1

RESCUE foresight initiativeResponses to Environmental and Societal Challenges for our Unstable Earth

Forw

ard

Lo

ok

RES

CU

E

www.esf.org/rescue

ESF-COST “Frontier of Science” initiative & ESF Forward Look

developed after a request from the French CNRS

ESF – European Science Foundation COST – European Cooperation in Science & Technology

September 2009 – June 2011

fl-rescue@esf.org

RES

CU

E

Last

up

dat

e:

13th

Ap

ril 2

01

1

1. interdisciplinary synergy between natural, social & human sciences to respond effectively to societal and policy-relevant needs related to the global environmental changes;

2. articulation of new scientific issues, especially those of trans-disciplinary nature or of major relevance to society;

3. development of new institutional approaches towards integrated, interdisciplinary science & to facilitate the ‘revolution’ in education and capacity building it requires.

RESCUE Objectives ensuring strategic scientific advice and

approaches for sustainable development & global sustainability governance

RES

CU

E o

bje

ctiv

es

2/24

2

1.new, emerging and neglected, global environmental change “research questions” with a marked human / social focus;

2.collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in global change research;

3. research methodologies and data requirements for addressing the global change challenges;

4. transforming education and capacity building in response to global change; and

5.opening science for a knowledge democracy at the interfaces between research, policy, and society.

RES

CU

E N

ext

Step

s

RESCUE Thematic ActivitiesR

ESC

UE

Nex

t St

eps

draft RESCUE key recommendations (1/2)

• develop a common European vision of an open knowledge system through a dialogue process to establish a framework for dedicated and long-term funding of

sustainability research to promote and support a diversity of mechanisms for engagement in

knowledge production, learning and evaluation to link these to place-based needs and global sustainability concerns in a

set of demonstration projects.

• commission a pan-European mapping study of interdisciplinary research and education together with an inventory of strength in underlying single disciplines contributing to global change research to provide support and incentives for interdisciplinarity and

transdisciplinarity in research design.

• substantially increase national and European support for the study human of behaviour, social arrangements, and human-environmental interactions to establish/support dedicated venues and institutes for this task.

3

RES

CU

E N

ext

Step

s draft RESCUE key

recommendations (2/2)

• establish an international working group to address the challenges posed by the growth of the Internet as a means of access to knowledge, as a repository of knowledge, as a research tool and as an agora, for the production, diffusion and use of knowledge in responding to societal challenges related to GEC

• engage education policy makers and educators together with a broad range of societal actors in a facilitated dialogue on the changes for a radical transition to an open knowledge democracy with a focus on sustainability issues to develop a systematic and effective method for both designing and conducting projects that are more interdisciplinary, creative and innovative in GCR.

“New, emerging and neglected scientific questions in RESCUE remit” Task Force

Challenges of the Anthropocene: Contributions from Social Sciences and Humanities for the

Changing Human Condition (with ISSC, especially)

Global environmental change: one of the biggest challenges in human history

Dualism between natural and social systems Earth System vs. Human included – focused – centred “Anthropocene”: rethink the relationship between environment and

humankind at a fundamental level “Changing Human Condition”: major challenge for the scholarly

communities; for the literary & artistic communities; for policy makers Systemic, technocratic or manipulative approach to behaviour change,

with a redefine experts’ role and clear science-policy-society relations “New” planetary boundaries and historical perspectives Landscapes and food issues as examples

RES

CU

E W

ork

ing

Gro

up

s

6/24

4

RES

CU

E W

ork

ing

Gro

up

sWG “Collaboration between the natural,

social and human sciences in GCR” Develop a strategic vision to break down

individual & institutional barriers that hamper collaboration between scientific disciplines

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?

Examples of key topics:

7/24

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 recommendationsAgree 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.

WG “Collaboration”

8/24

Up

dat

e o

n “

Co

llab

ora

tio

n”

(1

/2)

5

Tourism, ICT

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

Urban development

Environment

Social cohesion

Coping with change

Cultural acceptance

Media

Heritage

Social Reference System

Human Reference System

Natural Reference System

Environmental Reference System

Need a convergence of Reference Systems – ”systems’ approach”

Keywords between the systems need review

A systems’ approach is not always an interdisciplinary approach!

Up

dat

e o

n “

Co

llab

ora

tio

n”

(2

/2)

Value systemfor GCR

Analytical power

Pride

WG “Requirements for research methodologies and data”

GCR crucially depends on observing & monitoring many complex, natural, social & human processes,

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

RES

CU

E W

ork

ing

Gro

up

s

10/24

6

• 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

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?

Up

dat

e o

n “

Req

uir

emen

ts”

(2

/3)

WG “Requirements”

• 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)

How to manage system transitions to integrated, sustainability governance? What data and methods are required to understand such transition processes and support their management?

Up

dat

e o

n “

Req

uir

emen

ts”

(3

/3)

WG “Requirements”

7

WG “Towards a ‘revolution’ in educationand capacity building”

In education as in science related to GEC, the dualism of nature and culture is a great challenge for

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.

RES

CU

E W

ork

ing

Gro

up

s13/24

Change of perspective needed!

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, through a Visioning the Education / Capacity Revolution (VCR) process

to mobilise

to reflect

to in

spir

e to asse

ss

Up

dat

e o

n “

Rev

olu

tio

n”

(2

/3)

8

Key Factors

Education for social transformation

Multi-dimensionalizing GEC issues

An open future

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.”

Up

dat

e o

n “

Rev

olu

tio

n”

(3

/3)

WG “Revolution”

WG “Interface between science and policy, communication and outreach”

or “Opening science for a knowledge democracy” Develop good practices, scientific consensus and

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:

RES

CU

E W

ork

ing

Gro

up

s

• 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

16/24

9

“Vision RD4SD” Concept

• 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.

Up

dat

e o

n “

Inte

rfac

e”

(2

/4)

WG “Interface”

10

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)

RESCUE Leadership

RES

CU

E Sc

ien

tifi

c St

eeri

ng

Co

mm

itte

e19/27

• 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

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

RES

CU

E Q

ual

ity

Ref

eren

ce G

rou

p

20/27

11

RESCUE membership (SSC, WGs, QRG)disciplinary distribution (as of June 2010)

RES

CU

E m

emb

ersh

ip -

dis

cip

linar

y d

istr

ibu

tio

n

4%

32%

33%

18%

3%10%

Geosciences Environmental sciences

Social sciences Humanities

Technological sciences Foresight

Humanities and Social Sciences

51%

21/24

In cooperation with: ICSU, ISSC, CIPSH, GCR programmes & ESSP, European Alliance - GCR, science funding & performing agencies, EC

Stakeholders ConferenceMay 2011

Integration WorkshopDec. 2010

RESCUE general timeline

RES

CU

E ge

ner

al t

imel

ine WGs &

Governance setup

Alignment WorkshopJune 2010

Launching Conference

ThematicActivities

Sept. 2009 Sept. 2009 –Nov. 2010

Report Preparation

Sept. 2010 –May 2011

Dissemination& Monitoring

summer 2011

SSC setup & meeting

SSC + QRG meeting

SSC // QRG meetings

External ReviewsStakeholders’

validation

12

8-9 Dec. 2010: Integration Workshop

mid March 2011 : RESCUE Report – first draft

late April 2011: RESCUE Report – second draft

16-17 May 2011: Stakeholders Conference

late May 2011: Report + Science Policy Briefing (SPB) – final draft

June 2011: Report & SPB external reviews

September 2011: Report & SPB – launching event (Brussels)

2011-2012: continuous monitoring the implementation of RESCUE recommendations and their impacts

questions, comments, inputs are most welcome.Contact: fl-rescue@esf.org

RES

CU

E N

ext

Step

s

RESCUE Next StepsR

ESC

UE

con

tact

s

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.

European Science Foundation (ESF)Dr. Bernard AvrilLife, Earth & Environmental Sciences (LESC)Email: fl-rescue@esf.org; Website: www.esf.org/rescue

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)Dr. Carine PetitEarth System Science & Environmental Management (ESSEM)Email: cpetit@cost.esf.org

ESF-COST “Frontier of Science” initiativeRESCUE Contacts

24/24

13

General Forward Look Goals

• Forward Looks provide medium to long-term authoritative visions on science perspectives in broad areas of research bringing together ESF 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.

ESF

Fore

sigh

t A

ctiv

itie

s

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 – 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

ESF

Fore

sigh

t A

ctiv

itie

s

14

Typical Forward Looks Format

• Activities include preparatory study/expert groups, high level overview papers, workshops and meetings

• 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€

ESF

Fore

sigh

t A

ctiv

itie

s