacier polish (shiny patches of granite), exfoliation (layered cracking of rocks which resembles onions peeling), and many others.

As glaciers move, they accumulate debris underneath their surface. As the vast frozen rivers advance, they carry the debris, which can range from pebble-sized rocks through to house-sized boulders, along with it. As the climate in the Yosemite region began to warm as the ice age came to an end, the glaciers slowly melted. Once all the ice was gone, the rocks and boulders, known as glacial erratics, were left behind.

One of the best examples of glacial erratics can be seen at Olmstead Point, near Mt. Hoffmann, in Yosemite National Park, as photographed by Yuval Sadeh. Yuval reminisces about the moment he reached the spot where the boulders are strewn across the landscape:

“I remember walking on this extremely smooth scraped surface, watching the glacial erratics rocks which looks like a giant artist placed them gently on the bedrock. Although the glacier melted many years ago, out there on the glacier carved surface it seems that time is standing still ever since.”

Shape the EGU 2017 scientific programme: Call-for-sessions is open!

Shape the EGU 2017 scientific programme: Call-for-sessions is open!

Do you enjoy the EGU’s annual General Assembly but wish you could play a more active role in shaping the scientific programme? Now is your chance!

From today, until 9 Sep 2016, you can suggest:

  • sessions (with conveners and description), or;
  • modifications to the existing skeleton programme sessions

Explore the EGU2017 Programme groups (PGs) to get a feel for the already proposed sessions and to decide which PG would be the best fit for your session. When proposing a session, make sure you consider gender diversity (i.e. is there at least one female convener?), diversity in countries/institutes, and the inclusion of early career scientists as conveners. A minimum of three conveners per session is generally desirable.

Does your idea for a session fall under the remit of two (or more) PGs? Co-organization is possible and encouraged between PGs! Put your session proposal into one PG, and you will be able to choose other PGs that you believe should be approached for co-organization.

A new Programme group, Interdisciplinary Events (IE)was introduced in 2016. IE looks for links between disciplines in a coordinated and coherent effort, trying to create new approaches that would not be possible if handled separately. IE has four sub-programme groups that highlight new themes each year. If you plan to propose an Interdisciplinary Event, please submit your proposal in Programme group IE and indicate relevant other Programme groups in the session description or comment box. For IE sessions we kindly ask to identify another Programme group that becomes the scientific leader of the event. Accepted IE sessions will be part of the session programme of the scientific leader in addition to the IE programme.

The PG officers are on-hand to answer questions about the appropriateness of a specific session topic, so don’t hesitate to contact them if you have queries! You can also find more information about the call for sessions (and the orgaisation of the scientific programme in general) on the EGU 2017 website.

The EGU’s 2017 General Assembly, takes place in Vienna from 23 to 28 April, 2017. For more news about the upcoming General Assembly, you can also follow the offical hashtag, #EGU17, on our social media channels.

 

Imaggeo on Mondays: Why is groundwater so important?

Imaggeo on Mondays: Why is groundwater so important?

Groundwater is an often underestimated natural resource, but it is vital to the functioning of both natural and urban environments. Indeed, it is a large source of drinking water for communities world-wide, as well as being heavily used for irrigation of crops and crucial for many industrial processes. The water locked in the pores and cracks within the Earth’s soils and rocks, also plays an important role in the recharge of water in lakes, rivers and wetlands, as Anna Menció explains in today’s Imaggeo On Monday’s post.

The Pletera salt marsh area (NE Spain) is located in the north of the mouth of the Ter River, in a region mainly dominated by agriculture and tourism activities. Some of the coastal lagoons and wetlands in this area have been affected by the incomplete construction of an urban development. These wetlands and lagoons are the focus of a Life+ project, which aims to restore this protected area, and to recover its ecological functionality.

The Pletera coastal lagoons are periodically flooded by both, freshwater from streams and seawater, during storm events. However, the surface water inputs alone are insufficient to maintain them as permanent lagoons.

This picture is of Fra Ramon lagoon, one of the natural lagoons in the area. The preliminary results of a recent study showed that the recharge of Fra Ramon is dependent on groundwater inputs. In most of the sampling campaigns, freshwater from the aquifer may account for >50% of the lagoon water.

The ecological quality of these lagoons is also affected by nitrogen inputs, mainly produced during flooding events. Although in this area nitrate pollution is also detected in groundwater, with concentrations up to 100 mg NO3/L, natural attenuation processes in the aquifer occur. Effects of these processes are particularly detected close to the lagoons area, where low nitrate concentrations in groundwater are observed, with values below the detection limit. Considering that groundwater may present lower nitrogen concentrations than surface inputs observed during flooding events, these results reinforce the importance of groundwater dynamics in these systems, not only to maintain the permanent lagoons during dry periods, but also to preserve their quality.

By Anna Menció, researcher at the Department of Environmental Sciences of the University of Girona.

Acknowledgments: the study of the Pletera coastal lagoons is founded by LIFE 13 NAT/ES/001001, MINECO CGL-2014-57215-C4-2R, and UdG MPCUdG2016/061 projects.

 

Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/upload/.

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: