Could you explain the mission of the International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS) and what brought about its formation?

The IUSS is a global scientific union – with the emphasis on scientific and global. Its mission is to stimulate soil scientific activities and support all soil scientists across the globe in the pursuit of their activities. The objectives are also to bring soil science to the forefront of public and political debates and stimulate new global projects and initiatives.

When the Union was formed in 1924, its initial focus was to bring people together to exchange and harmonise ideas on soil classification and soil analysis. In Western Europe soil science found its origin in the laboratory, whereas in the US and the Russian Empire soil science started in the field. The amalgamation of the two different soil research groups contributed to the establishment of soil science as a scientific discipline. That amalgamation was greatly facilitated by the meetings organised by the International Society of Soil Science (predecessor of the IUSS).

What branches of soil science does the Union’s work include?

The IUSS covers the whole gamut of soil science from basic research in soil properties and processes to the global distribution of soils and their management in a sustainable way. Although the IUSS is not a research organisation, its members work on every possible topic related to soil.

The soil science discipline has branched out immensely in the past decades. Whilst a large number of soil scientists study soils and agriculture, a considerable number are also conducting research in hydrology, geomedicine, climate change and biodiversity, for example. Soil science now has many specialisations which makes it very attractive for students. It also means that in addition to our interdisciplinary efforts we need to work with scientists from our own discipline – what I would call intradisciplinary cooperation.

Although there is much research on the role of soils in topical issues like climate change or biodiversity loss, there is a need to increase our understanding of the soil itself. We need to study soil just like we study, for example, faraway galaxies or particle physics. It is part of human nature to be curious and gain knowledge (and if possible, some wisdom) about our surroundings and beyond. The applications of fundamental research are quite easy to make in soil science as 150 years of systematic soil science has shown.

How is the IUSS structured?

The scientific part of the Union is structured into divisions that each has four to six commissions. The four divisions are:

• Soil in space and time

• Soil properties and processes

• Soil use and management

• The role of soils in sustaining society and the environment

There are eight active Working Groups (Acid Sulphate Soils; Cryosols; Digital Soil Mapping; International Actions for the Sustainable Use of Soils; Land Degradation; World Reference Base; Forest Soils; and Urban Soils). Each of these holds meetings and some have newsletters and websites. Many of these meetings have yielded books, special issues of scientific journals and increased scientific collaboration.

The Union is run by an executive committee that is supported by four standing committees (Committee on Awards and Prizes, Committee on Statutes and Byelaws, Committee on Budget and Finances and Committee on Presidential Elections). All our officers are elected. The overall governing body of the IUSS is the council, which consists of representatives from all national soil science societies and executive committees and some IUSS Honorary Members. The council decides on major issues regarding the IUSS governance and structures.

Council meetings are held every four years at the World Congress of Soil Science. The organisation of World Congresses is in the hands of a national soil science society and the IUSS provides background support. The Division, Commission and Working Group Chairs organise symposia, select speakers and work closely with soil scientists from South Korea. IUSS council meetings are the United Nations of soil science – some 100 countries attend. All the differences in cultures and scientific background are seemingly overshadowed by the common passion for the soil science discipline.

Does the IUSS generate soil data and information itself? How are datasets sourced?

IUSS does not provide soil information, but we provide support to organisations that do. This happens through Working Groups that deal with soil information and database development. Most soil information is held by national and research organisations. With advances in web delivery and the data revolution, the demand for soil information is on the rise. As some of the knowledge was collected decades ago, there is also a need for new data collection. However, before more information can be gathered, it makes sense to maximise the use of existing data and investigate its strengths and flaws.

With increasing areas of urbanisation, do you think that land is being managed wisely?

The growing population means we need more land for building houses and growing food, feed, fuel and fibre. Space is limited and there is a shortage of good land. We have reasonable assessments on the quality of land across the world; some of the information is sparse but the real issue is whether the information is used at all when it comes to planning new urban areas. In many cases business arguments prevail.

There is a joke by which two architects look at the Tower of Pisa shortly after its completion in the 13th Century and notice its one-sided tilt: “Perhaps we should have done some soil investigations”. A similar scenario may apply to many of our current building projects. Some of the best farmland is being lost to make way for urban areas, but we also see building sites in occasional wet areas or on soils that strongly acidify when drained. In all of these cases it is puzzling why the available soil information is not used; perhaps because the information is hard to grasp, indiscernible or because economics rules over other concerns. This can be said about urbanisation but a similar situation exists for land grabbling or growing biofuel crops on prime food production land. These discussions have a scientific element but are essentially political or financial matters and may seem to be outside the realm of the IUSS. Soil scientists have a role to play in such debates and many of our colleagues are involved.

Do you think soils have changed significantly in recent years as a result of over farming?

There is no doubt that farming has changed soils as a result of liming, fertilisation, manure, drainage, tillage, levelling and many other practices that farmers have used over the centuries. Many soils have improved, but there is no doubt that large areas of soils have been degraded. Soil erosion is an obvious and well-recognised cause as well as acidification and contamination.

Generally speaking, these issues are well-known – there have been agronomic and economic assessments on soil degradation and the issue has been reasonably well quantified. We also know how to address these problems, which raises questions of why nothing has been done. I have no answer to it. The only parallels I can think of are world hunger (we know its extent, causes, impact) or perhaps climate change: the willingness to deal with these problems seemingly overstretches the possibilities of human kindness. It may be related to resource shortages, acute disasters prevailing over chronic problems, and the acceptance that in this world things aren’t perfect. One could see an element of sadness in all that but it may be better to work on improving the situation.

www.iuss.org

Could you begin by reminding our readership of the overarching purpose of the Society for Environmental Geochemistry and Health (SEGH)? What issues are central to the heart of the Society?

SEGH was established in the 1970s to provide a forum for scientists from various disciplines to work together in understanding the interaction between the geochemical environment and the health of plants, animals and humans. We are very keen to encourage an interdisciplinary research approach. Our members represent expertise in a diverse range of scientific fields, such as biology, engineering, geology, hydrology, epidemiology, chemistry, public health, clinical medicine, nutrition, and toxicology and come from a variety of backgrounds within the academic, regulatory and industrial communities, thus providing a representative perspective on current issues and concerns. We have an international membership with regional sections to coordinate activities in Europe, the Americas and Asia-Pacific.

What is your role and responsibility within SEGH? In what way do you contribute to guiding the organisation?

I am currently Chair of the European regional section and along with co-chairs and board members coordinate our programme of events, plan future regional activities and encourage participation in our meetings and membership of the Society. I work closely with other regional Chairs and our International President, Professor Xiangdong Li. We meet regularly at formal SEGH board meetings, but do a lot of work by email and within groups in our local region.

A lot of activity involves contact with SEGH members and meeting those who may be interested in the work of the Society, encouraging them to join us and participate in our events. We also play an important role in helping younger researchers develop their careers by providing good environments to present and discuss research findings.

Can you expand upon the collaborative spirit fostered by SEGH? Why is it so important within these areas of research?

Collaboration between different specialities is at the heart of SEGH and was one of the founding principles of the organisation. Meetings and discussions are enriched by this fact and have provided us with opportunities not often encountered in single discipline groups. The efforts of SEGH members to encourage and sustain this interaction is a key challenge – contributions from different disciplines unquestionably provides greater understanding of current issues, but also provides some difficulties in sharing understanding in some areas as the scientific language and approach can vary. The role SEGH meetings have in providing a platform for those discussions to take place and collaborations to develop should not be underestimated.

SEGH recently published a paper regarding the effects on soil organic matter following wildfires in Portugal. What were the key findings of the study and how will they guide practice?

This is an interesting and developing area – as we are all aware, many regions around the world experience wildfires and the effects on the recovery of the local ecosystem afterwards. The SEGH website reports work by one of the prize-winning poster presenters at the ISEG meeting in Aveiro, Portugal in 2012.

The study reports on new instrumental methods to try to characterise the stability of carbon in the soils after wildfire events and uses this information in assessing the management needs for affected areas. It demonstrates that the severity of burning affects both carbon characteristics (C/N) and the soil properties (eg. CEC, pH), with some interesting markers identified that allow discrete sources of carbon in the soil to be assessed. I am sure the research will provide new methods to assess carbon storage and nitrogen fixation in these soils and help us to understand more about the sensitivity of the forests to future wildfire hazards.

SEGH plays an important role in research dissemination; your 29th annual conference will take place in Toulouse in July. Could you outline the aims and objectives of the conference? What topics will be discussed?

We are building up for an excellent meeting in Toulouse, France in July 2013. The host – EcoLab (Laboratoire Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Environnement) – and organising committee chaired by Dr Francois De Vleeschouwer, have focused this year’s meeting on a number of internationally important issues: biogeochemical interactions with health and ecotoxicology; and spatial and temporal records of pollution at local and catchment scales. These themes address the fundamental questions of pollutant transport/mixing and look at health impacts and risk assessment issues associated with them. There are plans for a number of special sessions focused on mercury pollution; bioaccessibility of pollutants in soils and vegetables and arsenic speciation, behaviour and impacts.

How closely is SEGH involved in the interplay between academia and public health? In what capacity does this relationship exist?

Public health is becoming more central to government policy globally. SEGH has always encouraged collaboration between the professional health community and academics. Our conferences have featured platform presentations from individuals and groups, which cross the disciplines involved. This also features in the papers published in our journal Environmental Geochemistry & Health.

Various conference themes and special task groups have been established to pursue focused topics, for example, developing risk assessment methods for lead in soil, long-running reviews on arsenic behaviour in relation to human exposure, and on the risk assessment and remediation of chromium. Recently a number of SEGH board members were successful in securing UK Research Council funding to promote interdisciplinary working in environment and human health. This led to the MULTITUDE project and subsequent SEGH conferences from 2007-11, which emphasised bringing health practitioners closer to SEGH membership.

The results have been particularly good for SEGH strategy and developing themes of research collaborations. We recently presented an evaluation in the Special Issues of Environmental Geochemistry & Health: The Geochemical Environment & Human Health (vol 34. no 6. December 2012). The paper by Stewart el al, (pp653-664) describes the benefits and barriers to joint working identified by participants in SEGH conferences.

Is SEGH involved in the training and development of the next generation of researchers? What programmes do you offer to encourage talent?

Yes, we encourage membership from early career researchers and students undertaking MSc and PhD studies on projects relevant to our aims and objectives. Student membership of SEGH provides significant discounts to online access to the society journal and registration fees for international conferences. We have a specific prize (the Hemphill Award) for top oral and poster contributions from our student members. The standard is always excellent and pleasing to see the continued enthusiasm and dedication of this group. Many examples of the prize winners can be found in the news articles on the SEGH website.

Looking forward, what do you hope to achieve over the coming decades? What future activities do you envision the Society will become involved in?

The coming decade presents many challenges, particularly under current economic pressures. The ability of governments to enhance and protect environmental quality and promote public health will continue to be a critical issue. SEGH needs to ensure its members provide good research to feed into the planning and decision-making process at local and national levels. We will continue to encourage discussion and debate through our meetings – local/regional SEGH activities in Europe, Asia/Pacific and the Americas and with our continued support for the International Symposium on Environmental Geochemistry which was held in Portugal in 2012 and is planned for the Asia-Pacific region in 2015-16.

Are there any specific challenges SEGH plans to overcome in the next few years? How will you be working to overcome these issues?

The specific challenge for the Society is to sustain the enthusiastic interest in the research activities relevant to our members. We always seek new members and to broaden the association of our group. Working closely with other relevant societies such as the International Medical Geology Association provides support for our international board and helps to focus our event planning to ensure timing of activities do not overlap. Participation by new/early career researchers is always important for our continued activities. SEGH welcomes nominations to host specific events and also for individuals to participate in the running of the Society (see website). We recognise the difficulties in organising and hosting events and the board members do their best to advise and support local organisers. We will focus our combined efforts to increase participation and support both the work of the journal and those hosting SEGH meetings.

To conclude, what events will SEGH be supporting in 2013 as part of their commitment to the environmental geochemistry and health research landscape?

In 2013 we will see a number of regional events organised by SEGH members – specific plans in place include the European meeting in Toulouse, France in July 2013 and we are encouraging local events in Asia- Pacific and the US. The SEGH website contains lots of useful details and links to meetings and events we organise.

www.segh.net

Can you outline Arctic Frontiers’ main aims and objectives?

The Arctic Frontiers conference is a central arena for the discussion of Arctic issues. The main aims and objectives are to contribute to sustainable development within the economy and society, where environmental needs have a high priority. A key goal is to bring the latest research results into this arena, thus enabling representatives from science, politics, business and civil society to share perspectives on how upcoming challenges in the Arctic may be addressed. Further, Arctic Frontiers has a pan-Arctic perspective and encourages international cooperation. Another pillar is to develop mechanisms where the next generation can contribute. This is organised within the Young Scientist Forum and Emerging Leaders.

Arctic Frontiers recently held the Arctic Conference: Geopolitics & Marine Production in a Changing Arctic in Tromsø, Norway. Can you outline the context to this event?

Prospects for profitable extraction of hydrocarbons and minerals increase expectations for many governments and companies which have interests in the High North: the Arctic is an emerging energy region. Furthermore, as Atlantic water is penetrating further north and ice is retreating, the marine production increases in the seas of the High North, and the fish stocks follow. These new activities will change the Arctic forever, and have a major impact on the established social structures in several regions in the north. Change is thus the keyword which best describes the future of the Arctic. A warming Arctic with less ice may create opportunities in terms of economic activity, maritime transport and increased interstate cooperation, but it may also present Arctic stakeholders and states with new challenges. And not to forget: a warming Arctic is part of a warming globe, which is a major challenge for all countries of the world.

Could you give an overview of the event programme?

Arctic Frontiers always has two sections: a policy programme and a science programme. The latter is an international research conference devoted to the topics of the given year. This section is organised by independent international scientific committees. Selected keynote speakers are invited to take part in the policy section alongside business people, politicians, NGO representatives and indigenous people. The content of the policy section mirrors the science section.

The science section included these parallel sessions:

Session I: Geopolitics in a Changing Arctic

The issues of security, energy and inter-state relations in the Arctic will become increasingly important. An overall aim is to identify conditions for continued stability in light of new developments in the region. Three issues were considered:

• Arctic security in a global context

• The Arctic in a global energy picture

• New stakeholders in the Arctic

Session II: Marine Harvesting in the Arctic

In a warmer Arctic, the environmental conditions will change at all levels of the marine ecosystem. Increased air and water temperatures are assumed to reduce the ice-covered areas substantially. Increased competition between resident arctic species and invasive temperate species seems evident. Predicted ecological changes will subsequently challenge traditional harvest activities in the Arctic, but may also provide new opportunities. Session II discussed two areas:

• Introduced species, immigration and fate of resident species

• Prospective harvest of marine biological resources in the Arctic

Session III: Arctic Marine

Productivity Productivity is the generation of energy for the ecosystem, and is still among the least understood and quantified processes in the Arctic marine realm. Arctic ecosystems are presently undergoing rapid climate-induced changes. These are expected to amplify in the coming decades, while at the same time, human activities will continue to increase. In concert, this will alter the structure and functioning of arctic ecosystems. Ecosystem productivity depends on primary production dynamics, how energy is transferred within the food web and on vertical and horizontal transport in the water column. This session was structured around:

• The patterns and processes controlling and structuring marine productivity today

• How these processes scale to the pan-Arctic domain and may change in a future Arctic

The Arctic is changing due to ongoing warming and increasing human activities. How can introducing new species to the Arctic and harvesting arctic biological marine resources increase the pressure on arctic ecosystems?

The introduction of new species always increases uncertainty. The Arctic is generally well protected from invading new species due to the temperature gradient and profound seasonality in production which make the arctic environment hostile to most temperate species. The most well-known new species in the Barents Sea is the king crab, taken deliberately from the Bering Sea to Kola coast in the late 1960s by Soviet scientists. The impact of this experiment is not yet fully understood and is heavily debated. On both the Russian and Norwegian side of the border the harvest of king crab forms a major part of fishery income. However, the impact on the ecosystem is not yet known, and environmental organisations are very critical towards governments for not putting more effort into reducing the stock of king crabs.

The Arctic is home to most of the well-managed major fish stocks in the Barents and Bering. These fish stocks form major components of the ecosystems in their respective seas. Unbalanced harvest of, for example, Norwegian-Atlantic herring may have cascading effects on other parts of the ecosystem such as cod, marine birds and marine mammals.

What effect is the reduction of sea ice having on production?

This was a major topic for the conference, and was heavily debated in the devoted science sessions. There is agreement that reduced sea ice (both in space and thickness) generally increases marine primary production, since a larger area of the sea is exposed to light, enabling a higher rate of photosynthesis. However, the impact of reduced sea ice to ocean currents and the flow of fresh water into the northern seas are uncertain. It is also not known to what degree the fish stocks may move their known geographical pattern of spawning, growing up and feeding. A general transfer of some of the major fish stock has been observed towards the north and east of the Barents Sea in order to exploit new areas with increased marine production. The conference brought together representatives from science, politics, and civil society to share perspectives on how upcoming challenges in the Arctic may be addressed to ensure sustainable development.

What kind of atmosphere does this cross-border, multidisciplinary approach create?

Our original idea was based upon the concept of helping to feed science and research results into the arena of decision making in business, public management and politics; to help mix scientists of different disciplines; and support the next generation of researchers. We see that an unexpected but very welcome additional effect is that researchers being exposed to non-scientist representatives get a broader perspective of the complexities in a modern society and the way decisions are made. Such meetings create an exciting and creative atmosphere.

To what extent do you hope this conference will impact policy? What improvements would you like to see?

Arctic Frontiers is a pan-Arctic conference, and thus we hope that it will spur increased scientific cooperation between Arctic countries and with fellow scientists in other countries. Further, we hope that regional and national approaches taken for industrial, social or economic development may be evaluated across national borders, and that there is an increased awareness that cooperation between the countries is necessary in order to protect the environment and find the best solutions for industrial development. Another expectation is that business and politicians more often lend their ears to researchers, and in the same way researchers understand that they have to be able to communicate in a non-scientific language.

Are plans in place to organise another event next year?

Arctic Frontiers is an annual event, and the theme for January 2014 has been agreed with the Steering Group as follows:

Humans in the Arctic

Health, Society and Environment:

• Health, wellbeing and working in the Arctic

• Health and environment

Operational Challenges and risks:

• Shipping and offshore

• Search and rescue

How are the conference outcomes being disseminated?

The abstracts of all presentations and posters from the science section of the conference are available via our website in a book of abstracts, and two international journals will print special issues devoted to a selection of high-ranking presentations.

All the presentations in the policy section were broadcast live in English, Russian and Norwegian. These presentations can also be downloaded from our web page, going back to 2007.

In addition, more than 100 journalists attended the conference week, and there have been a number of stories in national leading newspapers and radio in Norway, several EU countries, the US and Canada, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.

www.arcticfrontiers.com

Norway’s draft national budget for 2013 proposes an 11.4 per cent increase in the Ministry of the Environment’s budget. What are your key priorities?

The budget entails a powerful boost for environmental protection in Norway. Climate change is one of the main budget winners with NOK 10 billion earmarked for the fund for renewable energy and energy research, increased allocations for public transport and higher CO2 tax. In addition, we want to scale up efforts to preserve cultural heritage and natural diversity, for example by increasing the allocations for forest protection by NOK 111 million.

The national fund for climate change mitigation, renewable energy and energy conversion is being boosted by NOK 10 billion. The Government proposes strengthening climate research by a total of NOK 47 million. Hereby the Research Council of Norway will have some NOK 400 million for climate-related research in 2013. The Government is also continuing its work on measures to combat deforestation and destruction of forests in developing countries. It has proposed NOK 630 million for carbon offsetting in 2013 – an increase of NOK 115 million.

How does the Ministry contribute to integrated and ecosystem-based marine management plans, particularly through the Environmental Targets set out in 2011?

The overall environmental target for our seas and coastal areas is for the structure, functioning, productivity and diversity of marine ecosystems to be maintained or restored and that they will provide a basis for value creation through the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystem services.

The management plans for our sea areas provide a tool for achieving this. The Ministry is leading the work in close cooperation with relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.

We have adopted management plans for the Barents Sea-Lofoten areas and for the Norwegian Sea. At present, we are in the process of preparing the management plan for the Norwegian part of the North Sea and Skagerrak. The Government intends to present this as a White Paper to the Parliament (Stortinget) this spring. This will establish management plans as the basis for integrated ecosystem-based management of activities in all Norwegian sea areas.

Why are the seas surrounding Norway such a rich source of biodiversity?

Our coast and sea areas are very varied and have a complicated topography, forming many types of marine habitats. Large parts of our sea areas are relatively shallow. These natural features support a rich and diverse marine life. This includes spawning grounds for important fish stocks, large seabird colonies, and some of the world’s largest cold-water coral reefs.

By reducing pollution and regulating our maritime activities we have succeeded in keeping clean and rich seas in most parts of our marine and coastal areas. But there are challenges. Pressures are mounting with increased human activities along the coast and offshore. Several populations of fish and sea birds are in a poor condition and habitats are under threat. Long-range pollution transported into our areas through air and ocean currents is also a problem. We need to strengthen our efforts to address this situation in order to ensure a rich and clean sea for future generations.

In light of this, what actions are you taking to protect biodiversity in deep- and shallow-water marine habitats?

In the management plans we identify particularly valuable and vulnerable areas where special care should be taken to protect them. For instance, the framework conditions for oil and gas activities established in the management plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten areas are designed to safeguard these areas. This is one reason why waters off the Lofoten and Vesterålen Islands and Senja and near the coast of Møre og Romsdal county have not been opened for petroleum activities.

The management plans establish overall political and strategic framework conditions for cross-sectoral management. Concrete measures to protect the marine environment are taken under various sector laws. To mention some concrete examples:

• Several cold water coral reefs have been protected against fishing activities

• We have imposed strict requirements on offshore oil and gas to safeguard the fisheries and the environment, including restrictions on drilling in coral reef areas and on discharges of drill cuttings and oil and hazardous substances

• Establishment of marine protected areas is an important area-based means to implement an integrated, ecosystem-based marine policy. We have also just recently prepared a proposal to establish the first marine conservation areas

• We continue to monitor the situation for sea bird populations and have an expert group looking into what might cause the decline in many populations. We are also considering measures to reduce bycatch of seabirds in fisheries

• Lobster reserves have been established as pilot projects to restore declining populations with promising results

• Shipping lanes have been established along the coast to reduce risk of shipping accidents and oil pollution

How are you scaling up monitoring and mapping programmes to monitor the impact of fisheries, shipping and oil and gas production on Norway’s seas? Has this led to any policies to safeguard and protect certain areas?

A sound knowledge base is essential for the ecosystem approach to managing activities in marine and coastal areas. Monitoring, mapping and research are the basis for preparing, implementing and updating the management plans.

A great deal of recent information on the marine environment has been obtained through the MAREANO programme for mapping of the seabed. MAREANO is moving forward in new areas and increasingly the many secrets of our seabed are being revealed. Mapping of the sea bed has identified threatened and vulnerable habitats and also damage from fishing activities. This knowledge has informed measures taken to protect vulnerable habitats, such as restricting bottom trawling and drilling for oil and gas in coral reefs.

Another example is the SEAPOP programme for mapping and monitoring of seabird populations in Norwegian sea areas. The resulting knowledge is being used as basis for improved management of the marine environment.

The Norwegian Institute of Marine Research monitors – among other things – developments in ocean climate, living marine resources and pollution. This includes annual monitoring of the status of fish populations. The results are important as a basis for sustainable management of our marine resources.

As a follow-up to the management plans for our sea areas, we have established a coordinated programme for monitoring the status of the marine ecosystems. The monitoring programme is continuously being improved, including by further developing good indicators and improving use of existing data to fill gaps in knowledge.

Are there any other high-priority marine-related topics on the Ministry’s agenda that you would like to highlight?

Climate change and ocean acidification create new management challenges where a long-term perspective is needed. We need more knowledge about the developments and effects on species, biodiversity and pollution. Norway began monitoring ocean acidification in 2010.

Knowledge is needed to enable us to adapt to sea level rise in coastal areas and to adapt to effects on biodiversity of increased sea temperature and ocean acidification. We need to reduce the total pressure on marine ecosystems and strengthen ecosystem resilience.

Marine litter is rightfully receiving increased attention, both nationally and internationally. This is more than just an aesthetic problem; it creates pollution and damages marine species. We have started beach cleaning projects and monitoring of beach litter at a network of locations. Our monitoring, together with similar international efforts, will give us better knowledge about sources and amounts of litter to enable us to take further actions to reduce marine litter.

www.regjeringen.no

From what context did the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) emerge?

In 1973 the delegates of 23 peripheral and maritime European regions – often separated by long distances, but united by fundamentally similar situations – decided to meet in Saint Malo, France to exchange knowledge on common challenges related to their remoteness and consequently their difficulty in adapting to economic, social and trade-related development within the EU .

The beginning of the 1970s was a crucial period for EU regional policy. Indeed, one of the first initiatives taken by the Community enlarged to nine Member States was to adopt, in October 1972, the principles of a European regional policy and establish the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

As the number of regions interested in these exchanges increased significantly over time, a permanent secretariat was set up in Rennes. Today, some 160 regions across Europe’s shoreline are actively working together in the CPMR. Those regions emanate from 28 countries (over and beyond the EU) and represent almost 200 million Europeans. The aims and objectives of these regions are to ensure that EU institutions take account of their common interests and concerns but also to cooperate on practical projects in order to enhance their assets and exchanges experiences and good practices.

How is the association structured and how do you fulfil your role as Secretary General?

The CPMR is structured around the Political Bureau, which is composed by one region for each country represented in the CPMR. The Political Bureau meets twice a year and proposes political guidelines for the Conference, thus implementing the decisions adopted by the General Assembly which brings together all CPMR member regions. To ensure its territorial diversity, the CPMR is organised in Geographical Commissions, addressing the particular circumstances of each of the major sea basins.

My role as Secretary General of the association is mainly concerned with coordinating our members’ policy activities while instigating change where needed, via lobbying and advanced intelligence gathering for issues that affect our regions’ needs and aspirations. Together with our President, and a very committed team of policy analysts, we strive to bring the interests of our regions to the very highest policy decision-making levels on both EU and national government stages. The General Secretariat, which I head, ensures the smooth running of the Conference.

The majority of your focus surrounds cohesion policy implemented by the EU. What does this policy entail and how do peripheral and maritime regions benefit?

Cohesion policy is a very powerful tool for the implementation of European policy development on the ground. It represents a significant part of the EU budget and for some regions is an essential instrument for boosting economic development. Since its inception, and for many decades, the CPMR has been calling for a regional policy aiming at reducing disparities among different regions of Europe, particularly creating bridges for economic development between its centre and periphery. The CPMR also contributed to the inclusion of the ‘territorial cohesion’ principle in the Lisbon Treaty, thus complementing economic and social cohesion policy with its necessary territorial dimension. In other words, cohesion policy is by far the growth and jobs policy of the EU, delivered through the most appropriate governance structure and brings socioeconomic development for all regions, in particular peripheral and maritime. Therefore, under the current circumstances, CPMR is calling yet again to all parties involved to safeguard and consequently budget this policy to ensure prosperity for the next generation of Europe’s citizens.

The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) was established to improve the infrastructure of transport including water systems. What has it achieved so far? How is your working group improving access to remote and island communities?

Through working very closely with Loyola de Palacio and Jacques Barrot, former Commissioners in charge of transport, the CPMR contributed to the inclusion (in 2004) of the Motorways of the Sea in the TEN-T. Today, the TEN-T action has been reviewed, and a new EU instrument is under negotiation, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), which will co-finance the implementation of the TEN-T from 2014 onwards.

On both instruments (TEN-T and CEF), CPMR is lobbying so that priority is granted to improving accessibility – including for islands – and allowing waterborne transport to develop: supporting port infrastructures and maritime transport services which contribute towards decarbonising the European transport system.

There is also a need to introduce more flexibility into rules that limit public funding for launching shipping lines, which, though sometimes unprofitable from a strictly economic point of view, are essential for opening up access to peripheral areas by sea. These political steps result from the activities of the CPMR working group, chaired by the Spanish Region of Aragon. Our arguments and contributions are directed towards the key EU institutions (Council, Parliament, Commission), in the context of the co-decision procedure on both TEN-T and CEF.

If conducted sustainably, the potential of tourism in peripheral maritime regions holds great promise. What policy exists to ensure this viability and how do you investigate the impact of tourism on the economy and environment?

The Lisbon Treaty provides a new legal basis in the area of tourism and recognises its economic and strategic weight as a sector within the EU. The Lisbon Treaty endowed the EU with powers to support, coordinate and complement action by the Member States in this field. This is a significant step forward which has enabled the CPMR to set up a ‘Working group on sustainable tourism’ chaired by the Regions of Sicily (IT) and Västra Götaland (SE). The cross-cutting nature of this sector and the need in the short term for effective coordination between the different policies and instruments developed at European level, such as the structural funds, and at national, regional and local level, oblige regions to offer their best practices and contribution to the EU legislators.

Responding to the EC’s public ‘Consultation on challenges and opportunities for maritime and coastal tourism in Europe’, the CPMR welcomes the proposal made by the European Commission in the new ‘Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises’ (COSME). CPMR calls for this programme to boost the competitiveness of enterprises in the tourism sector too. Indeed, maritime and coastal tourism can play a key role in economic development across Europe, helping regions to overcome the current crisis while increasing social, economic and territorial cohesion.

Europe 2020 plans to revive the EU economy. How will maritime regions provide the means for sustainable employment and growth? To this end, what is the purpose of the Vasco da Gama programme?

The oceans will help to boost the European economy: the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) has now become a major instrument for supporting sustainable ‘blue growth’, which will undoubtedly be underpinned by efforts to promote maritime jobs, skills and know-how. We will thus require investment in the social dimension of European maritime policy, above all in training, at all levels and in all sectors of the maritime economy, on land and at sea. Since European regions usually have significant powers in the fields of education and training, we called for the Vasco da Gama programme to encourage interregional mobility in the maritime sector. For us, Vasco da Gama could focus on youth mobility between educational sectors, between labour sectors linked to the sea and establish bridges between learning, mobility and job creation in the maritime sector.

Within Europe, what is our current capacity for producing renewable energy in coastal regions? With proper investment, what is the perceived potential of wind, water and wave power?

It is difficult to calculate our potential capacity for producing renewable energy in coastal regions. However, I can tell you that although the EU objective for 2020 is to have 20 per cent of renewable energy in the whole EU, one of our members, the Spanish region of Navarra, produces 80 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, such as wind farms, solar and biomass. Another example is the island of Samsø in Denmark: as recently as 1997, this island was entirely dependent on oil and coal, both imported from the mainland. Its inhabitants decided to create and fund an offshore wind farm and land-based wind turbines. The people of Samsø heat their homes with straw burned in a central heating system and they power some vehicles on biofuel which they also grow. Now 100 per cent of its electricity comes from wind power and 75 per cent of its heat comes from solar power and biomass energy.

In Cornwall, the South West of England Regional Development Agency developed a wave power project where a total of four wave device developers will connect their arrays into the Wave Hub. This will allow the developers to transmit and sell their renewable electricity to the UK’s electricity distribution grid. The project is financed by the South West of England Regional Development Agency (£12.5 million), the European Regional Development Fund Convergence Programme (£20 million) and the UK government (£9.5 million). Wave Hub could generate £76 million over 25 years for the regional economy and it would support South West England’s target for generating 15 per cent of the region’s power from renewable sources by 2020. It would create at least 170 jobs and possibly hundreds more by creating a new wave power industry in the region.

Peripheral regions and islands represented within our membership can therefore be seen as the producers of renewable energy, and investment in these regions will bring about huge opportunities for economic development for the regions themselves, compensating them for their isolation, and benefiting the rest of Europe.

To what extent do you collaborate with other institutions? How are you working towards a unified network that links the coastal regions and maritime environment and spans jurisdictions of individual Member States?

The CPMR is a unique organisation, representing coastal and maritime regions at the highest political level. We strive to work very closely with the EC to influence its proposals from the very outset of the EU decision-making process. We are also in permanent contact with the European Parliament given its intense work on co-decisions for almost all key legislative developments affecting regions. MEPs from our regions are very important ‘ambassadors’ of CPMR within Parliament. Moreover, in 2009 we established a close partnership with the Seas and Coastal Areas Intergroup, chaired by Corinne Lepage. Indeed, CPMR ensures the secretariat of the intergroup and contributes to its proposals.

The CPMR is also actively involved in the Intergroup 174, which gathers MEPs from specific territories such as islands, mountains and sparsely populated areas. CPMR was at the origin of the creation of the Committee of the Regions (CoR); many of our members are also members of the CoR. The current President is CPMR’s Vice President. Therefore, our relations have always been very close: in the current phase of negotiations, we work together to ensure the link between cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 Strategy and to call for an adequate EU budget in order to bring the European project closer to its citizens.

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the CPMR. How do you plan to celebrate your achievements? What ambitions do you have for the years that follow?

Every 10 years, our General Assembly is held in Saint Malo, which hosted the first Conference in 1973. Next year it will be the 40th anniversary of our association, and I am sure that we will have some glorious celebrations to mark this occasion.

Concerning our next ambitions, the Financial Perspectives 2014-2020 are at the top of our agenda. CPMR urges for a strong cohesion policy for all European Regions and encourages the exclusion of any macro-economic conditionality on cohesion policy. This measure links the distribution of structural funds to compliance with the EU stability pact and alienates the regional dimension and the programme-based approach intrinsic to cohesion policy.

www.cpmr.org

Set up in 1994, what is the mission of the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT)?

STINT has three main aims:

• Enhance the competitiveness of higher education institutions

• Assist national higher education institutions to develop into attractive scholarly environments for Swedish and foreign researchers, teaching staff and students

• Stimulate change through new or alternative means of international collaboration

By what means is the Foundation working to enhance the competitiveness of Swedish higher education institutions?

The Foundation offers a range of funding and scholarship programmes in support of strategic internationalisation at various levels at higher education institutions. It is also an actor with competence and knowledge relating to international academic collaboration.

How does STINT support research mobility on an international level? What is the Foundation’s role in helping overseas researchers to acclimatise in their new environment?

Our programmes aim to pick up on various current needs, from initiating international projects through four-year international partnerships at faculty level, to strategic internationalisation at university level. There is also a programme on offer which aims to internationalise higher education. STINT collaborates with foreign financiers on some programmes. Moreover, our programmes aim to cover most categories of researchers, including university and college lecturers of all disciplines.

Our programme portfolio in 2012 included:

• Initiation Grants (one year)

• Institutional Grants (four years)

• Joint Brazilian-Swedish Research Collaboration (four years)

• Korea-Sweden Research Cooperation (four years)

• Strategic Grants for Internationalisation (two years)

• Excellence in Teaching (one semester abroad)

Can you explain why STINT regards international contacts and experience of working in foreign academia as natural and necessary parts of research and higher education?

The international dimension of research and higher education is necessary for excellence. In most disciplines today, research is conducted internationally and the trend is towards even higher degrees of international collaboration.

Higher education is less international but as it is linked to research there is an international component. Furthermore, there is an increasing interest in internationalisation at home. Here, international students and faculty mobility are both very important.

How far-reaching are your collaborations with international partners? Can you offer some examples that have been particularly successful?

STINT has joint programmes with the largest funding agencies in Korea and Brazil – the National Research Foundation of Korea and CAPES, respectively. In these programmes we select and fund projects together.

We also collaborate with a number of universities or colleges abroad. To these higher education institutions, we send Swedish university lecturers to teach for one semester. This programme – Excellence in Teaching – has been very successful both on the individual level (participants have gained a lot of new insights) and the institutional level (returning lecturers have managed to improve the teaching methods at their home universities in Sweden).

What challenges must be overcome in securing meaningful and valuable collaborations with overseas partners?

Challenges include:

• Cultural barriers

• Prioritisation – it is easier to give lower priority to a very distant partner than a colleague next door

• Collaborations must be win-win to be sustainable

In terms of sharing of best practice, in what areas do you see Sweden excelling in research and education? Conversely, where might you suggest there is room for improvement – or, at least, potential to reconsider current approaches or strategies?

Sweden has a lot of high quality research and education. We are considered successful in areas of innovation and reform (and Swedish universities collaborate intensively with industry in Sweden, which itself is very international and export-orientated).

Nevertheless, it is always a challenge for a small country like Sweden to strike a balance between breadth and depth – we cannot cover everything. Tuition fees were introduced recently and the management/attraction of international students within this new situation can be improved.

Could you highlight STINT’s most recent dissemination efforts?

We recently published Strategic Internationalisation in Sweden 2012 and a related STINT Forum was held on 11 December, with participating university leaders from Sweden and abroad.

Looking forward, what is your long-term vision regarding research mobility and cooperation between nations in the global context?

The long-term vision is that the international dimension becomes deeply embedded in all activities in the higher education system. Comprehensive internationalisation is at the heart of this vision.

www.stint.se/en  

The Arctic is increasingly a region of major debate given both its role as a lynchpin of the Earth System and the rich resources it contains. What is the current state of international relations regarding the Arctic Region?

The saying ‘high north – low tension’ is often used in connection to the Arctic. Global attention towards the region is growing and the successful cooperation among states in the Arctic has led to low tension in terms of international relations. Our ambition should be to continue a shared commitment to cooperation.

The High North is an up-and-coming arena of international politics. The commercial development of natural resources and environmental challenges has increased the importance of the Arctic. I would like to shift the paradigm slightly to one of ‘high attention – low tension’, both as a fact and an ambition.

How would you sum up the future challenges/opportunities represented by this vast and unique region?

Our awareness and knowledge of the Arctic is changing. New sea routes and natural resource opportunities are opening up and we see new global interest in hard minerals, marine tourism, major fisheries, oil, gas and research. Based on this, we must turn our attention to science in order to gain a better understanding of the relations between the extraction of energy resources, the development of new transport routes and fisheries.

Could you elaborate on the newly proposed national marine research strategy? How does this promote close attention to science?

A group of experts has recently drafted a proposal for the first national marine research strategy this century: Oceans 21. The expert group represent non-governmental organisations working with research, government officials and wider industry.

The strategy suggests that the Arctic should be one of seven main priorities for Norwegian marine research. These other main priorities also include the High North, with focus on areas such as new marine resources, research on ecosystems, and technological progress. The Norwegian Government is now reviewing this important document.

There is no doubt that we place, and will continue to place, huge importance on the Arctic and arctic research. High attention towards the region underlines the fact that we must seek more knowledge. We must work hard to share information and insights into matters concerning the Arctic as well as knowledge about climate change.

The Norwegian Government has decided to build a new ice-class research vessel. We want to improve polar and environmental research as well as the resource mapping in the region. The Government believes that investment in knowledge is important for the development of the High North. With the increased attention towards the Arctic, cooperation is becoming increasingly important.

What are the current challenges facing the fishing industry – both globally and in Norway – and how are you taking action to meet these head on?

With the world’s ever-growing population, food demand will continue to rise. Access to sources of protein from the sea will therefore be of crucial importance, which in turn underlines the importance of a sound fisheries management regime both at national level and between countries.

The Norwegian Government has a clear ambition: that Norway should be the world’s foremost seafood nation. It is a bold ambition, but it reflects a sincere intention to contribute to sustainable food production.

The objective is also to share our knowledge with other nations. Norway has been helped by a long history of fisheries and aquaculture. Norway shares 90 per cent of the fish stocks that we harvest with other nations. International cooperation is therefore important so that our children and grandchildren can continue to harvest from the oceans.

Norway is a major seafood exporter and Norwegian seafood is served on 32 million dinner plates across the world, every day. We also export knowledge on sustainable fisheries. Such knowledge may provide a basis for more countries to increase their food production in a sustainable manner.

How do these challenges specifically relate to the Arctic?

Currently there are no fish stocks of commercial interest in the Central Arctic Ocean. Globally important fisheries are found in the sub-arctic seas surrounding the Arctic Ocean. Indeed, the Arctic is a poorly defined term with several meanings. The least restrictive meaning incorporates the area north of the Arctic Circle. This includes about one-third of Norway and 80 per cent of Norwegian waters.

Some of the richest and best-managed fish stocks in the world live in arctic waters, and the major commercial stocks are in good condition. This is a result of a combination of science, regulations and enforcement. One example is the fishery management in the Barents Sea that is a success; this year the total quota for cod is 1 million tonnes.

There are several reasons for the good condition of the cod stock in the Barents Sea and the success of the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission: firstly, a good knowledge base; secondly, precaution-orientated regulations; and finally, a strict regime for enforcement of regulations.

In addition, Nature has provided us with good year classes of cod in recent years. An important success factor was the act of settling the allocation of common stocks between states in the 1970s.

The introduction of long-term management plans with harvesting rules has translated the precautionary principle into concrete action. There has also been a development towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries where management of fish is seen in relation to its environment.

Enforcement of control measures has also been important. Estimated illegal, unreported catches in the Barents have fallen from almost 100,000 tonnes 10 years ago, to close to zero over the last four years.

Could you offer some insight into the myriad ways in which the Arctic is changing at present?

The use of living marine resources in the Arctic is under development. Aquaculture is of increasing importance to the High North. Marine bioprospecting is also likely to increase.

Ecosystems are dynamic and are always changing. In addition, manmade influences on the climate are visible in the form of melting ice and higher temperatures. It is important to note that fisheries management is about never-ending adjustment when conditions change. The system is built to deal with change through extensive research, annual revisions of regulations and constant observation through control systems.

Norwegian research institutions have, for decades, worked with research and surveillance that track climate change in the Arctic and the consequences of these changes. These detailed and extensive investigations are made possible through annual, regional ecosystem surveys, carried out together with Russia. The Norwegian Institute of Marine Research and the Russian Research Institute PINRO have worked together for more than a century.

Moreover, what does the future hold for the region?

Looking into the future, I hope the Arctic will be a sound marine environment based on cooperation, scientific research and sustainable management. I do on the other hand believe that there will be differences in social, economic and political interests in the Arctic.

Today, cooperation between the Arctic states is good, and increasing. There is widespread agreement that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines rights, responsibilities and obligations in arctic marine and coastal waters. We must accept that there will be disagreements and different views in the future.

The key is that we have strong mechanisms for solving the disagreements and a shared commitment to cooperation. Looking ahead, there are important challenges for fisheries management in the Arctic. This is not least due to changes in the global climate.

Fish stocks in the region are at a high level today, and they are spreading over a larger area in search of food as arctic ice retreats and water temperatures increase. Climate change will mean that stocks will need to spread over an even larger area. An example is the mackerel stock, which has expanded to both the north and west over the last five to six years. A result of this is more mackerel in Faroese and Icelandic waters.

Unfortunately, we are now approaching the fourth year without a coastal state agreement on the management of the mackerel stock. In order to reach a solution, all parties must be willing to negotiate on realistic terms. I highly appreciate the good cooperation between Norway and Iceland on fisheries management and I hope that we will be able to extend this to mackerel as well so that we can reach a well-balanced and sustainable solution for the mackerel stock.

The Norwegian seafood industry exports 32 million meals every day to about 130 countries. The method Norway has used appears to work well: a good knowledge base, effective regulations and strong enforcement.

What final thoughts can you offer concerning collaborative efforts to manage effectively the vital resources of the Arctic and the societal benefits of successfully achieving this task?

I wish to underline our ambition to continue to ensure high attention – low tension in the Arctic.

Norwegian seafood is significant as a renewable natural resource. It supplies work opportunities and important income for the nation. This is a vital point made in the forthcoming white paper on the Norwegian seafood policy.

Everyone working with living marine resources must ensure that we direct sufficient attention at the Arctic as an important supplier of food. We must not forget that a growing world population needs food as much as it needs energy.

The world’s cultivated land is largely in use. The production of seafood demands less fresh water and it lets out fewer greenhouse gases than any other form of animal protein production. Despite this, seafood production represents less than 2 per cent of global food production, according to United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture (FAO ).

Health authorities worldwide, including the World Health Organization (WHO), recommend that we eat more seafood to improve public health. An increase in the global food production, especially protein, must be covered by increasing the production of seafood. We must improve management regimes for key fish stocks. We have to increase the production from aquaculture, and must use more raw materials from wild fisheries and aquaculture. This will help to increase the production of seafood, and thereby ensure more food for the world’s growing population.

www.regjeringen.no

To begin, could you explain the context from which the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists (NJF) first emerged?

Founded in 1918, it is the oldest Nordic association in existence. At that time the research universities were relatively new, having been established at the end of the 1800s. The number of members of NJF increased rapidly early on and amounted to 800 within a year. At the time of the first congress in 1921 the number of attendees exceeded 1,200. When the first NJF congress was arranged in Copenhagen, more than 300 of its members took part. This was a significant breakthrough for NJF.

Against this background, could you summarise the main goals of NJF?

The main goal is to promote and develop interaction between scientists, advisors, teachers and administrators. We are not just a scientific association, but work with members from both private and public sectors. I believe this is what makes us different from other research associations. We focus on our members personally interacting with other researchers and getting to know each other rather than promoting a specific research project.

We also try to interact with the Ministry, the research councils, and those making policies. The Government sees NJF as a fruitful Nordic network with good operative skills, which has led to some successful cooperation from the Ministry. As we move forward we would like to increase our participation in these kinds of collaborations.

By what methods are you promoting agricultural research in the Nordic-Baltic countries?

Our primary method is through arranging the seminars and publishing their results. The focus of our seminars is to gain and share knowledge, experiences and best practices. Seminars provide an excellent opportunity to build up new networks and enhance collaboration between researchers, rural extension and education specialists, and other interested stakeholders.

To organise the seminars we have elected a board in every Nordic country. Members help us to decide what the seminars will focus on, but institutes and colleagues will also offer input. In general, the elected board will suggest topics after having asked their members. The participants at the seminars are mainly from the research sector, but stakeholders from other sectors also attend.

It is a challenge to coordinate a seminar, especially synchronising speakers’ schedules. On average around 50 people attend our seminars, but some have over 200 participants, depending on the popularity of the subject being discussed. For instance, organic farming is a hot topic, creating lots of interest, whereas more specialised subjects might only attract 40-50 attendees.

Seminars strengthen the bonds and form networks between researchers, advisors, students, farmers, representatives of industry and trade. Creating contacts with people from other countries with different kinds of expertise is valuable, making our seminars popular.

What steps must be taken in order to utilise our agricultural and horticultural resources in a more efficient and sustainable manner?

This is an important question and one that is continuously debated in Norway. Parliament has recently released a paper which suggests that we need to produce more food in Norway, stating how this can be done. We need to be more effective in the use of resources, fertilisation and management. This is difficult as there are already many restrictions on farming. Adding to this burden are the issues of soil erosion from snow melt and shorter growing seasons, as well as Norway being a high-cost country. In order to remain viable, agriculture is supported quite heavily by the Government.

Could you expand upon your dissemination strategy? How do you ensure interested parties can access research information generated by the Association’s members?

Traditionally, we have disseminated our work through scientific journals. We also use our website to disseminate our reports from the seminars, as well as contacting our members to keep them updated about the latest developments.

www.njf.nu

Could you begin by explaining the purpose of the Nordic Joint Committee for Agricultural and Food Research (NKJ) and what prompted its inception in 1965?

NKJ is a tool for strengthening the knowledge system in the agricultural and food sector in the Nordic countries. The primary objective of NKJ is to help promote a knowledge-based agriculture and food sector in the Nordic countries. To this end, the Committee encourages and provides support to joint Nordic research cooperation in the agriculture and food sector, including forestry and fisheries. NKJ was established in 1965 as a liaison and coordinating body for the research councils within the agricultural sector in the five Nordic countries.

Within the Nordic region, NKJ has a broad remit. Who are your main stakeholders?

The main stakeholders are the Nordic Council of Ministers, the ministries responsible for agricultural and food research in the Nordic countries, the national research councils, as well as Nordic researchers within agriculture, forestry, food and fish. NKJ’s members are appointed by the Nordic national research councils and ministries (responsible for agricultural and food research), and the Committee cooperates with a wide array of Nordic institutes and bodies under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers.

In what ways is NKJ strengthening the Nordic region’s position as a pioneer in the agricultural and food research in accordance with the objectives of the EU’s 2020 strategy?

NKJ acts far more politically and strategically than it used to. The Committee is presently trying to identify themes/areas with a Nordic interest and placing them into the EU’s 2020 strategy.

Members of NKJ are centrally placed in different committees and fora in Brussels, eg. the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) and FACCE JPI. The Nordic objectives are often discussed and developed between NKJ members and used to express issues with a specific Nordic interest. The Nordic countries were among the first to bring innovation, bioeconomy and food security into EU 2020 discussions.

What activities is the Committee undertaking to enhance European cooperation in agricultural and food research?

The NKJ Secretariat has worked actively to establish and monitor the Committee’s activities outside the Nordic countries and in the European Research Area (ERA). Among others, representatives of NKJ participate in the EC’s meetings within bioeconomy (Standing Committee on Agricultural Research, Strategic Working Group on Biomass – Biomass SCAR SWG).

Alongside another NKJ member, I work with SCAR Plenary and as NKJ’s Chair I am also included in FACCE JPI (Agriculture, Food Security and Climate change Joint Programming), which launched its first Knowledge Hub in 2012 with a focus on food security and climate change. I am also submitting an application as a Nordic member in the European Bioeconomy Panel.

Denmark holds NKJ’s rolling presidency for 2010-14. Have any specific goals been laid down for this period?

NKJ is working in accordance with its strategy for 2011-14. The primary objectives are:

• Promote the development of a knowledge-based agricultural and food sector in the Nordic countries

• Initiate and support joint Nordic research efforts, to strengthen the knowledge base for policy making in these areas in the Nordic region

• Coordinate/integrate national research programmes in the area of agriculture and food

• Enhance the position of the Nordic region in agricultural and food research on the European research agenda and promote the further development of European research cooperation in this area

• Increase the international visibility of Nordic agricultural and food researchers

Could you discuss NKJ’s role as a funding body and highlight any key projects or developments on this front?

One key project for NKJ is The Nordic Bioeconomy Initiative (NBI) – a platform encompassing a variety of activities such as research, infrastructure cooperation, coordination of national priorities, dialogue meetings, conferences and workshops. It is based in the primary sector, which is comprised of the agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food industries, while at the same time recognising the importance of working together with other sectors. The initiative identifies central thematic areas considered to be important at the Nordic level. These build on European and national priorities and as such should not be considered exclusive and distinct, but rather as initial priorities that will be subject to change, depending on national priorities and European initiatives.

To whom does NKJ serve as an advisory body? In what areas does it offer its expertise?

We advise a range of stakeholders including the Nordic Council of Ministers, the ministries responsible for agricultural and food research in the Nordic countries, the national research councils, as well as Nordic researchers within agriculture, forestry, food and fish.

Cooperation is essential and NKJ works close with its partners and can therefore offer expertise within forestry (the Nordic Forest Research Cooperation Committee – SNS) genetics (the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre – NordGen), aquaculture (the Nordic Working Group for Fisheries and Aquaculture, – AG-Fisk), agriculture (Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientist – NJF) and veterinary medicine (The Nordic Committee for Veterinary Scientific Cooperation – NKVet).

What challenges is climate change posing to agriculture within the Nordic context?

Climate will in many ways have a positive impact on the agricultural production in the Nordic countries. The increased Nordic production capacity also implies a greater responsibility for the region.

The Nordic countries produce large amounts of biomass in industries such as agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry. The anticipated future climate change will have an impact on Nordic biomass production, and it is estimated that Nordic biomass will increase by at least 30 per cent. In addition, the production of biomass can be developed to become more efficient and dynamic, thus increasing Nordic capacity to generate even more biomass. Obviously, arctic areas are also affected by climate change and will experience an increase in the production of biomass. The NBI will therefore place particular emphasis on the Arctic region.

Agriculture faces many interlinked changes – for instance, in the face of a rising global population, there are fewer resources available for food production, while agricultural resources are increasingly being used for non-food purposes, eg. biomass. In this light, how important is the need to adopt a holistic approach to agricultural research?

A holistic approach is incredibly important when agricultural research attempts to address a rising population and resource availability – which NKJ is trying to highlight in the NBI strategy. Objectives of the NBI strategy include encouraging a proactive response to climate change, opening new markets, creating new jobs, contributing to food security and public health, and securing access to biobased feedstock in the Nordic countries and beyond. It also includes improving the sustainable management and utilisation of biological resources and strengthening the Nordic primary sector in order to optimise the local economic and social benefits.

Could you detail some of the major technological developments taking place in the areas of ICT, nanotechnology, biotechnology and environmental technology? How relevant are these to agricultural and food research in the Nordic countries?

A number of concrete examples of developments within ICT and environmental technologies exist: controlled-traffic farming using the geopositional control of field traffic to optimise yields and inputs and reducing negative environmental impacts; agricultural robots that can replace manual labour in the fields; and advanced systems for automated indoor climate control that can reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to name a few.

Molecular plant sciences and modern biotechnologies within animal research should be able to address the negative effects of climate change, reducing risks for health (both plant and animal health) as well as the demand for water.

nkj.nordforsk.org

How can agriculture and food research help boost innovation and competitiveness in the many agricultural industries?

First and foremost, the industries in agriculture need updated knowledge, and the research arena is a key provider of this.

A large part of the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s appropriation goes to research. The goal is to strengthen and increase competitiveness in the industries, as an instrument to mobilise the private sector to invest more in research and development. The sector has seen major changes due to changed conditions, technological developments and new knowledge. New products and services, new ways of collaborating and organising business activities will enable opportunities for future growth in the sector. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food expects increased commercialisation and innovation based on knowledge from its leading research institutes, and is working hard to facilitate such a development.

Furthermore, the Ministry assumes that cooperation between the agricultural academic research institutes and the private sector should be developed further, with the aim of increasing competitiveness throughout the agricultural and food sector. In addition, The Foundation for Research Levy on Agricultural Products is intended to support the food research institute Nofima’s long-term efforts to increase competitiveness in the food industry.

What grand challenges and opportunities exist for Norwegian agriculture in a changed climate?

Increased precipitation is a grand challenge for Norwegian agriculture and food production. This causes difficulties for agricultural production, especially around harvest season. Floods can also be a challenge in some areas, while droughts also occur from time to time. Increase in precipitation and/or temperature can enhance other challenges such as pests and diseases.

On the other hand, a changing climate offers new opportunities to Norwegian agriculture. The growth season in Norway is traditionally short due to low annual temperatures. A higher temperature can prolong the growing season, and may allow for increased production. Also, new land areas may become suitable for production. However, there are also other factors important to the level of expanded utilisation.

How will Norway increase food production and adapt to a changed climate?

The overall aim of the Norwegian agriculture and food policy is to increase food production. Research and research-based innovation is one of the most important policy instruments in order to reach this goal. The Norwegian Government therefore facilitates continuous high production of knowledge in this area.

Research will reveal opportunities and contribute to increased profitability in Norwegian agriculture in a changing climate. It is important to maintain or increase research which enables today’s agriculture and food production to meet these challenges and utilise given opportunities. We also vitally need a competitive and skilled agricultural sector to exploit possibilities and adapt to climate change. To ensure sustainable food production in a time with limited resources, population growth and climate changes, strong links and collaboration between policy makers, researchers, advisory services and farmers are also important.

The average age on the acquisition of agricultural land in Norway had been increasing until recently. What could be the reasons for this?

Variations in average age on the acquisition of agricultural land do occur over time. There may be several reasons for this. Agriculture is labour-intensive but young farmers and families desire as much leisure time as others. This means the sector is in strong competition with other professions for labour. However, in the recent years we see a positive trend, and the average age of acquisition of agricultural land is lower than, for example, 1979.

What measures are necessary to change this trend and make agricultural properties more appealing to younger farmers?

Good incomes and favourable conditions for investments are important for young farmers’ interest in a career in agriculture. The Norwegian Government’s ambition is that agriculture should have a decent income for the effort in production. It is also important to spread optimism and raise the status of the agricultural profession. Farming and food production is the most important profession we have!

How important is expertise and competence in the agricultural industry to achieve the political goals of a 1 per cent increase in food production per year?

Expertise is essential to increase production in Norwegian agriculture. Food production is very demanding in a country with a short and cold summer and where most of the land area is mountains and fjords. Increased food production requires expertise in all stages of production and sales. Education and knowledge are instruments for innovation.

What steps could be taken in order to recruit farmers to the industry and recruit more young people to study in the traditional agronomist sciences? What level of education is important to recruit for the short term?

It is vital to convince young people that farming has a future and that it is possible to have important and meaningful employment with good incomes. It is crucial to recruit more people to agricultural education at all levels. The most important task is to start with the youngest to generate interest in agriculture as a career.

Finally, could you detail the Ministry’s extensive work in the forestry sector?

A century ago, it was commonly believed that Norway’s forests would soon no longer exist, and initiatives were implemented to counteract the deforestation. As a result, the annual felling volume has been relatively stable for the last 80 years, while the volume of forest and the annual increment of new forest have increased two and a half times during this period. Converted to the current value of the NOK, timber prices have halved in the past 30 years. During the same period, the number of people employed in forestry and the forestry industry has halved, and the traditional forestry worker has been replaced by felling machines.

In the last 20 years, the annual planted area and the area of seeding forest has more than halved, and the building of woodland roads has been reduced to one-tenth. In 2010, the turnover in the forestry industry in Norway was NOK 44 billion. This corresponds to 5.8 per cent of the total turnover in Norwegian industry.

Forests, climate and wood production

The Norwegian Government has developed a policy and tools for promoting innovative wood products. This is an essential part of our forest policy. The resource base of Norwegian forests is strong. Norway harvests less than 40 per cent of the annual increment – far less than neighbouring Sweden. Increased activity in the forest sector is an important goal. Wood is a renewable material and will become increasingly important in the future. Forestry is also important for the economy, employment and social structures in the rural parts of Norway.

Norway has traditionally used wood in construction and it is still the main choice for small houses. The transfer of knowledge is especially important to the construction of larger buildings – and especially multi-storey buildings.

Numerous examples exist where the pinnacle of Norwegian architecture concurs with the heights of the country’s resources: the tourist cabin at Preikestolen, Vennesla bibliotek and Kilden cultural centre in Kristiansand.

Equally important, work on promoting innovative and increased use of wood also has its background in the policy for combating climate change.

Deforestation

Deforestation and forest degradation account for one-sixth of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation is the permanent reallocation of forest areas, and largely takes place in developing countries. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is an important and appropriate initiative in the fight against global warming. Norway launched the climate and forest initiative in 2007, in which it committed to contribute up to NOK 3 billion annually to measures to fight deforestation in developing countries.

At the same time, forests play an important role in the climate system. The total land areas around the globe absorbs one-quarter of the total CO₂ emissions. Forests cover about 30 per cent of the land area in Norway, and the forest removal accounts for a volume of CO₂ equivalent to about half of our total annual greenhouse gas emissions. The Norwegian National Budget for 2012 estimates that the annual net removals of CO₂ in Norwegian forests will be about 12 million tons higher in 2020 than in 1990.

In accordance with the Norwegian position in the international climate negotiations and the key role the forest carbon sinks play in Norway, the Norwegian Government will pursue an active forest policy through measures that increase the forest carbon stocks. The forest resources are also an important source of renewable energy, and for production of wood materials that can replace less environment friendly materials. The forest’s role as a renewable resource is reinforced through research and long-term sustainable forest management.

www.regjeringen.no/lmd