Main authors: Špela Železnikar, Matjaž Glavan, Sindre Langaas, Gerard Velthof, Susanne Wuijts, Susanne Klages, Claudia Heidecke, Marina Pintar
Editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: »Železnikar, S. et al. (2021) Evaluation report on barriers and issues in providing integrated scientific support for EU policy. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 7.1R 56 pp

 

A workshop on the “Evaluation of the issues and barriers around providing integrated scientific support for EU policy” was held in Brussels, Belgium, on 6 December, 2017. The workshop was led by a FAIRWAY project partner, the University of Ljubljana. The workshop method was based on a World Café workshop type with duration of 3h. The primary objective of the workshop was to discuss with representative EU-level actor organizations the role of the science and research sector in EU policy making and EU policies implementation related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides originating from agriculture.

There were 4 main questions at the workshop. All of them are related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture.

Each question was hosted by a table host, who led the discussion. There were 15 minutes rounds per question. Participants were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 6 participants and Group 2 with 4. At the beginning of each round, table hosts briefly shared key insights from the prior conversation, so the new group could link and build using ideas from previous rounds, if they wanted to. At minute 10-13 table hosts started collecting/forming short summaries of opinions of each group and wrote them on post-it notes, used later on for the main discussion.


Contents table
1. Key workshop facts
2. Key workshop results and discussion 

1. Key workshop facts

The workshop on Evaluation of the issues/ barriers around providing integrated scientific support for EU policy” was held in Brussels, on December 6th, 2017. The workshop was led by Fairway Partner University of Ljubljana, as part of the work in Work Package 7, task 7.1.

  • Main objective: to discuss with representative EU-level actor organisations the EU regulations related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture.
  • Workshop type: World café
  • Duration time: 3 hours (1.00 p.m. - 4.00 p.m.)
  • Venue: Vlaams-Europees Brussels (VLEVA), Belgium
  • Participant number: 10

D7.1R fig04
Figure 4

2. Key workshop results and discussion

The main purpose of the workshop was to get the answers to the following 4 questions.

Question 1: What do you consider to be the main issues on the EU level related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture in EU?

Table 2: Main discussion points for Question 1

Group 1 Group 2
  • Balance between EU objectives can be conflictive. How to define balance?
  • Policy coherence: transition at member state / regional level
  • Synergise between different goals - cooperation
  • Apply the people-planet - profile principle
  • Fragmented data and not easy available
  • More harmonisation of legislation
  • Financial question: Who is paying?
  • World motivation: Patience will help, development is already positive. Listen to experts

D7.1R fig05
Figure 5

The debate around the question of issues related to drinking water quality, first tackled the problem of nitrates. It evolved that nitrates are not necessarily bad since they are naturally occurring (but not those from mineral sources), but the topic of pesticides may be more complex than the topic of nitrate. The second point of debate was the share of EU funds over targets. Participants discussed over the topic, if there is more budged needed to achieve the targets or if the main issues related to drinking water are connected with the lack of funds for this topic / area of work.

Question 2: What do you consider to be the main barriers in solving the issues in the EU regulations related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture in EU?

The discussion on main barriers in solving the issues in the EU regulations related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture in EU highlighted the following main barriers that are presented in Figure 6.

D7.1R fig06
Figure 6

Among the barriers exposed, the first was that we have to consider socio-cultural factors / differences between member states countries and other regions in Europe. Especially the perception of environmental education and barriers for implementation of policy is different member states countries. Moreover, also problems with translation and transposition of EU policies on local level were highlighted and also the topic of lack of funding for implementation of measures was omnipresent.  

Question 3: In your opinion how the relationship between science and policy in the EU regulations is reflected in EU legislation, with special attention to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture?

Table 3: Main discussion points for Question 3

Group 1 Group 2
  • Is there a relationship?
  • All directives are based on science based evidence: It could be improved. Is really all science?
  • Populistic decisions
  • Policy makers don’t always understand the science. They should ask and listen to experts (political lack of knowledge)
  • More education for political science
  • Social awareness
  • Politics are not connected with practical world (nobody works in agriculture): weak connection in public eyes; farming ≠nature
  • Water framework directive: Member states don’t have substantial level of subsidy • Science -Policy should be implemented at local level, followed in regional and national level
  • It is difficult to find communication between member states
  • Science based policy yes, but do we really want this?
  • MAP is a way to engage stakeholders
  • Links are not strong enough (ex. Common agriculture Policy -European Innovation Partnership -agriculture)
  • Science -Policy interface: science ↔education↔ policy
  • Science and policy are not so different: allow public policy
  • More scientist tackle complexity of a problem
  • Maybe water is not a priority of EU -not enough science support

D7.1R fig07
Figure 7

In response to the question of evaluation on how the relationship between science and policy is reflected in EU legislation, the topic of public participation or “democracy” in science was highlighted. It can be dangerous, because if something is scientifically correct we cannot discuss it and change it to suit the popular sense. Participants debated around the fact that scientific work should be done independently, because it is a methodological process (while policy is a democratic process). Public could be involved in determining priorities about which issues are important to investigate and also as a part of science itself, (.e. effects of sociologic factors). When the research is finished, the topic should be presented to the public so that everyone interested knows what is going on and then the information can be used in democratic policy making processes.

Question 4: In your opinion how the system at EU level can be improved (i.e. what are the possible solutions for integrated scientific support for EU policy related to drinking water resource protection against diffuse pollution of nitrates and pesticides from agriculture)?

Table 4: Main discussion points on Question 4

Group 1 Group 2
  • Nitrates and pesticides have to be dealt separately
  • Communication should be strengthen (case studies and best practise)
  • Multiactors approach should help
  • Multipurpose data (management, use and share of data)
  • Trust building • More research into OGs (more interactions)
  • Better time alignment
  • RIA and policy
  • Strengthen the science policy relation with different actors

  D7.1R fig08
Figure 8

The main debate around question four - solutions for improvement, evolved by highlighting some policy actions hints / solutions for: use language that is easy for policy makers; really make clear what are the aspects of the project, meet in live with other project participants and stakeholders involved.

 


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see

» References

Go To Top