As such, Research Media Ltd will be providing coverage of the events in its flagship International Innovation publication, detailing the key issues, objectives and outcomes, as well as featuring interviews with prominent members of the ESF. Furthermore, complimentary copies of International Innovation will be available at the events.

International Innovation is a unique publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology. It offers a bespoke service to researchers and leading scientific institutions who wish to highlight and share their latest work with those in the global research community, producing tailored articles and interviews to suit the needs of its clients.

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media Ltd, is enormously excited by the prospect of being an official media partner of all 2012 ESF events: “We are thrilled to announce our collaboration with the ESF at their upcoming events. The visibility that this will afford to the projects that we disseminate cannot be underestimated and we hope that our presence at the events will attract a wealth of new readers”.

The ESF is an independent, non-governmental organisation dedicated to pan-European scientific networking and collaboration and has played an essential role in mediating a multitude of heterogeneous research cultures and agencies. With a total budget of €61 million in 2010 and a projected economic impact in excess of €1 billion, it is a major driving force for advanced research in Europe.

To guarantee your FREE subscription to International Innovation and to ensure that you stay up to date with the latest ESF events, outcomes and interviews, please visit our dedicated subscriptions page at www.research-europe.com/subscribe.php.

Furthermore, for an overview of the ESF’s 2012 events, please see http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/2012-upcoming-events.html?year=2012.

The programme sessions will offer a forum to present and debate on the current state of gender equality within research and science organisations. Research Media Ltd Director Nick Brake expresses his delight to play a key role in the Summit: “Research Media Ltd is pleased to promote the first ever European Gender Summit by serving as official media partner. As one of the leading scientific dissemination services in Europe, we look forward to spreading awareness of the importance of including all individuals in the pursuit of more comprehensive research and innovation”.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn about the latest research on gender and innovation, learn how to implement solutions to gender-related issues within their work environment, and contribute their project to be included in a reference base to be showcased at the stakeholder exhibition. The discussions will culminate in a manifesto on policy development on gender for innovation called “Integrated Action on the Gender Dimension in Research.”

The European Gender Summit is supported by the European Commission through the Science and Society Programme (FP7). Key speakers include Director of the Joint Research Council and the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Dr Elke Anklam, and Chief Editor of the peer-reviewed journal PLos, Dr Virginia Barbour

Commissioner for Research, Innovation & Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn encourages the Summit’s dedication to gender equality saying: “Specific measures are needed to support women’s scientific careers, and to address gender factors in the research process, with a view to improving quality. The European Gender Summit will show how these issues can be tackled more effectively through collaboration between scientists, gender research scholars and policy makers”.

www.gender-summit.eu/

Research Media are pleased to announce that they will be an official partner for this year’s event, where we will be distributing free copies of International Innovation – our publication dedicated to the dissemination of the latest science, research and technology.

Simon Jones, Director of Research Media states: “We at Research Media are thrilled to be an official partner of the European Innovation Summit 2011. Research clusters consisting of industry, SMEs and academia are essential for research, development and innovation, and we hope that the event will serve to highlight the most pressing and pertinent issues”.

This year’s event will be held from the 10-13 October, and will be split into two distinct parts: a summit in Brussels, for which President Jerzy Buzek has granted the patronage of the European Parliament, and a Ministerial Conference in Warsaw.

Organised by Knowledge4Innovation (K4I), a non-profit, independent multi-stakeholder platform with members from the European public, private and academic sectors, the event will adhere to the motto ‘Towards a European Innovation Ecosystem’. In Warsaw, the summit will focus on both adapting EU research and innovation policies in national and regional contexts, and increasing synergy between different policy areas. Furthermore, the Brussels-based activities will enable participants to examine the role of individuals –  and young talent in particular – in fostering innovation and addressing the challenges presented by funding.

In the past two years the event has proved to be a lynchpin in debates on the function, pitfalls and importance of supporting innovations, attracting some 2,000 innovation stakeholders and over 200 speakers, including the presidents of the European Parliament and the European Commission.

This year’s event promises to be just as engaging, with the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek; European Commissioner for Innovation, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; and the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, William Kennard, already confirmed as but a few of the high profile speakers at this year’s summit.

With hot debate surrounding future European policy and budgets for European innovation initiatives, this event affords a timely and open forum to discuss the most pertinent issues for all involved.

For further information, see the official website: www.knowledge4innovation.eu/EIS/SitePages/eis2011_home.aspx

Connie Hedegaard sets out her vision for European climate policy under José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission

Firstly, could you offer an insight into what your role as EU Commissioner for Climate Action entails?

The responsibilities I have been given by President Barroso are fourfold:

• First, to help the EU meet its targets for 2020 and beyond in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
• Second, to develop and implement the EU Emissions Trading System and promote links to systems in other countries in order to build an international carbon trading market;
• Third, to promote the development and demonstration of low carbon and adaptation technologies, and to develop a strong scienti.c and economic basis for our climate policies;
• And fourth, to develop adaptation to climate change within the EU and to work with my fellow commissioners to build the adaptation dimension into all EU policies.

These responsibilities give me a central role in continuing the EU’s leadership insighting climate change and in the international negotiations, as well as in helping the EU to adapt to the impacts of climate change. To support me I have the newly created Directorate-General for Climate Action which will have around 200 staff once it is fully resourced.

What do you believe are the greatest challenges to achieving a sustainable climate, at present?

The international community has set itself the goal of preventing dangerous man-made interference with the climate system, and the Copenhagen Accord has endorsed the need to keep global warming below 2°C above the pre-industrial level. Without any doubt the greatest challenges are to get agreement on the deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions that are needed to achieve this, and then to make them happen in practice. At the moment global emissions are still steadily rising. This trend has to be broken. The scienti.c evidence shows that, to have even a 50 per cent chance of staying below 2°C, world emissions need to peak by 2020 at the latest, be reduced by at least 50 per cent of their 1990 level by 2050 and continue falling after that. As a . rst step the European Union is cutting its emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and we are ready to scale up our reduction to 30 per cent if other major emitters commit to do their fair share. The pledges of reductions or actions they have made so far are welcome but not enough, so the immediate challenge is to convince our partners to come up to our level of ambition.
Must a balance be struck between the challenges of tomorrow and the demands of today?

Climate change is already happening so it is a challenge for today, not just tomorrow. And the science is telling us that we will only prevent climate change from reaching dangerous levels tomorrow if we take . rm action now. The longer we delay, the more dif.cult and the more expensive it will become.  Concerning other ‘demands of today’, it remains important to ensure that climate policies continue to strengthen the EU’s competitiveness, enable the Union to strengthen the security of its energy supply, support greener economic growth and create new jobs in the EU.

How would you assess international relations in terms of environmental policy, in the wake of the UN Copenhagen climate conference? Do you believe that signi.cant progress was made or does more work need to be done over the next year to create a uni.ed and binding consensus?

Both. I do think the Copenhagen Accord represents signi. cant progress but it does not go far enough. Clearly there is a lot more work to be done to reach the comprehensive, ambitious and legally binding global agreement that is needed. This work will continue over the course of this year and at the COP 16 Cancun conference starting at the end of November, and I acknowledge it may well take longer to get to a legally binding solution. In terms of international relations, Copenhagen put a lot of people under a lot of strain. I think that to some extent the dust is still settling and the way ahead needs to be discussed. That is why President Barroso has mandated me to undertake consultations with our main international partners in order to .nd ways to reinvigorate the process.

Is international collaboration a key element of your strategy for reducing the impact of climate change? Is there a desire to work with newly industrialised nations to ensure that their growth is sustainable and environmentally friendly?

International collaboration is absolutely indispensable to control climate change. The EU cannot solve climate change alone since we are responsible for a relatively small proportion of global emissions – just 10 or 11 per cent. That is why we have sought to lead by example, for instance through our climate and energy package, to show our partners in both the developed and the developing worlds what can be done in practical terms. Working with the emerging powerhouses is obviously a key part of our strategy and is increasingly moving to centre stage in our bilateral relations. For instance we have the EU-India Clean Development and Climate Change Initiative, and with China a Partnership on climate change that includes plans under which we will co-.nance a near zero emissions coal-.red power plant there.

How much is being done from an EU perspective to help support developing countries in mitigation strategies to adapt to the socio-economic and health impacts of a changing climate?

Since 2001, the EU has stepped up its climate . nance for developing countries. The efforts at the political level are re.ected in the EC’s development cooperation with third countries. Both mitigation and adaptation have been growing steadily in importance in our relations with developing countries. An analysis of the EC portfolio in 2008, shows that commitments for climate related interventions have increased since 2002, totalling over €1.7 billion. This demonstrates that a signi. cant amount of climate change integration has already taken place in development cooperation, and this will continue to be prioritised in the years to come, to ensure that EC development cooperation becomes increasingly sustainable. It is important to observe that this . gure only relates to what is managed by the Commission and does not take into account the signi.cant sums of climate funding provided by some of the Member States.

In addition, one of the most signi.cant aspects of the Copenhagen Accord is its commitment on .nancial assistance to developing countries. Industrialised countries have pledged a total approaching 30 billion US dollars for the period 2010 to 2012, of which 7.2 billion euros – in other words about one third – will come from the EU alone. This funding will be spent in a balanced way on both adaptation and mitigation. For the medium to longer term there is also a commitment of industrialised countries to mobilise 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 for the needs of developing countries. This .nance will come from a variety of sources, both public and private. The EU will need to decide on its contribution in due course.

There is still some confusion over the EU’s pledge to cut carbon emissions. What is the exact figure that the EU has committed to, and do you believe that this is a realistic target?

The target we have entered into the Copenhagen Accord is the dual target set by EU leaders in 2007. That is to say, we have made a unilateral commitment to cut our emissions to at least 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, in order to take a .rst step on the road towards the low-carbon economy. This 20 per cent commitment stands whatever other countries decide to do, and we are implementing it through the climate and energy package of legislation adopted last year and a major energy ef. ciency programme.

At the same time, we have made a conditional offer to scale up our emissions reduction to 30 per cent. The condition is that other developed countries commit to comparable emission reductions and developing countries contribute adequately to a global effort according to their responsibilities and capabilities.

Both targets are economically and technically realistic, and moreover the 30 per cent reduction is more in line with what is needed to control climate change. The science shows that to get global emissions onto a trajectory that has a fair chance of keeping warming below the danger level of 2°C, by 2020 industrialised countries need to cut their collective emissions by 25-40 per cent of 1990 levels and developing countries as a group need to keep their emissions growth to 15-30 per cent below business as usual levels. I want Europe to move to the 30 per cent reduction as soon as possible, so we need to work with our international partners to create the right conditions for that to happen.

Will the current European economic climate affect its ability to tackle climate change?

In political terms what we have seen is that the recession has not diminished Europe’s will to tackle climate change. The climate and energy package was agreed in December 2008 even as the economic crisis was reaching its height. Indeed, if there is a silver lining to the recession it is that governments, here in Europe as well as in the U.S., China, Korea and other parts of the world, have used it as an opportunity to start laying the basis for a more low-carbon economy.

What the overall economic effect of the recession will be on our ability to tackle climate change is harder to say. For instance we know that private sector investment in renewable energy has been cut back, which is obviously not helpful. At the same time, the emissions of industry are falling as a result of the economic slow down, making future targets more attainable. So the short-term effects are mixed.

You have stated that you hope to make Europe the most climate friendly region in the world within the next . ve years. What measures will you take to make this a reality?

Obviously the starting point is to ensure the measures in the climate and energy package are fully implemented. Quite a few technical decisions still need to be taken for that to happen, for instance on rules governing the auctioning of ETS allowances or emissions changes due to land use, land-use change and forestry. But we also need to go well beyond the climate and energy package and mainstream climate change into all relevant policy areas so they work towards the attainment of our climate goals and don’t con.ict with them. The Europe 2020 strategy to be proposed by the Commission in the next few weeks must provide a strong framework for this process. A priority area for action will be the transport sector where we will be developing a climate and transport package.

We also need to look well beyond 2020 to where we want to be in 2050. A key goal is to decarbonise our energy supply by then, so we need to chart the way ahead on that now and start putting in place the necessary measures. We must also deliver on the goal set by the previous Commission of developing a European strategy for adaptation to climate change by 2013. These are the key actions one can identify today but we will of course respond to further needs, and to further opportunities, as they arise.

With COP 16 taking place in November and the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012, the next few years will be extremely important. What do you hope to achieve by 2014, when your current position as Commissioner for Climate Action expires?

Let me just clarify that it is the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period that ends in 2012, not the Protocol itself. In effect the emission targets will expire but all the other rules of the Protocol will continue to apply.

At international level the big prize, as I’ve already made clear, is to reach a global climate agreement that is comprehensive, ambitious and legally binding. The EU wants to have this as soon as possible but one of the lessons from Copenhagen may be that we are going to have to be patient. It was clear in Copenhagen that countries like India and China are not ready for a legally binding deal at the moment. Then there is the uncertainty over when the U.S. will be able to pass climate change legislation, without which others will remain reluctant to move. Once we do reach a satisfactory international agreement, there will almost certainly be important technical details to .esh out, as there were after Kyoto. So I can well imagine that negotiations on the deal itself and then on the technical details will continue throughout most if not all of my time as commissioner. To complete that process – and to see effective measures producing real mitigation in place in all regions of the world – by the time I leave would be a realistic goal.

What is your vision regarding the development of regional policy across the EU?

The debate on the future of European regional policy after the current funding period ends in 2013 is well underway. In the context of both the Europe 2020 Strategy – which sets out the sustainable economic development blueprint for the Union for the next decade – and the EU budget review, 2011 is in many ways a pivotal year for laying down the foundations for the future policy.

We are working hard on preparing a regional policy which is relevant and appropriate for the economic situation of today. The financial crisis has underlined the need for a strong development policy, supporting processes of structural adjustment across Europe and addressing key bottlenecks to growth. It has also shown that we need a policy that continues to invest in the competitiveness of all regions, as well as supporting development in those lagging behind.

However, to achieve this, and to increase the effectiveness of policy in the future, we must simplify the rules. Future funding should also be focused on a limited number of priorities, in line with the goals set by Europe 2020 Strategy. We need to explore new financing models to pool resources between the public and private sectors to maximise the impact of the policy. And we need to focus more on results. Evaluating the impact of this investment, learning what works and why it works, is critical to its success. Letting the public know what has actually been achieved with their taxpayers’ money is also a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

Can you summarise what ‘regional policy’ entails, and highlight issues which must be addressed in today’s European climate? Can you offer an insight into your strategies for addressing economic disparities in Europe?

Regional policy is the expression of the EU’s solidarity with its less-favoured regions and countries. It works through integrated programmes to support the sustainable development of the regions and the EU as a whole. More specifically, it works to bring out the best in every region, make all regions competitive, and create more and better jobs.

Of the EU’s 271 regions, one in four has a GDP of less than 75 per cent of the EU average. There are diverse reasons for this inequality, with many of the poorest regions suffering from longstanding hindrances such as geographical remoteness or the legacy of centrally planned economies. However, allowing these differences to continue unchecked could damage the EU’s overall dynamism and competitiveness. The EU is committed to ensuring that this doesn’t happen – which is why such a significant amount of the EU’s overall budget (around one third) is invested through regional policy.

Between 2007 and 2013, regional policy is worth 347 billion euros. It is not just about transferring wealth from well-off regions to poorer ones. The money is targeted towards economic growth and the creation of jobs, for example, by improving transport links to remote regions, boosting SMEs in disadvantaged areas, investing in a cleaner environment and improving education and skills.

What is the significance in developing tailored policies for distinct regions of the EU?

The regional diversity of the EU, in which regions have vastly different characteristics, opportunities and needs, requires us to go beyond one-size-fits-all policies. This is why we have developed an approach that gives regions the ability to design – and the means to deliver – policies that meet their needs. This is what regional policy provides through its place-based approach.

Consequently, European regional policy – that is, its instruments and programmes – are largely managed in a decentralised way by the national and regional governments concerned. Within a common framework set by the EU, Member States and regions select priority areas for European investments. Each programme is developed in a collective process involving authorities at European, national, regional and local levels, as well as social partners. This ensures that each partner has ownership of the programmes and that they are best adapted to the needs of each region.

Why might it be suggested that European regional policy is – or ought to be – at the heart of the EU’s efforts for economic recovery and long term prosperity under the EU 2020 Strategy?

As the European community’s largest source of investment in the real economy, the EU’s regional policy provides stable investment at local and regional levels. In this economic climate, the importance of this investment is clearer than ever, providing robust support for budgetary stability and public investment in the regions. Regional policy is at the heart of the EU’s efforts for exiting the crisis. The policy made a significant contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan. A series of measures have been taken to help simplify and speed up project implementation, and accelerate structural fund payments.

I am also convinced that we must ensure that the future regional policy is closely aligned with the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Europe 2020 headline targets cannot be achieved by policies formulated at EU or national level alone. Such an ambitious agenda can only succeed with strong national and regional participation and ownership on the ground. And regional policy has a vital role to play in providing incentives to foster adjustment to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. It can ensure that community action is translated into real development on the ground, mobilising a wide range of regional and local stakeholders.

What would you highlight as the most pressing challenges facing policy makers in the development of regional policy, and how is the Department addressing them?

The main challenge facing European regional policy is that despite recent trends towards convergence (our recent evaluation reports show how investment from the policy has had a clear impact to help reduce economic, social and environmental disparities), significant differences between European regions remain. These are not just measured in terms of levels of economic development. More developed regions are also more competitive – that is, more innovative, with a more skilled workforce and higher levels of employment, and better endowed with infrastructure and a higher quality of government.

The challenge facing European regional policy today is to find the right policy to be able to address these challenges. Drawing on lessons learnt from the current and previous programming periods, as well as discussions with a broad range of stakeholders, the fifth cohesion report will make a series of proposals for reforming the policy. The focus here will be on making the policy more effective and more results-driven to achieve a greater EU, value-added in line with the priorities of the Europe 2020 growth goals. We also need to strengthen the governance of the policy and involvement of partners, as well as simplify its delivery system.

Sceptics might suggest that so-called ‘red tape’ – that is, extensive legislation and regulation – hinders socioeconomic development at regional levels. How might you address such claims?

I am aware that regional policy tends to be perceived as difficult and complex to manage. I would like to make two points here. Firstly, rules are in place for good reason. Complex projects involving a lot of money have to respect many rules (eg. Environmental assessments, state aid rules, public procurement rules, documentation standards, etc.). The checks and balances are inplace to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent properly and correctly.

However, I do recognise that there is always scope for improvement. This is why we are always striving to strike the right balance between getting value for money, without imposing a regulatory burden that turns people off. We have actively been looking at ways to simplify delivery over recent years, a process given increasing urgency with the crisis. We adopted a number of initiatives aimed at simplifying management rules which should help to facilitate access to the funds and accelerate flows of investment at a time when public budgets are under pressure. In the fifth cohesion report, we will also examine a number of ideas for further simplifying and streamlining the delivery system.

To what extent does the Department facilitate interaction and dialogue with stakeholders, industrial leaders, national governmental bodies and SMEs in identifying key concerns and developing workable solutions to these issues? How significant is collaboration in this regard?

The Directorate-General for Regional Policy attaches much importance to the interaction with stakeholders and beneficiaries of regional policy. We have developed a highly constructive, ongoing dialogue with stakeholders looking at key concerns and developing workable solutions to issues around the implementation of the policy.

For example, we organise regular meetings examining ways in which we can simplify the implementation of the funds and reduce the administrative burden. We held a meeting in June 2010 on ‘Streamlining the implementation mechanism of the Structural Funds’, to which we invited representatives of beneficiaries of the funds from the following sectors and authorities: SMEs and businesses; local authorities and public institutions; and research institutions as recipients of funds.

This is just one example – other informal dialogues have been established with civil society organisations, socioeconomic partners, and management and audit authorities, amongst others. This partnership aspect is an area which we are keen to strengthen even further in the future reformed policy, post-2013.

In what ways are you working to develop and stimulate innovation and growth in areas which have emerging knowledge economies?

Under the regional structural funds, 86 billion euros – a quarter of the total budget – is targeted for research and innovation between 2007 and 2013. However, innovation performance and take-up of funds varies considerably across the EU-27 Member States. The Commission has recently brought forward a new Communication: ‘Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’, which sets out a raft of policy recommendations to tackle regional disparities and encourage higher levels of investment in innovation in the regions. Tabled on 6 October 2010 alongside the flagship EU ‘Innovation Union’, it calls for more effective use of EU regional funds to help boost innovation and meet the Europe 2020 goals on smart growth.

National and regional authorities are asked to design ‘smart specialisation strategies’ in cooperation with business, universities and research centres. These will help regions identify their best assets, focus on key priorities, increase cooperation with other regions, and identify bottlenecks to innovation. The aim is to concentrate resources on a limited number of priorities which are proven areas of comparative advantage, for instance, on clusters, existing sectors and cross-sectoral activities, eco-innovation, high value-added markets, or specific research areas.

To assist the regions in identifying their strengths and opportunities, the Commission will develop a ‘Smart Specialisation Platform’, bringing together expertise from universities, research centres, regional authorities and businesses.

Can you offer some tangible examples of the work which the department has facilitated or mobilised? What would you identify as its key achievements in recent years?

Evaluation reports published in April 2010 give a clear indication of the achievements of the policy. Regional policy has had a major impact on the European economy in recent years, reducing the economic gaps between different parts of the Union and promoting environmental and social development. It provides investment for modernisation, is a catalyst for change in all European regions and brings new business opportunities. We estimate that between 2000 and 2006, it helped to create 1.4 million new jobs, supported small firms and boosted research. It has offered valuable training opportunities to millions of women, young people, the vulnerable in society and the unemployed. It has modernised transport links, supporting the construction or improvement of thousands of kilometres of road and rail and the modernisation of ports and airports. It has also improved environmental conditions for millions of Europeans bringing the quality of drinking water and treatment of waste water up to EU standards.

In sum, the regional policy investment that Europe channels through the structural funds has made a huge difference to the lives of millions of citizens across the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy

First, could you describe GEO’s objectives and how it works to promote the broader goals of the National Science Foundation (NSF)?

The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) is one of seven research arms within the NSF. Its mission is to support research in the atmospheric, Earth, and ocean sciences. As the principal source of federal funding for university-based fundamental research in the geosciences in the U.S., GEO addresses the nation’s need to understand, predict and respond to environmental events. Basic research in the geosciences advances scientific knowledge of Earth’s environment, including resources such as water, energy and minerals. GEO-supported research also advances our ability to predict natural phenomena of economic and human significance, such as climate changes, weather, earthquakes, fish-stock fluctuations and disruptive events in the solar terrestrial environment.

GEO provides support for interdisciplinary studies that contribute directly to NSF research priorities and goals such as understanding, adapting to, and mitigating the impacts of global change, developing and deploying integrated ocean observing capabilities to support ecosystem-based management, and understanding future availability of fresh water.

Could you highlight some major areas of interest where GEO is currently focusing its efforts to ensure the survival of our planet? Are there any research areas you wish to strengthen through increased funding in the future?

In our 2012 Fiscal Year, increased funding and focus will be given to research in sustainability, cyber-infrastructure (data and framework), and hazard-preparedness and response. NSF as a whole is focusing on key national priority areas, that require the expertise of physical, biological, and social scientists and engineers, as well as educators at all levels. NSF-catalysed research includes investments in clean energy and cyber-infrastructure; areas that are poised for innovative breakthroughs. GEO is playing a prominent role in the following research areas:

• Sustainability. The Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) portfolio consists of programmes that spark innovations for tomorrow’s clean energy solutions with a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science. SEES is designed to foster innovative insights about the environment-energy-economy nexus that will increase the effectiveness of our energy and management policies in adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change and improve our capabilities for rapid response to extreme events. SEES foci for FY 2012 include mechanisms for both research and education in sustainability, including research on Sustainable Energy Pathways (SEP), a formal programme of Postdoctoral Fellowships in Sustainable Solutions, and targeted awards in the Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) programme

• Hazards and Resilience. GEO is planning a new programme on Creating a More Disaster Resilient America (CaMRA). The overarching goal of CaMRA is to catalyse basic research efforts at NSF in hazard-related science to improve forecasting and prediction of natural and hazardous events

• Observing Networks.

i. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). NEON will consist of geographically distributed field and lab infrastructure networked via cybertechnology into an integrated research platform for regional to continental scale ecological research

ii. Ocean Observatories Initiatives (OOI). OOI will enable continuous, interactive access to the ocean via multiple types of sensors linked by cutting-edge cyber-infrastructure, which will produce never before-seen views of the ocean’s depths

• Cyber-infrastructure Frameworks.

This focus area builds on NSF’s long history of providing leadership for cyber-infrastructure and computational science for the U.S. academic science and engineering community. NSF will support the development and deployment of comprehensive, integrated, sustainable, and secure cyber-infrastructure to accelerate research and education and new functional capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and engineering, thereby transforming our ability to effectively address and solve the many complex problems facing science and society

Could you provide insight into how funding is distributed among GEO’s three organisations – Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences (AGS), Earth Sciences (EAR), and Ocean Sciences (OCE)?

The GEO Directorate as a whole supports novel, complex, or partnership projects in both research and education. These investments cut across traditional boundaries within the geosciences, encouraging interdisciplinary activities and responding directly to critical needs of the entire geosciences community. GEO-wide funding is used to develop innovative means to initiate and support geosciences education, attract underrepresented groups to careers in the geosciences, foster the interchange of scientific information nationally and internationally, and to join with other parts of NSF in major integrative research and education efforts.

AGS supports activities to further our understanding of the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere, from the Earth’s surface to the sun, on timescales ranging from minutes to millennia. AGS provides support for: 1) basic science projects; and 2) the acquisition, maintenance, and operation of observational and cyber-infrastructure facilities and services that enable modern-day atmospheric and geospace science research activities.

EAR supports fundamental research into the structure, composition, and evolution of the Earth, and the life it has sustained over the 4.5 billion years of Earth history. The results of this research will lead to a better understanding of Earth’s changing environment, the natural distribution of its mineral, water, biota, and energy resources, and provide methods for predicting and mitigating the effects of geologic hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and landslides.

Research, education, and infrastructure funded by OCE addresses the central role of the oceans in a changing Earth and as a national strategic resource. OCE supports interdisciplinary research of the water column to better understand changing ocean circulation and temperature, the health of marine ecosystems, and changing ocean chemistry with implications for ocean acidification. OCE also supports research on the geology of the ocean margins and sub-seafloor to investigate past ocean and climate conditions, stability of methane hydrates, natural hazards associated with earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and microbial life deep below the seafloor. Since ocean science requires access to the sea, OCE supports research vessels, deep submergence capability including submersibles and autonomous vehicles, and technologically advanced sensors and instrumentation.

Is there a healthy interest from students and early career scientists to pursue the field of geosciences? What are you doing to encourage a new generation of researchers?

GEO has a robust and comprehensive education and outreach portfolio aimed at fostering the next generation of geoscientists. GEO staff and management employ multiple modes of support to educational institutions through grants, outreach, conferences and workshops, and research results dissemination. GEO also sponsors and/or participates in several Fellows programmes to provide enriching work experiences for early career scientists.

There is a natural role for the geosciences to play in advancing broad STEM literacy and engaging students in STEM careers. Earth Science, defined broadly, is intrinsically fascinating for students and of clear relevance to their daily lives. GEO is working in collaboration with NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate to promote activities that improve the quality and availability of geosciences education in formal learning settings. I believe that in the near future, we will need more geoscientists than we have in the pipeline – due to retirements and the expanding need for that type of expertise in many, if not most, sectors of the economy.

To what extent is GEO dedicated to engaging other NSF directorates in its work?

The growing family of sustainability science, engineering and education activities represents a major, cross-Directorate, interdisciplinary investment by the NSF that can be grouped into three themes: Environment, Energy and Resilience. Within these themes, GEO supports a wide variety of research that is linked to questions relating to climate change, human-modified environments and environmental hazards. Research involves drivers of climate change, such as greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols (particles) and changes in the land surface, and the dynamics of climate change. Significant effort is focused on water resources and drought, the effects of sea level rise, as well as possible changes in the structure and dynamics of marine ecosystems and fisheries. The routing and flux of water dictates the rates by which physical, chemical and biological processes occur within the Earth’s Critical Zone (the layer between the top of the forest canopy and the base of the weathering horizon), affecting flood and debris flow, rock weathering and soil production, sustainability of agricultural and ecological systems, carbon flux and the long-term evolution of topography and its impact on both bio-system evolution and local climate.

How do you convey your research and findings to policy makers?

GEO leadership and staff are very active in meeting and speaking with stakeholders regarding our support of geosciences research. Programme officers, for example, forge very strong relationships with the scientific communities they serve through site visits, conference presentations, email communications, newsletters, review panels, and various publications. GEO participates in publication of project highlights through NSF and project reports through the centralised portal for federally-supported research at www.research.gov.

Additionally, the ‘broader impacts’ activities associated with many GEO-funded research projects provide a mechanism for scientists to become engaged in education and outreach efforts and development of the next-generation workforce.

Many scientists and researchers consider this to be a crucial time to address problems such as climate change and availability of resources. How optimistic are you that we will be able to tackle these issues before it is too late?

Sustainability science, engineering and education require a multifaceted consideration of the natural environment and human populations, energy use, the built environment and human behaviour in order to meet the challenges brought on by large-scale environmental change, and the economic, technological, resource, agricultural and cultural demands of our modern world. NSF support of sustainability research represents a coupling of basic research with societal application, adaptation and improvement. NSF research can accelerate understanding of scientific problems which in turn can inform decision making for improvements to human and natural conditions.

Our global community is at a critical juncture where scientifically-based choices need to be made and action has to be taken. Solutions to sustainability challenges require the robust, interdisciplinary approach that characterises the emerging fields of sustainability natural and behavioural sciences, engineering and education. I remain optimistic that we will be able to address sustainability and resource security issues (food, water, finite materials, etc.), but not by conducting ‘business as usual’. We need to re-double our efforts!

How do you see GEO’s focus and role developing into the future?

Flexibility and strategic planning are keys to the future success of GEO. Given the nature of geosciences research and the financial climate, inter-agency and international collaboration are more important now than ever before. Geosciences are increasingly driven and enabled by vast amounts of data and information. Collecting, mining and analysing data to draw meaningful conclusions and to identify trends in the Earth System has become a challenge in its own right. Working towards common frameworks and data-sharing across political and disciplinary boundaries is required for the advancement of the geosciences.

Transformative approaches and innovative technologies are needed for heterogeneous data to be integrated, made interoperable, explored and re-purposed by researchers in disparate fields and for myriad uses across institutional, disciplinary, spatial and temporal boundaries. Geospatial data, metadata, enabling software/hardware, and training are essential elements relied on by much of the sustainability workforce and must be optimised to increase researchers’ productivity and capabilities. Science enabled by data and supporting cyber-infrastructure will be central to furthering our understanding of the Earth System.

www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=GEO

Janez Potočnik

Firstly, could you offer an insight into what your role as Commissioner for Environment entails?

As I see it, my main challenge as Environment Commissioner is to move the environment up the political agenda and ensure that it becomes embedded in all major EU policies. I want to strengthen the recognition that preserving the environment makes sense. We need to kill off the myth of unaffordability forever. Part of the solution will lie in learning to value the environment. The more we are aware of its real and inherent value, the more effectively we will be able to design policies to combine our economic, social and environmental goals.

You spent five years as the Commissioner for Science and Research. Will you be able to bring some of your experience and skills from that role into your new one?

Science and research are the very basis of our environment policy, so there is certain logic in moving from the research portfolio to the environment. Science and research are what lead to the technological breakthroughs we need to solve many of the environmental challenges we face. The experience I have gained over the past five years as research commissioner will be extremely useful. And to strengthen environment policy, as I want to do, we need of course to ensure that our decisions are based on the best and most reliable scientific data.

What do you believe are the most pressing issues facing the environment of the EU?

There are three areas I want to focus on at the moment. The first is resource efficiency: this is one of the flagship initiatives under Europe 2020, the successor to the Lisbon strategy which the Commission proposed at the start of March. The goal is to help decouple economic growth from our use of resources and to support the shift towards a low carbon, eco-efficient economy. This will stimulate green innovation, green growth and jobs. The second is biodiversity: the challenge that biodiversity loss represents must move out of the shadow of climate change and be treated as a priority in its own right. This year, the International Year of Biodiversity, is the ideal moment to make this happen. We need to achieve much wider recognition for biodiversity and show that it is not some kind of environmental luxury, but is in fact the life support system of our planet and the basis of all human prosperity and well-being. My third major priority is to ensure EU legislation is properly implemented and enforced. A surprising amount of damage is done to the environment through non-compliance with, and inadequate enforcement of laws that are already on the statute books. Therefore I want to ensure that the legislation we have in place is used effectively. Of course climate change is also one of the great environmental challenges we face, but that is now in the direct remit of the Commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard.

What is your stance on nuclear power from an environmental perspective? What are the risks and advantages to the environment from this power source?

Member states have sharply differing attitudes to nuclear power so the Commission takes a neutral stance. Those that want to use it can do so providing they meet accepted safety standards, and member states that don’t want it or are phasing it out are free to do that too. I think the advantages and risks from an environmental viewpoint are pretty well known and rehearsed. Clearly nuclear power is attractive as an energy source since it represents basically zero-carbon emissions once the plant has been built. On the other hand past accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have not been forgotten, and there remains the problem of finding long-term storage sites for nuclear waste that are acceptable to the public.

How will you liaise with the new Climatic Action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard? Will you be working closely to create new environmental policies?

We will certainly be working closely together, and we already are. Most immediately, making sure that the Europe 2020 strategy’s proposal to create a resource efficient Europe is endorsed by EU leaders and actually happens is a shared priority for both of us. More generally the close links between climate change and other environmental issues, not least biodiversity, forests and water, make it essential for us to work closely together, developing the best solutions. One might say that the environment and the climate each have two voices in the Commission where before they only had one.

Will you be seeking to continue and strengthen international collaborations to meet the demands of environmental issues? What benefits do these international partnerships offer?

The global, or at least regional nature of many environmental challenges makes international cooperation essential. It has become a cliché to say that environmental problems don’t respect borders, but it is true. That is why the EU’s environment policy is seen as such a success story – we can achieve far more by working together than ploughing our own furrows alone. At the international level obviously Europe is present in all the main fora, from climate change to endangered species. But this top-down international policy approach often needs to be supplemented by specific programmes or projects. This is where bilateral or international partnerships are most beneficial. One concrete example among many others is the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan, known as FLEGT. We have also concluded partnership agreements with Ghana and the Republic of Congo that will help improve governance in their forest sector and ensure the legality of the timber they export, whilst agreements with several other tropical countries are under negotiation.

With 2010 being proclaimed the UN’s year of biodiversity, one of your targets is to stop biodiversity loss by 2020. Is this an achievable target and what changes will have to be made in order to achieve it?

One of the reasons we have failed to stop the loss of biodiversity in Europe over the past decade has been the lack of an available baseline. We can only control the things we are able to measure, and in this case, that means knowing where we are starting from. This is why the Commission is establishing a baseline for biodiversity in the EU, and work is already being carried out by the European Environment Agency to produce this by the middle of the year. Success in stopping biodiversity loss in the future will of course depend on numerous factors. It will certainly be crucial to reflect this ambition in other EU flagship initiatives and integrate it into key sectoral policies, with adequate funding also being a precondition. These are things the Commission will work hard to ensure over the coming months.

Is the EU in a strong position to meet the changing environmental challenges we face? How will you ensure that the European Community will remain at the forefront of environmental research and sustainability?

I am new to the job but I have the impression our comprehensive body of environment policy and legislation gives us a very strong basis to tackle the evolving challenges. I see the Europe 2020 strategy, with its priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as our roadmap for moving towards sustainability over the coming decade. The sustainability goal is about making the European economy more resource-efficient, greener and more competitive. Research will therefore have a key role to play. We however are not at the forefront of research today when we measure ourselves against the U.S. and Japan. This is why the Commission proposes that Europe should substantially increase investment in R&D to three per cent of GDP from around 1.9 per cent now. But this, and the success of the whole strategy, depends of course on the member states not only endorsing Europe 2020 but also implementing it in practice and meeting its targets; and we all know that they failed to do this under the Lisbon strategy. I can take legal action to pressure member states into complying with environmental legislation, but at the end of the day it is action by the member states that will put the EU in the vanguard of environmental research and sustainability.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm

Firstly, can you outline how the Directorate’s work is helping to bolster a green economy?

Ecosystem services are a key part of the foundation for a successful economy, and especially the rural economy. Imagine the cost to farmers of trying to replace pollination services, for example, or trying to get all our clean water from a waste water treatment plant! This is the message that we are trying to get across in our work on resource efficiency – if we can keep our key natural resources in good condition, and improve them where they have been weakened, and if we can use those resources efficiently to reduce the further pressures on them, then this will be good for the economy and for the environment.

Green Infrastructure has been touted as one of the main strategies the Directorate will employ to ensure Europe uses ecosystem services more sustainably in years to come. What plans for investing in Green Infrastructure are you employing?

Green Infrastructure means working with nature to maintain and enhance our core infrastructure – natural resources – to achieve its highest potential for sustainable economic development, public health and the quality of life. However, ecosystems are increasingly being degraded in the EU – we are undermining their capacity to deliver key ecosystem services. These developments cause ever-rising costs to society and put biodiversity at risk. Green Infrastructure will therefore maintain and restore ecosystems, to increase resilience, reduce vulnerability and restore natural capital. By enhancing Green Infrastructure, valuable landscape features can be maintained or created, which guarantee the delivery of ecosystem services such as the provision of clean water, productive soil and attractive recreational areas, as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation.

As Director Ladislav Miko emphasised before me, these are all very good reasons to invest in Green Infrastructure policy. I have developed it further – the EU biodiversity strategy presents our views on how to achieve this. I am now working on a specific Green Infrastructure initiative for next year. We are in close contact with Commission departments, European institutions, Member States, experts, stakeholders and civil society to elaborate Green Infrastructure as a key element to ensure the restoration of ecosystems and their services to mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts.

We plan to publish a Communication, further elaborating on the respective targets set out in the strategy, informing about the Green Infrastructure concept, and exploring future strategies at EU level, inter alia delivering a toolbox for implementation, facilitating exchange of practices and integrated planning (visit http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ nature/ecosystems for more information).

How are you planning to further build on Natura 2000 as the centrepiece of EU nature and biodiversity policy?

Implementing the EU Nature legislation (ie. the EU Birds and Habitats Directive) will be an essential tool to achieve the nature sub-target as well as several other sub-targets included in the new Biodiversity Strategy. The actions under Sub-target 1 of the Strategy aimed at ensuring the establishment, management and financing of Natura 2000 – as well as enhancing monitoring, awareness raising and legal enforcement – are the issues my Directorate will work on in the coming years. Natura 2000 will also be a central element of the Green Infrastructure as well as an important tool to enhance biodiversity in agriculture, forestry and fisheries.

Priority measures we will focus on in relation to Natura 2000 include:

• Ensuring that the phase to establish Natura 2000, including in the marine environment, is largely complete by 2012

• Further integrating species and habitats protection and management requirements into key land and water use policies, both within and beyond Natura 2000 areas

• Supporting Member States in ensuring that management plans or equivalent instruments which set out conservation and restoration measures are developed and implemented in a timely manner for all Natura 2000 sites

• Establishing by 2012 a process to promote the sharing of experience, good practice and cross-border collaboration on the management of Natura 2000, within the biogeographical frameworks set out in the Habitats Directive

• Encouraging provision of the necessary funds and incentives for Natura 2000, including through EU funding instruments, under the next multiannual financial framework

• Developing an awareness-raising campaign on Natura 2000 by 2013

• Improving cooperation with key sectors and continuing to develop guidance documents to improve their understanding of the requirements of EU nature legislation and its value in promoting economic development

• Facilitating enforcement of the nature directives by providing specific training programmes on Natura 2000 for judges and public prosecutors, and by developing better compliance promotion capacities and continuing to take legal action where necessary as a last resort

• Developing by 2012 a new EU bird reporting system, further developing the reporting system under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, and improving the flow, accessibility and relevance of Natura 2000 data

One of the most effective ways of building Green Infrastructure is to adopt a more integrated approach to land management. What role can geospatial data play in achieving this?

Certainly an integrated approach to land management is crucial in confronting some of the major pressures on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Green Infrastructure is an important part of such an approach and we are working on a Communication for next year. In order to deliver this, we need to continue the research and use of some of the new tools that are becoming available. This includes better use of geospatial data, which could lead to much more reliable modeling tools than in the past – see for example the work on biofuels. For ecosystem monitoring and mapping, new promising methodologies have been developed, but it should be noted that validation of the satellite information on the ground and better understanding of ecosystem functioning are still essential. We need to steer the technology where it is useful to us, for gaining applicable information for the better monitoring of environmental policies!

To what extent does the Directorate interact with industry and society, both locally and on a global scale?

DG Environment in general – and the Nature Directorate especially – place great value on interacting with all stakeholders regarding not only our policy initiatives, but also their implementation: this is essential for our good understanding of the impact and design of our policies and for their efficient implementation. Our interaction takes place typically at various levels:

• Major policy initiatives, such as the recently released EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011-2020, or the forthcoming initiative on Invasive Species, are preceded by detailed stakeholder consultations that include industry, NGOs and technical experts in the form of working groups often involving hundreds of people. These consultations are also open to all via the EU ‘Have Your Say’ website, where the biodiversity strategy for example gave rise to over 2,900 opinions. The results of these consultations are published on the web

• Green Week is a yearly event comprising numerous sessions, open to all to attend, at which NGOs, industry groups and others discuss a variety of topics. Last year biodiversity was the theme; this year it will be resource efficiency. Groups can also have stands to exhibit their opinions and ideas

• Eurobarometer is also occasionally used to measure public opinion on environmental issues, such as every two years on biodiversity

• Specific Communications Campaigns are organised by the Nature Directorate for particular topics, such as on biodiversity in 2010 (the UN Year of Biodiversity) where events took place in a number of Member States and Natura 2000 in 2011. This comprised, for example, a Facebook page and a dialogue with indigenous peoples in this context

• On implementing policy, there are also formal interactions with Member States and key stakeholders, such as the ORNIS committee set up under the Birds Directive or the Habitats Committee under the Habitats Directive. The Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature is a stakeholder forum where nature and biodiversity issues are discussed and preparatory work is undertaken for the Nature Directors meeting organised under each Presidency on dedicated items. Stakeholder conferences such as the conferences on soils (remediation, biodiversity, etc.) in the context of the draft Soil Framework Directive

• At international conferences such as the recent Convention on Biological Diversity COP at Nagoya, Japan the Commission interacts with and informs the various NGO and business groups that follow the conference

• In general the Environment DG maintains an open door policy towards industry and NGO lobby groups and others that wish to discuss our work

To what extent is the Directorate addressing the need to attract early career researchers to the field of environmental science?

According to Eurostat, for the last 10 years the absolute numbers have increased and the proportion of the total has been remarkably stable, at about 10 per cent. Nevertheless, DG Environment is working in close collaboration with DG Research and Innovation to strengthen the knowledge base of its policy. This is certainly a priority for DG Environment as a whole, and the need to reinforce the science-policy interface is explicitly highlighted in the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011- 2020. The Commission is indeed actively supporting the establishment of an IPCC mechanism for biodiversity, the so-called Intergovernmental science policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Finally, I can assure you that DG Environment as a whole and my Directorate in particular is taking on trainees regularly (10 to 15 per year for the whole DG). We also participate regularly in the provision of training courses for young scientist coming from all over Europe to present the EU vision and approach to the protection of nature and the mainstreaming of biodiversity in all sectors.

Finally, where would you like to see the Directorate in the future? Is the EU on line to meet the agreed EU biodiversity targets? How much work is there left to do to realise these goals?

I don’t think that this work will ever be finished. As long as there are competing demands for land and natural resources; as long as economic growth is the mantra of our societies; as long as millions of people continue to live in poverty, there will always be a need for action to protect nature and conserve biodiversity.

The EU didn’t manage to reach its 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss. There are many different reasons for this, and it is certainly not for lack of action, because we did actually manage to do a lot. Just consider the fact that almost 20 per cent of our territory is covered by the Natura 2000 network. This is a real achievement. Scientific studies have shown that the level of protection offered by the two key pieces of nature legislation – the Birds and Habitats Directives, has already delivered good results for species and habitats. But, although protected areas are a crucial part of biodiversity conservation efforts, it is not enough to create ‘islands of protection’ if we go on destroying everything lying outside protected areas. That’s why the current direction of our policy, which will need to be maintained and reinforced in the future, takes a more holistic approach to conservation of biodiversity throughout the EU by ensuring that biodiversity concerns are really anchored in sectoral policies like agriculture, forestry and fisheries, but also in regional policy, since action to conserve biodiversity is often implemented at the local and regional level. This approach is fully reflected in the EU’s 2020 Biodiversity Strategy which has just been adopted by the Commission.

ec.europa.eu/environment/nature

Innovation has been a mainstay of the UK and Europe’s identity. With current global economic constraints in mind, how will you encourage innovative research during your term in office? Is it not seen as a risk to push the boundaries of science with so few resources available?

The biggest risk would be not to push the boundaries of science. We need science for society and our economy to progress – innovative research is a pre-requisite for moving from crisis to sustainable growth. I want to re-focus EU research policy on five ‘grand challenges’: climate change, energy, food security, health and our ageing population.

I see the need to simplify procedures so that we maximise the value for each euro spent. I also want to bring in more SMEs, and complete the European Research Area so that more researchers stay in and come to Europe.

Could you outline your Agenda for 2020? What are the most important aspects of this proposal and how will it differ from the current research strategy?

Research and Innovation have a crucial role in the EU’s overall Europe 2020 Strategy. They are right at the top of the political agenda, perhaps for the first time ever, creating an unprecedented opportunity. Working with colleagues, I will submit the EU’s first ever Research and Innovation Plan in September and it will be debated by EU leaders at the October EU summit. Before that an expert group reporting directly to me will start work on developing a comprehensive set of indicators to benchmark progress on research and innovation. The Commission is proposing to keep the target of three per cent of EU GDP to be invested in R&D, complemented by agreed national targets. We also intend for it to be much more robustly monitored, so that where progress is too slow, effective action can be taken.

When outlining your mandate you stated that you wanted to use your term to put Europe firmly on the path to a sustainable and successful future. What needs to be done to achieve this and is a sustainable Europe even an achievable prospect?

I think it is the duty of politicians to be optimistic – and though the challenges are huge, there is much to be optimistic about. Europe has gone through a terrible economic crisis and it is not over, but the right action was taken to tackle it. Europe has led the world in the effort to beat climate change and promote sustainable energy and although Copenhagen was disappointing I am confident there will be more progress. Of course, the research side is absolutely crucial in this – in particular areas like second generation biofuels, electric cars and clean skies. Furthermore the green and the economic agenda are a perfect fit – it is precisely by taking a world lead in green technologies that we can give our competitiveness a badly needed boost.

How do you propose to strengthen and build upon the current European Research Area? Which aspects of the ERA require a significant investment or change of ethos?

To transform research into genuine innovation and to strengthen the whole chain from research to retail, a close working relationship with other Commissioners, with Member States, with research institutions and with business will be necessary. At EU level we need patent reform. We also need to make better use of EU regional funding to support research and innovation and to make sure we are using every instrument we have to encourage private sector investment. This is where the funding gap lies – we have already almost achieved the one per cent of GDP target for public investment, but it is the two per cent private contribution which lags behind.

International and interdisciplinary collaboration is an essential part of 21st Century scientific research. How do you propose to encourage beneficial relationships and what is your stance on data and knowledge sharing between EU and non-EU nations? Would you like to see an increase in human and technological exchange between countries in the EU and their neighbours?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the globalised age is the increase not only in competition but also in collaboration. Researchers circulate with others from all over the world. No one country or region can tackle climate change alone and no one country can invest enough alone in developing areas like nuclear fusion – that is why for example we have the ITER project involving partners from across the globe. The EU’s Research Framework Programme already has a very strong international element. The U.S. is the non-EU country most represented in the projects we support. But, yes, I would like to develop our international networks even further. In particular I think we can do more to help developing countries – for example, we’ve just published some proposals on global health which include a strong research element.

Could you elaborate on the ‘Fifth Freedom’ concept? How will you ease its transition from proposition to reality?

The fifth freedom means the free circulation of knowledge, and of the people who create that knowledge, within Europe – and ultimately beyond. That requires world class research infrastructures, including new generations of electronic communication infrastructures. It requires excellent research institutions, engaged in effective public-private cooperation and partnerships.

Of course, this concept has been on the table for several years and a lot of progress has been made. Just to give a couple of examples, the previous Commission set up the European Research Council and the European Institute of Technology.

One key priority we need to progress with is achieving an adequate flow of competent researchers, with high levels of mobility between institutions, disciplines, sectors and countries. I have already had the opportunity to explain to a meeting of EU Employment Ministers what needs to be done to get rid of social security and pension obstacles, and I think we will achieve movement on that over the next couple of years.

The current FP7 funding initiative expires in 2013; how will FP8 differ from its predecessor and how much progress has been made on this?

Just as for previous Framework Programmes, there will be extensive consultation with stakeholders before the Commission brings forward its proposal to the Parliament and Council in late 2011 or early 2012. This consultation is likely to begin in early 2011. So it’s too early to say in detail how it will differ from FP7, though we do know two things already. Firstly, we need to focus on those grand challenges I mentioned previously, and secondly we want to simplify funding procedures already for the remainder of FP7 and then build on that in FP8.

Important lessons for future research funding will also be drawn from the interim-evaluation of FP7, expected for October 2010. This evaluation is being carried out by an independent expert group and aims at a comprehensive analysis of the FP7’s rationale, design, implementation and impact.

Can the EU do more to offer support to scientists? Are there enough opportunities for post-graduates to gain experience in their chosen field?

I think there can never be enough opportunities! And support for scientists is about much more than just money – although obviously in a perfect world we would have much more of that, too! We need to get more young people and more women into science. At the risk of using a cliché, we need to make science sexier, and better communicate the benefits it brings to us all and the interesting professional opportunities it offers. We are talking about a cultural change.

Many international efforts, such as the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen, have failed due to differing political agendas. How will you avoid this conflict of interest and promote a unified research strategy?

I agree that Copenhagen was disappointing – from the Commission’s point of view, President Barroso made that very clear. I don’t think there is a conflict of interest, though – if there is one thing that is in the interest of everyone worldwide, it is tackling climate change! The problem is one of vision – I think Europe has that vision but not everyone else shares it.

As far as research and innovation are concerned, there is definitely a shared vision within and beyond Europe – everyone agrees that only more investment in these areas can turn our economies round in a sustainable way. Of course, we will need to negotiate on priorities and on detail, but I think we have an unprecedented opportunity.

Are there any areas of European innovation that particularly excite you? For example, can Europe adopt a position at the forefront of renewable and alternative energies in the battle against climate change?

Yes, I think Europe is very well placed to lead on renewables – for example, in recent weeks I have visited both Solucar, a solar power platform near Seville in Spain, and the Marine Institute near my own home city of Galway in Ireland. Solucar has received well over €50 million in EU research funding through the Risk-Sharing Finance facility and through project funding. The Marine Institute is coordinating Irish involvement in 43 FP7 marine research projects worth €18 million to Irish researchers and €182 million overall.

In those places, I have seen cutting edge research and innovation in renewable and alternative energies and I know they are only two examples among many. Europe has plenty of wind, waves and sun and we have plenty of scope to produce second generation bio-fuels that do not compete with food production. Above all, we have a wealth of talented and highly motivated scientists and innovators in those areas. But I am equally enthusiastic about Europe’s research on new medicines, on green transport and on nanotechnology, just to name a few areas.

How do you foresee the challenges of European innovation and research evolving during your term? Will global circumstances such as the economic collapse and climate change require a highly adaptive and flexible approach?

I have said already that the economic crisis has been both a threat and an opportunity for our research agenda. It is crucial that governments and businesses keep up and even increase investment in research and innovation, because this is the type of investment that creates most growth and jobs in the medium-term.

I sincerely hope that the challenge evolves from moving out of crisis to consolidating full and sustainable recovery. But that depends on making the right political choices and on implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy.

Certainly adaptability and flexibility will be essential. At EU level, we have already launched innovative public private partnerships, for example on clean skies and innovative medicines, and we want to launch more. We are also complementing the Research Framework Programme by working with Member States on Joint Programming, to improve the efficiency of the way national research funding is used and to avoid duplication.

© European Union, 2010

Could you outline the specific function that the Nature Directorate fulfils with the Directorate-General for Environment?

The specific role of the Nature Directorate is to implement existing legislation in the field of nature, which mostly consists of Habitats and Birds Directives. We also work with other nature-related policies – for example, one of the units I oversee deals with agriculture, forestry, soil protection and nitrates.

The Birds Directive and Habitats Directive were both formed under EU Nature Legislation. What have these initiatives achieved for the conservation of wild birds and the maintenance of biodiversity? How do you hope to expand on this programme and what success has it garnered thus far?

I would dare to say that the European system, based on the Birds and Habitats Directives, is the most ambitious, complex and comprehensive one in the world, both in terms of its size and base. It is founded on a scientific approach that actively attempts to transform scientific knowledge into policy. Therefore I believe that this system represents a large and valuable contribution to nature conservation globally.

The major outcome of this system is the Natura 2000 network, which is an arrangement of more than 28,000 sites in the EU territory. We are now also building a marine system as part of a European service to create a focused method for European habitats and species to be monitored. This approach is not only contributing to nature and biodiversity conservation, but it is also securing other benefits – such as ecosystem services – which help to keep ecosystems healthy and functioning.

Could you explain why Natura 2000 is the centrepiece of EU nature and biodiversity policy? Why does it not employ a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded?

There is a race for space in Europe, and we need to find solutions and answer people’s needs, whilst also securing ecosystem support. For example, fresh air, good water quality and the other vital necessities of life (microclimate regulation, soil fertility, and soil erosion control) are all dependent on ecosystem services. I believe that Natura 2000 supports the species and habitats that require protection, whilst also creating such a skeleton of ecosystems that maintains humans’ wellbeing in the broader landscape, producing a double effect. However, there are many problems to overcome in its implementation; for instance it is obviously impossible to cover 18 per cent of territory with protected areas and stop any development within this area. Therefore we must create a sustainable way of using the territory.

‘In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity, and the failure to take protective measures, versus the costs of effective conservation.’ Those words were agreed at Potsdam. Thus far, what has the study evaluated in terms of the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide?

I believe that it is essential to find out the real value of biodiversity in terms of its incorporation into our existing mainstream economic system, therefore I have, since 2006, proposed to commit such a study. Thanks to Germany, who during their presidency of G8 put this agenda on the table, we were able to launch and support it. The study, which is called TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) collates information about the economic value of ecosystems and biodiversity. Although not always in monetary terms, it shows all levels of evaluation, demonstrating how decision-making in the economic sphere can be influenced. I personally believe that this groundbreaking study could help us to build on the vast selection of already published approaches and create one systematic programme.

Could you explain what is meant by Green Infrastructure and how it can strengthen ecosystems by developing integrated land management?

I have promoted Green Infrastructure from the very beginning. We have learnt that humans are using land in a certain way and are dependent on ecosystems to deliver their services. If we lose these services due to ecosystem degradation, technology will have to replace them. For example, if we forfeit the protection capacity of flood plain forests, higher dams to stop flooding will be necessary. Therefore Green Infrastructure – which is using ecosystem and nature approaches to resolve problems – may present cheaper solutions that in many cases deliver more effective long-term results than technological alternatives.

I strongly believe we can address a myriad of issues using Green Infrastructures and ecosystem solutions. Climate change, carbon sequestration, erosion control, flooding, retention of water in the countryside, and regulating the micro-climate in towns (eg. Cooling effect on hot days) are just some of these. Multiple benefits are also realised through improved connectivity between ecosystems, contributing to a better status of protected parts of nature within Natura 2000.

Since Green Infrastructure is an essential tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation, investing in and building it up are crucial. What integrated approaches to spatial planning is the Commission promoting, in order to ensure that Europe’s limited land is turned into areas capable of providing multiple functions for nature and society?

It is crucial to communicate that Green Infrastructure is a means of employing ecosystem services; and clearly, climate change and biodiversity remain interconnected issues. There is no chance of resolving the mitigation of climate change without addressing ecosystems and biodiversity. Climate change and biodiversity loss need to therefore be considered together in order to take action now!

The Commission views the exchange of best practice as the basis for an EU strategy on Green Infrastructure to be developed after 2010. What will this entail and how will a study on the integration of Natura 2000 into the wider countryside be of assistance?

In many Member States strategies that are near to the concept of Green Infrastructure are already implemented or under development (eg. TSES – territorial systems of ecological stability in CZ and SK; tram vert et bleu in France etc.). We believe that we have to build on these experiences to determine what strategies are working as well as those that are not. To establish a new project, land-based solutions need to be agreed by the owners of the land. This may sometimes mean that despite ideal solutions being theoretically available, implementation may be blocked due to technical issues. Therefore the exchange of information about how such solutions are implemented and what works is essential in order to spread these ideas throughout Europe. We will create the opportunity to provide a space for this exchange using tools such as our webpage, seminars, workshops, and eventually reports and brochures.

Another factor to consider is the proper management of those territories already managed as part of Natura 2000 as well as within nationally protected areas. Accordingly, we must evaluate best practices in terms of nature conservation and management for these regions.

What economic benefits does Green Infrastructure bring to its users?

Within the TEEB study mentioned earlier, we have recently issued a report for local and regional policy makers, presenting many examples where ecosystems services and Green Infrastructure proved cheaper than alternative technical approaches. These solutions must be used wisely and, in some instances, technical solutions need to be combined with natural alternatives. Examples are collected and presented on the TEEB and EEA webpage, to allow any interested person to learn and inspire.

Has the work of the Nature Directorate been affected by the global economic downturn? How do you think this has impacted environmental research in general?

All areas have been influenced. The accessibility of finance has presented many difficulties for the implementation of some projects. The economic downturn, however, has also created an opportunity to discuss cheaper ecosystem-based solutions and people have become more open to search for non-traditional options, delivering cheaper investment.

To summarise, the global economic recession has proven negative in many respects (eg. limited financial resources; restriction of some research), but it has also forced a fresh way of thinking about new technologies as well as facilitating improved communication and connectivity.

What plans do you have for the future of the Nature Directorate? How do you see its focus developing?

Firstly, our crown jewel – Natura 2000 – is now at the end of its designation phase. It is therefore crucial to decide on proper and efficient management of the areas, ensuring also their relevant financing. Secondly, the proper implementation of a newly prepared European biodiversity strategy, to include areas outside of protected regions is necessary. Integration of other relevant policies (agriculture, regional, transport etc.) to help, or at least not to damage, ecosystem services and biodiversity is another important element to be implemented.

How does the Commission view the dissemination of its studies to the general public?

Communication is the central part of our future success. We try to disseminate all information by webpage, printed material, through films and participation at important events. We employ all these tools, but I believe that we still need a larger campaign to attract the public and explain the competing issues involving biodiversity and ecosystem services. The International Year for Biodiversity last year proved helpful in demonstrating actions which showed its worldwide importance. Therefore, more in this vein is needed to fully communicate these vital issues.

If you had to choose one key factor for the protection of the environment and its sustainable use for our grandchildren, what would that be?

We must use natural processes much more wisely in gaining what we need. Using existing mechanisms from ecosystems and living nature combined with technical innovations would mean that we can save the planet for future generations and also advance civilisation. To that end, if I had to select just one aspect, it would be the more effective employment of natural processes.

People will begin to see what they are sacrificing when we lose ecosystems, and what they can gain if we support them. I don’t want to paint a black picture since there are many good examples out there, but it is about spreading this information and showing that it works. I believe we have found the right way; we just need to be more efficient!

ec.europa.eu/environment/nature