Connecting Research to Policy Experience from International Water Research Cooperation

Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

Connecting Research to PolicyExperience from International Water

Research Cooperation

Cornelia E. NauenInternational S&T Cooperation (INCO)

European Commission


Background to the IWRM Review

• > 50 international S&T cooperation projects have been financially supported by the INCO Programme through Research Framework Programmes (FP4, 5, 6)

• This represents an investment of >50 MEuro• International expert group to analyse what we

have learnt through this cooperation• Guiding principle: sustainable development


International Review Panel

• Prof. Dipak Gyawali, Nepal (Chair)

• Prof. Anthony Allan, UK (Rapporteur)

• Prof. Paula Antunes, Portugal

• Dr. Basim Dudeen, Palestine

• Prof. Pietro Laureano, Italy

• Prof. Cassio Luiselli, Mexico

• Dr. Pedro Monteiro, South Africa

• Dr. Hong Khanh Nguyen, Vietnam

• Prof. Pavel Novacek, Czech Republic

• Prof. Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Germany


Discursive Politics

Institutions

Environment

Economics

Social


Scoring methodologySustainability

• SocialHas the research addressed the priorities of society and the sustainability of society? Ex: Equitable access. Role of women.

• EconomicHas the research addressed the priorities of the economy and the sustainability of the economy?

• Environmental Has the research addressed the priorities of the environment and the sustainability of ecosystems? Ex: Millennium Ecosystem Ass.

• PoliticsHas the research addressed the role of politics, governance and law in the analysis and in its conclusions? Ex: Was there awareness?


Scoring methodology

• Was technical work context-specific?

• Was an integrated approach practiced?

• Was there constructive engagement with government, civil society, private sector, education system?

• What was the impact, uptake by others?

• Communication research-society – were the narratives effective for sharing research?


Scoring methodologyWas technical work context-specific?

• Were the technical solutions sensitive to the socio-economic context?

• Were the technical solutions sensitive to ecosystems/environmental requirements?

• Were the technical approaches and solutions realistic/effective in the prevailing institutional/political context?


The perception gap

• Researchers investigate the fundamentals of nature and/or society

• The perceptions of social actors about the same issues are very different

• The human brain has a predisposition for processing and accepting stories

• Conceptual approaches need to be contextualised to ‚speak‘ to non-scientists

• Monodisciplinary work tells too small a part of the story to be useful to policy


Ingredients for sustainability

• Support dialogue-type social processes where narratives can be developed

• Social learning takes place• Local capacity building• Public knowledge goods• Pro-activity in social and political

engagement, conflict prevention and communication


Further information

• Some more background information on

http://ec.europa.eu/research/water-initiative

Look for IWRM Review

• http://ec.europa.eu/research/ - policy

• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7








http://ec.europa.eu/research/








Scoring methodologyWas an integrated approach practiced?

• Was there real integration? How effective?

• What has been integrated?

• What was excluded?

• What changes have been effected?

• Are these long-term?

• Was co-dependence of the water sector and other sectors clear?


Scoring methodologyWas there constructive engagement?

• With government (central, local…)?

• With private sector?

• With civil society movements?

• With other academics?

• With the educational system?


Scoring methodologyWhat was the impact?

• Development of knowledge

• Contribution to societal problem solving

• What was the uptake by others?

• Legacy – capacity strengthening, educational effects etc.


Scoring methodologyCommunication research-society

• Are non-watershed issues being considered in communicating research results?

• Are the political determinants of water using practices and water policy-making considered? – belief systems and power relations– the options of water users – the state of water managing and water regulating

institutions

• Are ‘narratives’ of knowledge-sharing effective?


Some results of Review Panel

The constructive outcomes of INCO resulted from

1. The evolving approaches and debate since the early 1990s which raised the profile of the challenges facing political leaders, policy-makers and water users.

2. Reflecting these trends through guiding the research community to integrate its science and address policy priorities and thus contribute to the EU Water Initiative.

3. The EU mode of collaborative research involving partners from EU and other parts of the world, which stimulated the adoption of new ideas and approaches to water policy and policy-relevant applied water science.

Connecting Research to Policy Experience from International Water Research Cooperation

Documents

Transcript of Connecting Research to Policy Experience from International Water Research Cooperation