As Director of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Global Protected Areas Programme, what are your main areas of focus where protected areas (PAs) and climate change are concerned?

PAs provide numerous benefits in adapting and mitigating climate change, yet they have long been underestimated – even within the conservation community. One of the main objectives of IUCN’s Global Protected Areas Programme is to make the case for PAs as natural solutions to climate change.

We are engaging in communication efforts in order to make these benefits more well-known to the world, for example, through our publication series, Natural Solutions, which highlights the many ways in which PAs are already making a difference to the way in which society is coping with the changing climate.

We also aim to show that investing in PAs is vital if their important role is to be maintained in a future faced with uncertainty. We must engage social partners and development agencies, and promote strategic financing of PA systems to achieve this.

In the longer term, we will use the platform of the 2014 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress to strengthen efforts globally to show how important protected areas are in addressing global challenges such as climate change, water and food security, health and disaster risk reduction.

Can you highlight the key role of PAs in helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

The establishment of PAs results in the effective conservation of functioning ecosystems. This protects the plants and animals that occur there, as well as the vital functions of water production, carbon storage, pollination, coastal protection, etc. on which everything else depends. Well-conserved ecosystems are crucial to adaptation to climate change because they continue to provide for the needs of communities, but also reduce the risk and impact of extreme events, such as storms, floods and droughts. They are also vital to efforts to reduce the cause of climate change by storing carbon in their soil and vegetation, as well as sequestering it from the atmosphere.

By preserving essential natural resources, such as clean water and food sources, protected areas can help communities around the world adapt to the effects of climate change and cope with the increasing shortage and unpredictable nature of these resources. Some types of protected areas (such as those managed under IUCN Category VI) are specifically set up to provide for both nature protection and sustainable use by the local community. Well-connected PA networks can also serve as a refuge for species from climate change effects and allow space for evolutionary adaptation of species. Most importantly, because local communities and indigenous peoples are involved in protected area establishment and management, they can become involved in efforts to cope with climate change directly, reducing the sense of helplessness that many experience.

It is apparent through our work that improving management and governance of PA systems, as well as expanding them where necessary, is a proven, cost-effective strategy to addressing climate change.

Developing and vulnerable countries and communities with limited or no access to climate information will be most affected and least able to cope with the impacts of climate change. How do PAs help to reduce the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities?

PAs provide space for floodwaters to disperse, preserve fisheries and block storm surges through intact coral reefs and mangroves. They can also generate income through alternative livelihoods and thus reduce the poverty level of adjacent communities. Perhaps the most important point is that by being involved with protected areas as part of community efforts, vulnerable people can bring their own experience and skills to bear on the situation, as well as learn from PA agencies and experiences in a collective way. Increased efforts to involve communities in PA governance and support their efforts to protect and restore ecosystems are a practical and feasible option.

What key policy and management developments are needed for PAs to function more effectively as a climate change response mechanism?

Ecosystem-based approaches need to become part of national climate response strategies, both for mitigation (to conserve carbon and reduce emissions) and for adaptation (to maintain essential services). Furthermore, PA networks must be better managed to cope with the impacts of climate change. This will demand increased funding to build capacities and meet the costs of expansion and greater involvement. Since the topic is quite new and still poorly understood, there needs to be a better coordination of national and international policy efforts to pilot and test approaches; determine the cost-effectiveness of alternatives; and develop and guide best practices.

To cope with the impacts of climate change on PAs, coverage needs to be increased, especially in the marine realm, and much greater connectivity achieved to link existing and future protected areas. Most importantly, the skills of PA managers must be enhanced. This has been recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in its Aichi Targets, but as pressure on natural environments increases due to population growth and resource demands, arguing for increasing PA coverage becomes a real challenge: many people still think PAs exclude people. As outlined above, there are real opportunities to make these areas and the people involved with them part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. IUCN is setting out to deliberately assist this by testing approaches in every region. We are increasing management effectiveness of PAs in the African, Caribbean and Pacific region with the recently launched BIOPAMA project, since these regions include some of the dryland and island areas predicted to be most severely affected by climate change.

Can you outline the main challenges in fostering political commitment and public funding to regional and national efforts to establish representative systems of PAs?

One of the greatest challenges is changing the perception of PAs. Instead of being viewed as a luxury, PAs must be seen as part of the solution.

A key issue has been to undertake and publish evidence of the economic value of protected area systems. In studies such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), the value of conserving ecosystems is well established. For example, of the world’s 100 largest cities, 31 per cent obtain their water, essential for their functioning, directly from protected areas. The cost of replacing these ‘free’ services would be astronomical. But TEEB also makes the case for value for money: PA systems, when compared with other options, are one of the cheapest means of maintaining ecosystems. It makes sense to manage them better and establish more of them, rather than attempt to address the problem through expensive artificial infrastructure, eg. dams and water transfer schemes. There is no valid global picture on the costs of managing effective protected area systems, but regional studies are showing that the costs of improving PA management are affordable and represent an efficient use of resources.

What steps does the IUCN take to ensure that PAs are effectively managed, equitably governed and sustainably financed?

This is IUCN’s core business. IUCN compiles the knowledge to undertake all of these important tasks. In particular, IUCN provides guidance and frameworks through publications and our expert network, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, to build capacity to understand and manage PAs. A key aspect of this over recent years has been to devise an approach to improve management effectiveness. This approach is being adopted and rolled out across the world to assess and improve the way in which PAs are run. Major funding agencies such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the Global Environmental Facility have included the requirement for assessing management effectiveness in their lending and grant-making programmes. More recently, the issue of governance equity has come to the fore, and in addition to developing PA governance assessment methods that ensure that people are appropriately involved and that their rights are paramount, IUCN has been working on ways to assess the social costs and benefits of PAs. The agreement in Nagoya on a Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing has implications for PAs, and IUCN is working on developing legal and technical guidance on ABS with specific reference to genetic resources contained in PAs and governed by PA agencies. Finally, IUCN is working towards a better appreciation not only of the economic value of PAs, but the costs of managing them optimally as a first step in providing investment policy guidance to governments and development cooperation agencies.

How does the IUCN strive to create a sustainable model to support countries and communities in tackling climate change and protecting important areas from deforestation?

In addition to the technical guidance referred to above, the most important investment is to mainstream PAs into the development programmes of every country in the world. When biodiversity and PAs are regarded as part of the natural capital that support national development programmes, a synergy can be achieved where development is not undertaken at the expense of natural capital. For example, PAs that help a country provide its essential water supplies are not something that a country would wish to trade off for another development outcome. A key issue is to ensure that biodiversity and ecosystem services are part of full cost national accounting systems, and that the value and cost of ecosystems management is made explicit rather than remaining hidden as a ‘public good’. This has to be translated into land-use plans and development programmes, so that investment in areas that are important for carbon storage or water production are clearly identified in development strategies, and represented also in sectoral development plans and programmes. IUCN is convinced that once policy makers and communities are aware of the cost of not investing in these efforts, they will adjust priorities and seek greater sustainability.

Paradoxically, it is the climate crisis that is bringing this message home. Without intact natural ecosystems, the world would be in a far greater predicament than is the case now. Despite the crisis, there remains an opportunity to use the natural growth and provisioning and protective functions of ecosystems as part of the solution.

www.iucn.org

Since we last interviewed you on IPBES, how has development of the platform progressed?

We recently held the second session of the plenary meeting to operationalise the platform in Panama. This session responded to the UN General Assembly’s request for UNEP to convene a plenary meeting to determine the modalities and institutional arrangements for the platform, and was the culmination of the last four years of preparatory work. The meeting concluded with the establishment of IPBES as an intergovernmental body.

IPBES has been assigned significant responsibilities. How is it planning to manage these tasks whilst still maintaining momentum?

There are great aspirations as to what the platform will achieve in the short and long term, and although established, there is still a lot of work to be done for the platform to be fully operational. We anticipate that the first plenary meeting of the platform will be early in 2013, and this will need to address some of the remaining operating modalities, but also move forwards on determining the elements of the work programme.

The broad scope of work for the platform has been agreed, but the details of the work that it will undertake will be determined. These will be based on requests from governments which are received by the platform, and take into account input from other stakeholders. To date, these requests have not been received since the process by which they can be handled has not been agreed upon.

Although resolving some of these procedural aspects of the platform remains a priority, we are now beginning to address the more substantive issues such as identifying what the key capacity-building needs are relating to the science policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystems services; and what a conceptual framework for the platform might look like, to guide its assessments and other activities. These more substantive issues are likely to be discussed further at the first plenary early next year.

It is vital that we keep up the momentum for IPBES and not let the excitement of the platform having been established distract us. However, we also need to recognise that it may be a number of years before the platform is fully operational. I hope that by 2014 some of the first assessments will be underway.

When might IPBES be fully operational? How do you see the platform’s work progressing in the coming years?

In 10 years’ time I anticipate that IPBES will be a mainstream initiative, informing policy at a range of different scales, in different fora and sectors, and actively building capacity to strengthen the science-policy interface at all scales. In the shorter term (the next five years), I hope that IPBES will be producing some of its assessment outcomes, supporting the identification of research agendas and priorities, and strengthening involvement in these activities across regions and disciplines.

To what extent have the IPBES priorities evolved since it was initially envisioned? Have these been adapted to suit changing global concerns?

Although building on earlier initiatives, the formal discussions over IPBES started in 2008, and its priorities have been shaped since then, centred on a better understanding of ongoing and emerging issues, and based on the principle that IPBES should build on, and not duplicate, ongoing activities. Although the broad needs for the platform (knowledge generation, assessment, policy support, and capacity building) were agreed early in the process, the scope and niche of the platform and the understanding of its functions have evolved in this time. Indeed, it was only in 2010 that it was agreed that a new platform was needed to respond to those needs.

Could you detail some of the obstacles that IPBES has overcome to reach its current position?

There have been a number of challenges relating to the establishment of IPBES. Some of them were knowledge-based issues, such as different perspectives about the exact role that IPBES would play and how it would relate to existing and ongoing activities in this sector. These difficulties have been overcome by compiling and making information on related activities available, and with ongoing dialogue.

Balancing the needs and expectations of the different governments and stakeholders involved in the process has taken significant negotiation and discussion. We now have a platform whose functions are designed to address a range of issues, with a balanced work programme – but it will need to prioritise its activities according to both the requests received, and the available budget.

Although there has been no budget agreed yet, the draft figure of US $5- 12 million per year is being suggested for IPBES’ operational costs. Only this year have all these pieces come together, with the need for IPBES being matched by political commitments from governments to make IPBES a reality.

You have recently completed the second session of a plenary meeting in Panama. What were the highlights of the event? What resolutions – if any – were reached?

The Panama meeting was the culmination of the past four years’ work, which led to the adoption of a resolution establishing the platform by 94 governments represented at the meeting. This was the highlight of the event, but in order to get to this stage a number of other issues had to be addressed and agreed upon before establishing IPBES. These related to many of the modalities and institutional arrangements, as well as where the seat of the secretariat would be, which involved a voting process that led to Germany being selected to house the secretariat in Bonn.

The adopted resolution recognises IPBES as an independent intergovernmental body. There was some discussion in Panama about whether the platform will be linked to the United Nations, and options for such affiliation will be further discussed at the platform’s first plenary meeting. It was, however, agreed that IPBES will be administered by one or more United Nations agencies.

The other highlight of Panama was the agreement of the next steps to fully operationalise the platform, and these focused particularly on the work programme but also the need to elect the officers to oversee the programme, such as the Chair and bureau, and the 25 member Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP). The MEP will oversee the scientific and technical functions of the platform, for instance, providing advice on technical and scientific communication matters, overseeing the peer-review process, engaging the scientific community, and supporting coordination between the platform and other bodies on substantive matters.

How helpful are meetings like this to the issues of biodiversity loss and ecosystem service depletion?

Although the Panama meeting didn’t directly address biodiversity loss and the depletion of ecosystem services, the platform established in Panama will in the future build capacity for governments and other stakeholders to respond to the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. It will also provide the best available information on these issues and their drivers of change so that governments and other stakeholders can put in place policies and approaches to address the biodiversity loss and ecosystem service depletion. So, IPBES will, I hope, make significant contributions to tackle the challenge of addressing biodiversity loss, and this meeting was the start of that journey.

To what extent would you say that IPBES will create a climate favourable to supporting research in the field of biodiversity?

Key to IPBES will be its promotion of more policy-relevant inter and multidisciplinary research on biodiversity and ecosystem services. One of its main functions is to support the generation of policy-relevant knowledge to fill existing gaps. These gaps will be prioritised and a dialogue facilitated with the research community and donors so that new research and knowledge can be generated. Also looking beyond the scientific community to the holders of indigenous and traditional knowledge, IPBES will bring these fields together and look at how new knowledge can be facilitated as a result. This includes working with research institutes and academies to help prioritise research in order to meet policy needs. IPBES will offer added value by promoting these concerns so that the scientific community can respond with research, which in turn will feed into subsequent IPBES assessment and policy support activities.

Finally, can you offer your thoughts on what must be done to achieve the broad aims of the IPBES?

There remains a lot to be done before IPBES can be fully operational. The involvement of the scientific community across many disciplines is going to be critical to the success of the platform. Beyond this, IPBES also creates an opportunity for the scientific community to engage in supporting policy development and implementation, and to ensure that research around the world responds to policy needs, and thereby serves to bring about the changes the world needs in order to meet the expectations coming out of the recent United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio in June of this year.

www.ipbes.net

Can you begin with an overview of the European Space Policy Institute (ESPI)? How do you and your colleagues advise the ESPI on the direction of research and network activities?

The ESPI is essentially a think tank, close to European institutions and especially the European Space Agency (ESA). We meet twice a year and advise stakeholders on the studies, activities and workshops they should get involved with in order to stay in touch with the space community, support education, act as a reference institute with annual reporting (The Yearbook on Space) and analyse topics high on the political agenda, such as the global navigation satellite system (GNSS), Galileo or the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES).

We are comprised of a dynamic group of individuals from all walks of life, with specialists in space and other domains. My focus is to act as a listener, gaining an understanding of what is important for the political agenda and to support the close collaboration with the Commission.

What was your responsibility as a former Director General of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC)? How has this propelled you into your current role as chairman of ESPI?

Over the last 10 years I have been the main actor at the service level in trying to introduce two topics into the political agenda of the European Commission: Aeronautics and Space. For a long time these were kept outside of the remit of the Commission and lacked the political dimension of the European Union. As such, I was appointed head of a task force for Aeronautics and Space with, among others, a special mission – to bring together the ESA and the EC.

During the 1990s I was responsible for drafting several communications to the Council, advising how the EC could utilise space and how space could profit from the political dimension of some of the European policies. Ultimately, if there is an inability to understand the ambitions and objectives of space at a political level in the EU, it is not worth having a space policy. This then made me an obvious choice for the role of chairman of the Advisory Council for the ESPI.

What has been the single greatest driver of the current orientation of research?

The biggest single driver has been to introduce space thinking into the political dimension of the various EU policies by advancing collaboration with the EC and supporting EU policies in much the same way as the JRC. ESPI has the same mission and therefore should work closely with the ESA and the EC. The Advisory Board must rethink how we make this happen. I am presently in discussions with ESPI and we need to assess whether to scrap the idea or, for example, create an initiative supported by some high-level intervention.

At present, what do you consider to be the greatest challenge? How will this focus shift in the future?

The biggest challenge is indeed how we can get a closer, more efficient collaboration between the political institutions, ESA and the EC. With Galileo, a lot of mistakes were made; I made the first study on Galileo 20 years ago and we still have not launched more than a few satellites.

We invented GMES in 1998 and little has happened since, although the new vocabulary has been helpful to put it on the political agenda and to secure funding for the first satellites. It is all about money and in my view this should not govern a programme’s success or failure. We still need to reflect on organisational matters about GMES as it was not thought to be a distinct set of satellites; it was an idea to bring about a workable system of supply and demand. We seem to think that all the services intended by GMES can come about through a loose collaboration with consultants, universities and small and medium enterprises. If you really want to develop services for international commitment in environment or carbon trading, we need some kind of organisational set up but nobody is talking about this and this remains, in my view, the biggest challenge we face in the near future.

In this context, we are exploring the possibility to work more closely with the JRC in particular on GMES. More generally we are reflecting on whether ESPI should work together with other experts in being more critical.

In your opinion, what is the greatest potential of space in society? How can this be fully realised?

The greatest potential is of course the advancement of knowledge. In the area of communications and the media, whether its remote sensing, security, TV, weather, the Internet, etc., that is where space has an important contribution to make.

A highlight of the recent Rio+20 Conference was the recognition of Earth observations in the monitoring and assessment of environmental change. Would you care to comment on any other outcomes?

Rio was important politically, but as long as we do not succeed in using market forces to drive our actions, we will not achieve our objectives.

In the end, we must ensure market forces are enlisted in driving environmental concerns. Not only do we need R&D, we need fiscal measures, standards and legislative action. I am not convinced by the present drive on biofuels and its impact on food production. I am also concerned about the drive towards electrical vehicles. The energy for these vehicles does not come from renewable energy, which increases CO2 emissions compared to using combustion engines, I remain puzzled as to why politicians support such ideas so unanimously.

How should we better link technology, economy and society? Should the environment come into consideration?

Environment is definitely important but there are further considerations such as health, housing, urbanisation and this is one of the reasons why the EC should have the equivalent of the JRC; an in-house research body and technological brain to support the policy process. The recent appointment of a Chief Scientist at the EC is another step in the right direction but we are yet to hear whether the move is successful. The whole European policy-making process is currently preoccupied with the financial crisis but perhaps the drive to combine aid policies with the new economic agenda might look at some of these areas, in particular the environment, as motivation for economic development.

What role have you played in the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development? What are your hopes for Horizon2020?

I practically wrote the first framework programme all by myself in the 1980s. I think it is an important contribution to European research for two reasons: it brings about a European Research Area where scientists and research laboratories collaborate across borders and also, even though it remains small at about 10 per cent of European research, it is the only form of free money. National research budgets, by the time they are approved, have generally been committed.

Nonetheless, there should be a strategic reassessment, for example, looking at management of research by objectives, ie. deliverables, to ensure that funds are allocated wisely. By managing objectives, we can ensure funds are allocated wisely. The Advanced Communication Technologies (ACT) was one such programme structured this way. It involves intensive management but in some areas it could be introduced.

Aeronautics, for example, is a very special type of research which has now reached a volume where we should think of creating a dedicated aeronautics body to help manage research and provide better, cheaper and more environmentally friendly aeroplanes that include military defence.

You have dedicated a substantial portion of your career to the promotion of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Do you think its successful integration as an alternative energy source may be hampered in light of Fukashima and the current discourse?

Germany’s response was to halt any plans for nuclear energy and I believe this was unavoidable, but I still think nuclear energy has a future and in the US things are picking up again. In the end, I believe only rich countries like Germany may manage without nuclear energy and, broadly, nuclear energy will for some time to come remain part of the energy mix.

The EC, as guardian of the Euratom Treaty, almost avoids the subject, which puzzles me. Is it not true that some Member States and our neighbours will use nuclear energy for years to come and that waste will be with us for centuries? Being against nuclear energy or ignoring it does not make it safer.

www.espi.or.at

Could you outline the circumstances that brought about the formation of the Clean Water Network (CWN)?

Founded in 1992, CWN is the largest grassroots coalition in the country devoted solely to protecting our nation’s water resources.

CWN was established to be a gateway for central clearinghouse and an advocacy arm for the clean water community across the US. One of our key roles is to serve as a portal for the latest news and information on federal clean water policy developments. The organisation was designed to help facilitate communications among member groups and coordinate joint policy and position statements, as well as activities.

This combination of federal policy work and field advocacy was envisioned as a key means to achieving a stronger national effort to bring polluted waterways back to health and to preserve our nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters.

What kinds of organisations comprise the network and what do they gain from being affiliated with you?

Our group consists of more than 1,200 public interest organisations across the country, representing more than 5 million people, working to strengthen clean water and wetlands policies. CWN is unique because we bring national, regional, state and local clean water groups together under one umbrella, to work on protecting our waterways and drinking water supplies.

Our collaborative team-building approach is both efficient and effective. A core function of the network is to empower public interest organisations so that – individually and collectively – stronger voices on clean water policy-making are being heard.

Membership comprises a diverse set of groups including farmers, hunters and anglers, garden clubs, surfers, boaters, environmentalists, faith communities, labour organisations, smart growth planners, consumer advocates and civic associations. CWN is a direct link for community leaders around the country, serving as a forum for building bridges. We coordinate strategic efforts that leverage the strengths of local, state and national members to deliver a strong, consistent message to the public, the media and law makers.

CWN also coordinates member driven work groups that focus on specific clean water topics. They work on wetlands; wet weather and green infrastructure; global warming and water; water quality standards; oil, gas and mining issues; and factory farm pollution.

Could you briefly outline some examples of where CWN has supported the protection and restoration of clean water?

At CWN, we are proud of our many accomplishments, which include:

• Helping build the capacity of grassroots clean water groups across the country

• Fighting polluters’ efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other major federal statutes that impact water. Since the passage of the CWA in 1972, many of our water bodies and waterways are less polluted. Lake Erie, for example, which was declared ‘dead’ in the 1960s, now supports a multi-million dollar fishery. The CWA has been most effective at cleaning up pollution in river systems like the Mississippi from ‘point sources’ such as sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. In 1970, these types of contaminants accounted for 85 per cent of the pollutants in our waters; today they account for only 15 per cent. Meanwhile, the rate of wetland loss has declined by 90 per cent since the 1970s

• Warding off dirty water legislation and policies enacted on the federal, state and local levels

• Supporting pro-active and progressive water legislation and executive agency rules

• Playing an active role in the development of numeric nutrient standards in Florida and across the country (to curb agricultural pollution and stormwater run-off)

There is often much media hype about the scarcity of water – could you present your view of the present situation?

Water is essential to life, and access to clean and safe water is one of the principal global environmental challenges facing us in the 21st Century. Unlike other natural resources, such as oil or natural gas, there is no substitute for water. Clean water, just like clean air, is essential for our health, environment and a robust economy.

There is already a global water crisis. Many parts of the world are in the midst of intense water fights with neighbours. The crisis in the US is just around the corner, and one could argue it is already taking place in many parts of our country, due to a number of factors, including the serious impact of global warming on our nation’s water resources.

40 years after the Clean Water Act, nearly half of all rivers, lakes and streams are still not swimmable or fishable, largely because of non-point source pollutants. While the 1972 CWA was innovative for its time, it is in need of an update, in order to better meet the new and complex challenges that are on the horizon.

One of the major challenges facing us is the sheer volume and complexity of pollutants flowing into our waterways and water bodies. Moreover, because of ageing water infrastructure, we end up wasting precious freshwater every day.

Some of the considerable pollution and infrastructure challenges we face include:

• 46 million Americans drink water containing detectable amounts of pharmaceuticals (United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimate)

• 40 per cent of headwater streams in the American West are contaminated with legacy mining waste, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Leaking pipes and water main breaks result in a loss of 1.7 trillion gallons of water every year, which is worth $2.6 billion annually and is enough freshwater to supply 68 million Americans

• Industries are bringing hundreds of new chemicals into the marketplace every year, many of which have never been evaluated for toxicity by EPA, which has only placed restrictions on a total of 91 chemicals used by industry

• A natural gas drilling boom threatens the drinking water supplies for millions of Americans, including 17 million people in the Delaware River Watershed

Unfortunately, growing populations and climate change will only exacerbate these challenges. Funding levels and federal regulations have not kept pace with our evolving water pollution and infrastructure problems. Worse, exemptions in current law allow the natural gas industry, agribusiness and other industries to pollute our water supplies.

What areas or bodies of water are particularly threatened by contamination and where are these threats coming from?

All bodies of water are threatened by increasing levels of pollution and contaminants. The nature and type of water pollutants have changed, and many rivers, streams and other water bodies are now facing new and different challenges.

Today, for example, the Great Lakes region faces new threats – invasive species such as zebra mussels and grass carp, along with a toxic cocktail of emerging contaminants. In the past 30 years, there has been nearly a threefold increase in nitrogen pollution entering the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Commercial fertiliser used throughout the basin is the largest source of nitrogen, though other sources that contribute include animal waste, sewage treatment plants, and nitrogen in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion.

We need new tools to deal with these new types of threats to water quality and other pollutants that are ‘nonpoint’ – pollutants in storm water run-off, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, and agricultural run-off.

Is your work solely based in the US, or do you work with organisations internationally? Do you think your work could benefit other countries in similar predicaments?

While CWN is focused on US water issues, many of our member groups have international programmes with dedicated staff. It would make enormous sense to partner with clean water organisations from other countries. Some of this partnering is already taking place but it truly needs to become more extensive. The clean water community in the US can benefit from the lessons learned in other countries and vice versa. We are all facing similar challenges: the contaminants might differ from region to region, but the issues are the same.

Collaborations enable us all to become more formidable players on the global clean water stage. It can translate into us wielding more influence on water quality and quantity issues on a worldwide basis. One of the thoughts for a number of years has been to convene an international water summit for all NGO, government and industry representatives to explore international protocols on water.

Access to clean water is a basic human requirement. Is this becoming harder for governments to ensure?

Unfortunately it is getting harder for governments to ‘guarantee’ clean water to their citizens. Across the world, governments are failing to address nonpoint source pollution and invest adequately in fixing our crumbling water infrastructure.

The continued wasting, contaminating and mismanaging of water is not sustainable, though most people in the US and internationally are concerned about water quality. A recent Gallup poll showed that at least 75 per cent of Americans worry ‘a great deal or a fair amount’ about pollution in rivers, streams and lakes.

Regarding the future, how do you wish to expand and keep pace with forthcoming innovations?

One of CWN’s most popular programmes is its State Assistance Fund. This re-granting of funds to local watershed and grassroots groups is vital to creating a strong boots on the ground effort. It is also the way to incubate and foster clean water innovations in communities across the country. This programme will help enable CWN to keep pace with our ever-changing environmental landscape.

The programme awards small grants of between $1,000-$5,000 to State and local groups that are working on issues that meet the mission of the coalition. It has been responsible for funding innovative and worthwhile projects in communities across the country. While not the sexiest programme, it is probably one of our most important. Without support for grassroots clean water policy and restoration work, we would not wield much influence nor have an impact on the state and national levels. Melding grassroots efforts with state and national programmes is critical to protecting our nation’s waters.

www.cleanwaternetwork.org

Recent findings on climate change and ecosystem-loss demand drastic action which will change the way we live. This can only be achieved if citizens are informed, empowered and enabled to participate in the political and environmental debate at all levels. What systems are in place to ensure that these debates can happen on an EU-wide scale?

Across the continent policymakers are responding to this challenge. In terms of systems supporting the debate we see increasing numbers of EU level, national, regional and even local systems coming online which make it easier to discover and access relevant information. For example, at the EU level, a major new Climate-Adapt website, developed by the European Commission, went online at the European Environment Agency (EEA). As climate change is also a driver for ecosystem loss, climate adaptation is linked to other information systems the EEA manages in close collaboration with the Commission. These include the Biodiversity Information System for Europe, the NATURA 2000 viewer, the Water Information System for Europe and the Land Use Data Centre. It is important to stress that 25 countries already voluntarily submitted information to Climate-Adapt on their national strategies and plans, assessments, climate services and priority actions. Such sources of information are of course crucial to fuel the debate with the stakeholders and provide opportunities for countries, regions and municipalities to learn from each other. Systems, such as the EEA-managed Eye-On-Earth – a global public information service for sharing data and information from diverse sources – link to national data on, for example, air quality, ozone and bathing water and allow the citizen to provide online feedback on the state-of-the-environment in regards to air and water quality.

However, such systems are mostly designed to provide access to information. They are not necessarily set up to gather stakeholder feedback on proposed policy or implementation action. At the EU level, there are systems in place to collect such feedback and ensure the transparency of the debate. For example, a Transparency Register has been set up to provide citizens with a direct and single access to information about who is engaged in activities aiming at influencing the EU decision-making process. For consulting the stakeholders on environmental policy development, the Commission maintains a ‘consultation’ system on the Internet. It is important to stress that such consultations already take place at the scoping phase of a policy measure. Recently, there has been a consultation on a dedicated legislative instrument on invasive alien species; one on policy options for the Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s waters; and one on the EU environment policy priorities for 2020: Towards a 7th EU Environment Action Programme.

The INSPIRE Directive has been elaborated to ensure that the spatial data infrastructures of the Member States are compatible and usable across borders and in a Community context. What are the core principles of INSPIRE?

The core principles of INSPIRE were formulated in December 2001 in the EESDI Organisation and E-ESDI Action Plan to become the guiding principles for the later INSPIRE Directive. They state that:

• Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively

• It should be possible to combine seamlessly spatial information from different sources across Europe and share it between many users and applications

• It should be possible for information collected at one level to be shared between all the different levels – in detail for in-depth investigations, and more general for strategic purposes

• Geographic information needed for good governance at all levels should be abundant under conditions that do not refrain its extensive use

• It should be easy to discover which geographic information is available, fits the needs for a particular use and under which conditions it can be acquired and used

• Geographic data should become easy to understand and interpret because it can be visualised within the appropriate context selected in a user-friendly way

How has INSPIRE developed over the past five years to ensure it will become a key tool for the implementation of thematic environmental policies and other EU policies in the area of health, maritime affairs, transport, agriculture, natural and technological hazard/disaster management, climate change adaptation and development?

Preparing for INSPIRE’s implementation has been the core activity of both the Member States and the Commission over the last five years. First, as an EU Directive, one area of development regards the legal transposition of the directive in national law. This needed to be completed by the Member States by May 2009. Transposition has proven to be a difficult as well as a crucial development: crucial, because without the adoption of national – and in some cases regional – laws, implementation would inevitably lag behind; difficult, as most national adoptions have experienced one to two years of delay. This inevitably has had an impact as it delayed, for example, measures and agreements which are necessary to remove all practical obstacles to the sharing of data between public authorities at the point of use. However, as documented in the 2011 INSPIRE State-of-Play report, several countries are now getting up to speed to improve sharing between public authorities, for example by simplifying the licensing mechanisms in place.

Another area of development, which ran parallel to transposition, regards the adoption of several ‘implementing rules’ as legal acts according to a roadmap laid down in the Directive. This ‘step-wise’ development of the regulatory framework of INSPIRE covers obligation and standards for documenting data (the metadata regulation), for implementing various network services such as those for discovery, view, download and spatial data specifications to increase the interoperability of both the services and the spatial data. Both the Member States and the Commission with the support of EEA have directed a great deal of effort into this and this roadmap is due for completion early 2013. However, there is also a roadmap for implementing these more technical measures, with milestones spread out between the end of 2010 and 2020, depending on the implementing rule. Such timing is logical, as all organisations holding spatial data need to be given a reasonable amount of time to implement the rules.

The INSPIRE and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) concepts are perceived as a public good to be freely available to local, regional and national governments. How are you ensuring that this remains the case and that the concept of free data access is not threatened by private or semi-private organisations that believe it will jeopardise commercial interests?

It is important to realise that the INSPIRE data sharing between public authorities is based on the principle that there should not be any practical obstacle at the point of use. This does not necessarily mean that all spatial data and services covered under the INSPIRE scope are a ‘freely available public good’. However, it is also true that in some Member States, initiatives were taken to abandon more restrictive cost recovery and licensing practices for more ‘open and free’ data policies as one way of removing these practical obstacles. This has indeed created some tensions with the private sector which were previously competing with the ‘return on investment’ business models for some of the data covered by INSPIRE in a number of Member States. However, this problem only exists in those cases where public data is made freely available to third parties (non-public authorities). We can, and would only, act in those cases where a Member State would infringe on the obligations laid down by the Directive. I personally believe there is much more to gain, both for the private sector and the public sector, when mutually beneficial public-private partnerships in full respect of relevant legislation, are established.

The situation of GMES is similar; under the assumption that both the GMES satellites and services are financed from the public purse, all geo-coded satellite data and most data products produced by the services would fall under the data themes scope of the INSPIRE Directive. Whatever data policy is then agreed for GMES, must be fully in line with INSPIRE and other relevant EU legislation.

inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu

To begin, can you outline your role and responsibilities as CEO of the European Climate Foundation (ECF)?

The ECF is strategic ‘re-granter’, which means that most of our funds are granted to think tanks and NGOs to advance policies that mitigate climate change. Only where we see a need for an initiative and no partners are available do we actively manage projects ourselves, as we did for example in the Roadmap 2050 work (www.roadmap2050.eu).

In this context, my role as CEO is to develop a high-performing team, ensure that funds are spent responsibly, learn from our successes and failures, and set up processes for sharing and co-developing strategies with funders and grantees.

What key objectives is the ECF working towards and what is the Foundation’s strategy for achieving them?

Our overall objective is to promote climate and energy policies that reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play a stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change. We have assembled a highly competent team of experts capable of coordinating the diversity of advocacy stakeholders in the European climate change field. Our strategies rest on a combination of personal credibility, fact-based arguments, financial leverage through grant making, convening power, and disciplined processes of resource allocation and learning. The ECF aims to serve the field and to help funders explore new strategies and more effective programmes. The integration of the ECF within the global ClimateWorks Network allows us to build global momentum and to design world-class local strategies.

Can you outline the key challenges and successes in your first year in this role?

Two weeks after I started as CEO of the ECF, the Fukushima disaster happened and Germany opted for a non-nuclear future with a high proportion of energy coming from renewable energy. Such fundamental changes in context call for an adaptive strategy. We have invested a lot of effort into improving our strategic capabilities during a time when many stakeholders are actively revisiting their strategies and looking for a new orientation. This involves, for example, addressing fundamental questions such as the technical architecture of a pan-European grid or new market mechanisms that can handle increasingly higher shares of renewables or trans-border flows of electricity.

An important contribution of the ECF is to assemble stakeholders from industry, academia and civil society to identify where we share or differ in our views and assumptions on key parameters of economic decarbonisation. Ultimately, we see the need for clearer market signals and agreement on milestones across all stakeholders in order to mobilise the massive investments needed for change. To give you a specific example, the ECF and the Mercator Foundation recently established the Agora Energiewende in Germany (www.agora-energiewende.de) to support the ‘how’ of the energy transformation towards a decarbonised economy with discussion platforms, participatory processes, and research projects.

The ECF awards grants to a number of partner organisations. How do you select grantees and coordinate these collaborations?

Today, the ECF has partners of many different sizes and types. As the complexity of the issues we are addressing increases, there is a need to move from a transactional to a relational mode of engaging with fewer partners. We must acknowledge that we can best make a difference with our partners if we jointly lay out multi-year plans that are context-sensitive and adaptive. This calls for a quality of discussion and interaction that goes well beyond a single grant agreement.

To select the best partners we will increasingly rely on systematic evaluations and the co-development of strategies. With a few key partners we have started to develop framework agreements that include regular meetings to discuss priorities, strategic assessments of needs and opportunities for initiatives, and lessons learned.

There have been many challenges to the ‘green economy’, particularly from communities of the global South, arguing that it is not a solution to the real impacts of climate change. How would you respond to these challenges and what is the ECF doing to ensure that policy is effective and addresses the issues raised by the aforementioned communities?

The promise of green growth and the hope for a green economy need to be substantiated by empirical evidence. That’s why the ECF has established a green growth best practice network this year to identify success factors for green growth and to make these lessons more broadly available. We are closely connected to other forums that are working towards a deeper understanding of green growth.

The danger in this debate is to ignore the contextual factors, such as industry structures or labour market characteristics, that will influence whether a green economy plan ultimately succeeds. We need to acknowledge these contextual factors explicitly if we don’t want to fall into a reductionist trap where green growth is positioned as a simplistic solution. This is a fundamental challenge calling for deep historical understanding of societies and a systems thinking approach to change.

Can you briefly outline your key priorities over the next five years in terms of specific programmes and strategies?

We will continue to invest in the major areas where we are active right now because the type of transformational change that we are striving to effect has a horizon that extends well into the future. That said, I want to highlight two common themes for the coming years.

First, we must become more of a learning organisation. This is a challenge not only for the ECF; the whole field needs to become more effective, based on a higher quality of interaction and trust. Specifically, we should embrace evaluation as an important contributor to learning and link results to more transparent resource allocation.

Second, as we are seeing right now in Germany with the energy transformation, new challenges arise as policies and goals have to be implemented. A sharper focus on policy implementation immediately calls attention to the challenges of mobilising financing. As a result, the ECF will invest in raising stakeholders’ understanding of the need to link economic and financial agendas with climate change priorities.

What has been the ECF’s presence at recent conferences such as COP17 and Rio+20? What do you think has been achieved during these events and, more importantly, what issues still need to be tackled?

The ECF and the ClimateWorks Network are not directly involved in negotiations at international climate change conferences. But our global policies team and many of our grantees use these meetings to monitor developments and engage with the experts who attend. Findings of work supported by the ECF, such as the UNEP ‘Bridging the Emissions Gap’ report, are part of the briefings and knowledge that help move the negotiation process forward.

It is not easy to interpret the achievements during these events, but I am certain that there will never be a global commons without a global community. Such a community needs rituals such as the Conference of the Parties and similar events to develop. Looking forward, the shifting balance of power gives rise to new coalitions, but it also calls for new voices from the South that can engage in building the necessary stakeholder consensus.

Are you optimistic about the future of climate policy and the environment? What do you believe are the most positive achievements that have been made on climate issues in the past five years?

Clearly progress on climate policies and the environment is slow, too slow. However, we should not underestimate non-linear effects – both as a risk to our environment and as part of solutions.

Looking for a moment just at Europe, I see the importance – and difficulty – of an increasing convergence around decarbonisation targets and milestones as most important. At the EU level, roadmaps on energy and climate are translating an abstract consensus on decarbonisation by 2050 into increasingly specific milestones and signals, and some member states are progressing with decarbonisation plans that exceed the EU targets.

How does ECF play a role in ensuring accurate and effective communication on climate change, particularly in the mass media? Why is accurate communication on climate change so important?

One of the most disturbing changes in our operating context has been the prominence gained by climate sceptics in the US and the fundamental challenges to modern science, with spillover to the UK, Australia, and Canada. While this trend may not yet be as strong in continental Europe, we are keenly aware of the dangers of an increasing polarisation of society and questioning of science along the lines found in the US. In the UK, elements of the right-wing media are now running a virulent campaign against all climate policy, and particularly renewables. So far, the basis for most previous policy and public concern was the agreement on climate science and the scientific arguments for action.

In this changing context, we need to pay more attention to political communications and building political will. Our theory of change must include a stronger defence of climate science and new narratives on climate change that extend beyond the rational and scientific argument for climate change mitigation. The ECF’s Energy Strategy Centre has the defence of climate science at the heart of its mission.

Finally, can you offer any final thoughts on addressing the challenges associated with climate change?

As we think about what constitutes good strategy for addressing climate change, it is important to recognise two things. First, there’s no single silver bullet. In determining the right mix of activities for the ECF, we must be clear about what type of change is needed, how philanthropic spending enables this change, and where we as an organisation can really make a difference, in partnership with our funders and our grantees.

Second, it is not enough to look at initiatives just in terms of high or low risk or high or low impact. Some of the activities we undertake – such as building capacity in NGOs, fostering the political will to change, and mobilising financial flows into infrastructure investments – are critical enablers of progress towards climate mitigation. At the ECF we worry more and more about not being ambitious enough. We see initiatives that shape the ecosystem in which we operate as essential prerequisites for success in arresting climate change and as areas where we can have significant impact. If we do not tackle the big, long-term issues, who will?

http://www.europeanclimate.org/ 

Could you begin by explaining the background of The Climate Group? From what circumstances did it emerge?

When The Climate Group was founded in 2004, climate policy debates – both international and domestic – took as their starting point the idea that cutting emissions came at high cost and would act as a drag on growth and job creation. Negotiations therefore focused on how to share the cost or burden of action, rather than how cutting emissions and adopting low carbon technologies could be a driver for increased productivity and sustained growth. The founders of The Climate Group believed this to be false dichotomy; there are many examples of countries, states, cities and companies that have cut emissions way beyond what regulation required and saved money, created jobs and opened new business opportunities in the process.

The Climate Group was formed in order to address this gap. We started building relationships with the world’s governments, corporations and public figures in order to form a global coalition that would help us spread our values and work towards our vision for a cleaner, better future. I firmly believe that for a relatively young NGO we have made a significant impact and a substantial difference over the years. Our list of corporate members, our coalition of sub-national governments, our partnership with international organisations like the UN and the World Bank, our work with leaders from government and business, all attest to a strategy that has been successful and is bearing results.

What are the principal aims and objectives of the organisation?

The Climate Group has been building a coalition of government and business leaders with one key aim: to highlight opportunity in the low carbon economy and praise and inspire those that lead the way for a more sustainable future.

Having this aim as the foundation of our action and operation, The Climate Group’s principal objective is to be the catalyst for a Clean Revolution: a swift and massive scaling-up of clean energy technologies and infrastructure; a change in design and behaviour to improve efficiency and use of our natural resources; and a transformation in business and policy models that puts addressing climate change at the heart of sustainable growth strategies.

This revolution will take place through leadership that provides a positive and inspiring vision of tomorrow while answering the economic and political imperatives of today. To make this happen, decision makers must be given a clear, pragmatic and compelling set of arguments on both the necessity and the opportunity in the low carbon economy.

Over the next three years we will be running our Clean Revolution campaign which aims to show the world’s decision makers that this transformation is not only necessary and possible, but also that it is the key to raising living standards, creating lasting employment and improving productivity. We will achieve this by providing a clear and practical vision, showcasing successful examples of low carbon transformation at scale and creating platforms for leaders to take the steps to put this revolution into action. We will praise leadership, highlight the opportunity and do what we have always done best: convene, inspire and empower decision makers to take action on the low carbon economy.

Could you explain how your Clean Revolution Campaign seeks to transform the way we produce and consume energy?

We continue to heat our office buildings and homes, power industries and move around the Earth based on a system first developed in the 18th Century. We simply cannot go on like this. Our reliance on fossil fuels makes no sense for the environment, no sense for our economies, but also, probably equally importantly, it makes no sense on geopolitical terms, in what is an increasingly unstable world.

The Clean Revolution places investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency at its very heart – but goes further than that. We do not only need to change the way we produce energy, but also the way we distribute it and the technologies that use it. The Clean Revolution is a comprehensive, compelling vision of a world where clean energy and smart technologies have changed the way we live, travel and work. Those smart technologies are available now – and they are more promising than ever. Consider this: lighting currently accounts for 19 per cent of global electricity consumption. A full switch to LED lighting could reduce energy consumption for lighting by 40 per cent worldwide and cut back the need for capital investment in new electricity generation capacity by over €1 trillion. The Climate Group’s Smart 2020 report has shown how global carbon emissions in ICT could be reduced by 15 per cent, saving $900 billion in energy costs by 2020. The list of examples is endless.

Could you tell us more about the clean technology projects that The Climate Group has been involved with?

I believe that our work on LEDs, Electric Vehicles (EVs) and the Smart 2020 programme, which focuses on ICT and smart technologies and their use in cities, are particularly significant – and have made a tangible difference globally, from the US to China and India. We have focused on those technologies as the most promising for quick, effective and affordable scale-up. Within these programmes we have promoted public-private partnerships and identified obstacles to investment and production, working with the leaders in these sectors to overcome them. For example, our pilot LED street lighting projects have led to major scale-ups in Australia, China, India and the US. Our pioneering work on EV fleet procurement has informed government policy in the UK. And our Smart 2020 programme has led to US utilities giving consumers direct access to energy information in the US.

The work we have done, the partnerships we have built and the knowledge we have accumulated as an organisation from running these programmes have been a great stepping stone for The Clean Revolution which brings them all together and acts as a common, unifying, compelling narrative.

What is the definition of a low-carbon economy? What timescale do you envisage for the transition to such an economy?

The low carbon economy minimises its output of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, specifically carbon dioxide. It is an economy that is powered by sun, wind and water, where buildings produce more energy than they consume and where transport is clean, cheap and reliable; where prosperity doesn’t come at the expense of the environment. The type of low carbon economy we promote does not hinder our economic prosperity, but enhances it through new, clean energy and sustainable resource-use.

We believe that the transition to a low carbon economy is already underway. However, there is a large group within society that still needs to be convinced that this is the way to go. We need to make sure the pressure on big business and governments is sufficient enough to maintain their drive to reduce their emissions and become more efficient. When we reach the tipping point, the transition to a low carbon economy will be inevitable.

Many commentators have pointed to the need for a paradigm shift with regards to limitless economic growth, arguing that it is fundamentally incompatible with global sustainability. Does your work seek to reconcile growth with sustainability?

One of the fundamental principles of our Clean Revolution is the belief that sustainability can be coupled with economic growth or, perhaps to phrase it better, economic improvement; what’s more, we believe that in the long term, the technologies and policies we promote will ensure greater economic growth than the current economic model based on unsustainable fuel sources, while decoupling growth resource consumption and emissions. Through market transformation and clean technology, encouraged by supportive policy and investment, we believe the world will not only survive, but thrive. This is the world The Climate Group wants to see low carbon, high opportunity.

How optimistic do you feel with regards to current national and international commitments on climate change?

A substantial amount of progress has been made, but it needs to happen faster – and it needs to be communicated better. The gap between what science demands we do to cut emissions and our current commitments is still huge and the window of opportunity for ensuring a managed transition to a low carbon, climate–resilient world is closing fast. While investment in clean technology and renewable energy is mushrooming, emissions are still rising.

I think that there are hardly any major corporations in the world that haven’t yet set ambitious sustainability targets – I dare say that some of our members and partners are setting an example there. The Climate Group has formed the States and Regions Alliance, an association of ambitious sub-national governments, who have on many occasions shown leadership in cutting emissions and investing in the low carbon economy where national governments have not. The work done in places like Scotland, North Rhine Westphalia, California, Quebec, South Australia and the Basque Country to name but a few is fantastic – and, since the United Nations Development Program has estimated that 50 – 80 per cent of actions required to implement a global deal could happen at the sub-national level of government, immensely important.

What are your hopes for the future? What single goal would you most like to achieve in the next year?

I hope that we will collectively realise the imperative of change and the danger of inaction and inertia. Moreover, that the world’s decision makers – from business and government – truly understand the scale of opportunity that awaits them if they show low carbon leadership. I want to see this great, compelling, daring vision of the world that The Clean Revolution takes off, expands, influences and inspires. 2012 is going to be a pivotal year: we launched the campaign in Rio, in June. Our great three-year effort begins here. We have much to do, but we can make a difference, and I hope that we will.

However, we also need to do so much more. Until we are successful in mitigating the threat of climate change and ensuring sustainable prosperity for more people worldwide, we cannot be naively optimistic nor passively pessimistic – but pragmatic, decisive and focused on real change.

www.theclimategroup.org

Climate change poses a huge threat to Europe’s sustainable economic development. How is the work of JPI Climate supporting Europe to confront this challenge?

Climate change is a complex reality, affecting European society at large. Understanding and responding to climate change requires coordinated and large-scale European efforts in research, innovation and governance. JPI Climate provides a platform where these objectives can be met. To date, 16 European countries (13 member countries and three observer countries) and four European institutions and initiatives – NordForsk, ERA-Net CIRCLE2, European Environment Agency (EEA) and European Climate Research Alliance (ECRA) – have committed to JPI Climate. We published our Strategic Research Agenda in May 2011.

This major new Member State-driven initiative aims at aligning national research priorities according to a jointly agreed Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) with the goal of complementing and supporting initiatives at the European level, shaping and contributing to the European Research Area (ERA). Coordinating European climate research and activities will help exploit synergies and enhance the connectivity of climate knowledge with policy and decision making.

The initiative is built upon four interconnected modules which are grouped around a core and connected in multiple ways:

• Moving towards Reliable Decadal Climate Predictions

• Researching and Advancing Climate Service Development

• Sustainable Transformations of Society in the Face of Climate Change

• Improving Tools for Decision Making under Climate Change

Our integrative approach is stated in our title ‘JPI Climate: Connecting climate knowledge for Europe’

Could you outline the approaches that you are using? Which strategies are proving to be most effective?

Most importantly, JPI Climate promotes the idea of a fireplace: it views itself as a platform where the policies of the involved countries and member institutions, representing more than €200 million of climate research funding in Europe per year, can be aligned. As such, these efforts have the potential to become a vital and important point of reference for research policies in the ERA landscape as well as globally.

JPI Climate focuses on the connections between research priority areas, synthesises new scientific findings into policy-relevant information and translates results to practical societal use in order to contribute to knowledge-based policy development and decision making. This approach is new. It will integrate climate knowledge, in support of sectoral and regional policy and decision making by a range of stakeholders at different levels.

In what ways do you facilitate the coordination, collaboration and exploitation of synergies? How do you avoid fragmentation and duplication of efforts?

The Initiative proposes a robust and innovative European initiative, adding value by integrating and expanding climate change research in a truly transnational, coordinated effort. It will overcome fragmentation in climate change research while maintaining creative diversity.

JPI Climate will contribute to the overall EU objective of building the ERA through enhanced cooperation and coordination of national research programmes. This will be achieved through the development of short-, medium- and long-term joint activities. We see joint research funding as one out of several potentially beneficial ways of collaborating, with other mechanisms including: alignment of national research programmes, workshops, academic courses, facilitation of research exchange programmes, joint research infrastructures and targeted policy support actions.

The duplication of efforts is tackled for instance in climate services development. Also as a platform for coordinating science on climate predictions and observations across Europe, this Joint Programming Initiative offers an important progression from the current and mainly national activities. Through coordinated modelling and observations, JPI Climate will provide scientific evidence and advice to European governments and society coordinated at the EU level.

We built a network of strong partners sharing a vision of the challenges ahead and of the ways to tackle them. JPI Climate partners are committed to delivering the aims of the joint initiative by pooling resources to implement joint activities. At the moment we are preparing the implementation of fast track activities, such as better understanding of user needs in climate services, and comparison of impact models across sectors. The latter is intended to provide input into the next assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change.

One of JPI Climate’s aims is to establish a network of climate service providers. How essential is the exchanging of knowledge in terms of developing and delivering climate services?

The climate science community finds itself increasingly confronted with specific demands for climate-related information from different sectors. As a result, many countries are currently developing climate services capacity, producing knowledge-based information about projected regional and sectoral climate changes and impacts. Currently, each provider uses its own methods/approaches for data and information, even though all services are actually based on the same core information (climate models, climate observations, climate scenarios etc.). Climate services are still generally organised on a national level. Hence, we find duplication of efforts and a significant degree of inconsistency. Consistency on a European level would be relevant with regard to data availability, improved tools/methods and for cross-border issues (eg. management of river basins, mountain areas or coastlines). In the context of the above JPI Climate aims to improve the efficiency of the planning, development and quality of climate services in Europe as well as enhancing consistency in the methods used in order to avoid duplication of efforts.

To what extent do you facilitate interdisciplinary research? How do you effectively combine natural and socioeconomic sciences?

We contribute to achieving a competitive advantage for Europe by improving the knowledge base for ongoing international negotiations and enhancing decision-making capacities on various levels with regards to climate change. In a nutshell, JPI Climate aims to provide integrated climate knowledge and decision support services for societal, political and business innovation by strengthening interdisciplinary integration in climate research and bridging knowledge production with knowledge application.

The four modules are designed as mutually interdependent and are connected through cross-cutting activities contributing to a joint core. This aim of connecting climate knowledge requires interdisciplinarity and also transdisciplinarity in the sense of joint knowledge production of science, policy and society.

The main added value of JPI Climate is to enhance the connectivity between the currently fragmented climate research, learning and innovation landscape. Greater integration will be secured in three domains. This is firstly society: bridging scientific knowledge production with the needs of policy and decision makers and societal stakeholders for knowledge on climate change, leading to more effective policies. Secondly, this is science, connecting different disciplinary approaches in natural and social sciences leading to interdisciplinary research efforts of higher quality and relevance. Thirdly, it is European, connecting top researchers and research groups from different countries in Europe, leading to high quality and efficient research efforts, long-term collaborations and a stronger global position.

How are you working to implement sustainable societal transformations of society in response to climate change?

It is widely recognised in Europe that responding effectively to the long-term challenge of climate change will require fundamental transformations of our production and consumption patterns, as well as the way we deal with climate change-related risks in spatial and sectoral planning. Understanding of societal transformation processes is needed to stimulate and govern the innovations that are needed to achieve a climate-friendly and climate-proof Europe. JPI Climate will bring together the disparate European social and economic research efforts on sustainable societal transformations.

How will the work of JPI Climate inform decision makers? To what extent can you influence policy?

We aim to respond to the needs of policy/decision makers, business and European society at large for knowledge-based information and services to address climate change. The initiative aims to close critical knowledge gaps by combining and connecting climate-related scientific approaches. This enables European society, through a systemic approach considering the complexity of our social, economic and ecological systems, to cope with climate change and take responsibility for reducing and minimising its negative consequences.

Connecting complex scientific knowledge with policy and decision making requires practice-oriented methods. These include scenarios in support of policy development, integrated assessment models, guidance tools, methods for evaluating response options or tools for spatial assessment. Such instruments will be further developed, compared and applied in close interaction and dialogue between researchers and stakeholders at different levels. JPI Climate provides a forum within which tools from across Europe can be brought together and strengthened.

The Initiative connects climate science to policy and decision making, enhances coordination, quality and continuity in climate research programming, increases efficiency by avoiding fragmentation and duplication, and enhances Europe’s competitive position in science.

As the fireplace, the platform for aligning policies and research activities, JPI Climate’s impact can be considerable and we have concrete aspirations for the future.

What are these future aspirations? How are you looking to expand on your efforts?

These efforts are gaining force at present and we are building the structures and contents which we will need to become fully operational. Even now, the work we are engaging in is proving to be very fruitful. We have started strong collaboration processes and effective coordination mechanisms between many leading European countries in the field.

To date, JPI climate involves 20 partners who are jointly responsible for a large share of the overall European budget spent on climate change research.

Looking ahead, we want to establish JPI Climate as the leading platform through which European institutions (Commission, Council and Parliament) can access knowledge about climate research policy, drawing from the member states who are our partners. Conversely, the Strategic Research Agenda of JPI Climate is a point of reference for future R&D programmes and research activities at the European level, such as Horizon 2020. The JPI Climate platform will connect new members and new countries, enhancing climate research capacities throughout Europe. Furthermore, this will enable the development of relationships with relevant international activities, such as the Strategic Forum for International Science and Technology Cooperation and international global change programmes.

While we are doing this interview, we are working towards implementing fast-track activities and further development of our implementation plans. Only recently, we submitted our proposal for a Coordination and Support Action in the Seventh Framework Programme and received positive results from the evaluation process. This is an important milestone in further accelerating our efforts towards implementation.

www.jpi-climate.eu

As Director of International & Climate Strategy for the Climate Action Directorate-General (DG CLIMA), what are your key objectives over the next year in developing the EU’s climate change strategy?

The main mission of the Directorate for International & Climate Strategy is to develop and coordinate the EU’s participation in the international climate negotiations, not just in the UNFCCC but in other fora too, such as the Major Economies Forum, Climate and Clean Air Coalition, G8 and G20. The EU has long been the main driver for advancing towards a new global agreement on climate change.

To do this, we must show that we are acting at home, developing our EU climate strategy and implementing laws for the EU’s 27 Member States. Last year, we presented a ‘Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy by 2050’. It sets out a long-term framework for decarbonisation of the economy across all sectors in order to meet the 2050 objective of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU. The Roadmap doesn’t just define the long-term objective, but it also indicates domestic milestones for 2030 (-40 per cent) and 2040 (-60 per cent). This will also lay the foundation for EU positions in the next negotiation round – the so-called ‘Durban Platform’ – that is to be concluded in 2015.

Implementing climate policies will require significant investments in new technologies and capacity building. Thus, we are working hard to make sure that climate objectives are fully integrated into the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020. EU spending should support necessary investments in mitigation and adaptation projects, not just in the EU but also in developing countries, especially those most vulnerable to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of EU and international climate policies through rigorous reporting and verification instruments is the backbone of any credible policy. It is the only reliable way to demonstrate that we are implementing and meeting our commitments. For our 2020 commitments we are now finalising preparations to ensure our monitoring system is ready for the next phase, due to start in January 2013. This is important not just for our fellow citizens in Europe, but also for our partners around the world.

Just like climate itself, these are all ongoing challenges – not just for the next year but for many years to come.

The EU has offered to reduce its emissions to 30 per cent by 2020, on condition that other major emitting countries in the developed and developing world commit to do their fair share under a future global climate agreement. How do you hope to ensure that other major emitting countries commit to an ambitious and comprehensive climate agreement?

As I have indicated, we demonstrate what needs to be done by actually doing it! But Europe does need to accelerate its progress towards a low-carbon society in order to reach the target of an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by the middle of this century. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will become.

The Roadmap gives a clear overview on how to move towards this goal in practice: we have said that the EU will reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 but we have taken on the challenge to raise our ambition level to 30 per cent if others are ready to make comparable efforts. Clearly, the world needs to move towards the long-term target together. This is why the EU pushed so hard in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban.

A lot has already been achieved during these last three international climate summits. Industrialised countries and 45 developing countries have made substantial pledges to reduce emissions or limit the growth of their emissions. Still, we all recognised in Durban last year that there remains a large gap in ambition. We are not on track to keep the temperature increase below 2°C. Unfortunately, at present some of our partners are waiting on the sidelines, for instance, due to internal politics.

Our message is clear; taking climate action makes economic sense. Just look at the increase in oil and food prices over the past decade with occasional price spikes, some of which are a consequence of weather-related events; it makes a lot of sense for everyone to commit to a more sensible growth and development pathway towards the middle of this century. It is good economics, good business and responsible politics to start the transition to a low-carbon society now.

Despite some successes in Durban at COP17, it is still widely recognised that further urgent action needs to be taken on climate change. How is DG Climate Action preparing for Doha and how do you intend to ensure an ambitious outcome that reflects the urgency of the planet’s needs?

As part of international action, the European Commission has been building bilateral climate and energy partnerships with key emerging economies, Least Developed Countries and Small Island Development States, as well as many medium-sized, middle-income developing countries.

As you know, international climate action and the opportunities presented by the transition to a low-carbon economy have drawn significant high-level attention in recent years. As we approach the end of the first Kyoto commitment period, the international climate negotiations are visibly intensifying. At the same time there exists significant scope for stepped-up cooperation between the EU and the Asia-Pacific region.

In this context, the European Commission recently organised a roundtable – with the European External Action Service – to address the global issues which condition the EU/Asia-Pacific relationship, especially global climate governance, multilateralism and trade. The event was an important opportunity to engage with a wide range of stakeholders and to showcase the relevance of our climate policies and ambition in our international work.

We have also been working on cooperation with third countries on the development of domestic carbon markets, and the promotion of the links between the EU Emissions Trading System with other carbon trading systems with the ultimate aim of building an international carbon market.

We must continue thinking creatively and pragmatically on how to best meet the climate challenges ahead in a way that is collective and fair but that also moves us to our common objective of staying below a 2 °C global temperature increase. At the same time we need to make sure that all actions are transparent and reliable.

Over the coming months, the EU will focus with its partners on identifying global or multilateral initiatives that will complement the existing national pledges. The UNEP gap report identified major emission reduction opportunities. Instead of waiting, we need to grab those opportunities and turn them into concrete action by Doha. This is what people around the world expect from their climate negotiators.

The world’s leaders came to the Rio+20 summit in June to bring sustainable development to the heart of the global economic agenda. What is the sustainable growth model that the European Commission has set out and how do you hope to achieve it?

In the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Commission has put the achievement of greener, more resource efficient, low-carbon growth at the heart of our vision for the EU’s growth and development over the coming decade and beyond.

Our 20-20-20 targets for reduced emissions, renewable energy share, and improved energy efficiency are not only essential in themselves for a low-carbon society, but they will also promote green jobs, inspire innovation – and bring the cost-savings that can help alleviate poverty.

The Commission has taken the logical, practical step to support this strategy by proposing that the climate-related share of the next EU budget for 2014-20 be raised significantly, to at least 20 per cent. This would mean around €200 billion in climate-related expenditure out of a budget totalling roughly €1,000 billion for the period. It is crucial that this substantial sum is invested in ways that maximise its positive climate impacts.

The transition to a low-carbon economy will provide real opportunities to create new jobs as well as to preserve existing ones. We know that manufacturing industries, such as those for transport and energy equipment, are facing increased competition in a rapidly globalising market but their early innovative responses can make them front-runners for the future. Greater low-carbon investment will reduce Europe’s energy bill and our dependency on fossil fuel imports, as well as bring the related benefits of less air pollution and savings in healthcare costs.

The creation of the Green Climate Fund – to help developing countries deal adequately with climate change – was successfully established in Cancun in 2010. How important was that?

Given the urgency and seriousness of climate change, the purpose of the Green Climate Fund is to make a significant and long-lasting contribution towards attaining the goals set by the international community to combat climate change. In the context of sustainable development, the Fund will promote the transition towards a low-emission and climate-resilient development pathway; it will provide support to developing countries in limiting or reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. It will also take into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. However, given the delays in setting up the Board, I anticipate that it could still take another 18-24 months to make it fully operational. In the meantime, climate finance cannot stop; the existing bilateral and multilateral channels need to continue to be very active to help developing countries in the swift implementation of the Cancun pledges and the decisions taken in Durban.

What key challenges do you face over the next few years in implementing decisive and directive strategies and policies on climate change?

The world needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions significantly over the coming decades to prevent dangerous climate change. This is going to be a huge challenge, and the private sector needs certainty as soon as possible in terms of where the world wants to head in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions. As a central outcome of the next negotiation round to be completed by 2015, an ambitious milestone needs to be set for 2030. We would like to see a comprehensive, legally-binding global framework that engages all economies – big and small, rich and poor – in a fair and efficient manner. The world’s leading economic and political powers assembled in the G20 carry a particular political responsibility and need to show leadership in resolving this global issue. For example, the US and China alone currently account for more than 40 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The EU is aware that some of the measures we have taken to fight climate change are not always fully appreciated by other countries. Misunderstandings have arisen from a fear of green protectionism and a perception that we are promoting a one-size-fits-all approach. But this is not the case, and it is important to overcome these misconceptions. We must confirm climate change as a challenge for the global community as a whole and foster a commitment to fighting this shared challenge between both developing countries and all major economies.

In reality, measures taken in transitioning towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon society need to become the means to get out of poverty and have a solid, sustainable base for future development.

ec.europa.eu/dgs/clima

Research Media is proud to announce it will partner Green Week for the third year running. Green Week – held on 22-25 May in Brussels – is recognised as the largest conference in Europe to tackle environmental issues. Research Media will be providing coverage of the event in its flagship International Innovation publication, detailing the key issues, objectives and outcomes, as well as featuring interviews with keynote speakers

Nick Brake, Director of Research Media, is enormously excited by the prospect of partnering the event for a third year: “We are delighted to once again be involved in supporting Green Week by communicating to our readership the key decisions made on tackling the most pressing environmental challenges facing Europe today. We also believe that, with so many key decision makers in attendance, the visibility this will afford to the research efforts we disseminate cannot be underestimated and we hope that our presence at the events will attract a wealth of new readers”.

The 12^th edition of Green Week, the biggest annual conference on European environment policy, will be held in Brussels on 22-25 May under the theme ‘Every Drop Counts – The Water Challenge’. The conference will consist of around 40 sessions each dedicated to assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of EU water policy and engaging sustainably with methods of preserving water. Green Week will be hosting programmes relating to a number of water-based concerns including ‘Green Infrastructure for Water,’ ‘Water Pricing – Economic Tools for Water Policy,’ ‘Industrial Emissions in Water,’ along with subject areas including fishing, flooding, water information systems and a view of non-European countries.

As the largest annual conference to address environmental issues and policy in Europe, Green Week offers an exclusive opportunity to debate and discuss water issues and a chance to meet with companies, organisations, academics, researchers, EU members and the media among many others. Its success last year (3,160 participants) indicates the likelihood that this year’s event will be a hit.

The closing sessions of Green Week will address the future for EU water policies, with important decision makers in attendance such as Bart Devos, European Youth Water Ambassador, and European Commissioner for Environment Janez Potočnik.

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.

For more details on this event, please visit: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek