Natural hazards have always profoundly affected life on Earth. Today, demographic pressures, unsustainable land use, environmental mismanagement and, potentially, climate change all combine to increase the risk of disasters caused by extreme natural events. These events damage property, infrastructure and economies and cause inexpressible human suffering. In 2010, a total of 385 natural disasters killed more than 297,000 people worldwide, affecting over 217 million others and causing nearly €100 billion in damages.

Living with risk

One thing is clear: there is no safe place on Earth when it comes to natural hazards. The risk is there and it is real, but properly assessing risk is a complex problem.

The term ‘risk’ refers to the probability of a hazardous event occurring and its negative consequences. However, while hazards themselves have been studied in detail, much less is known about their impacts on people or assets. This side of the equation is greatly affected by risk perception – how do people, communities, cities and regions perceive their situations? These are important factors to consider when assessing the potential negative consequences of a disaster.

As the world continues to be confronted by natural hazards, single states will always struggle to provide an adequate response when working in isolation. Therefore, it makes more sense to address such hazards from a European and global perspective.

Research priorities

Research into natural hazards also needs to be conducted on transnational and international levels. This is the goal of the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), through which the EC supports research into the entire ‘hazardvulnerability- risk’ chain. Main priorities include: hazard assessment; triggering factors and forecasting; vulnerability assessment and societal impacts; risk assessment and management; and multi-risk evaluation and mitigation.

FP7-funded research delivers critical support for key Union policy initiatives, including the Water Framework Directive, the Flood Directive and the Communication on Water Scarcity and Drought. EU policy embraces a strong international orientation, intended to foster more cross-border cooperation and solidarity, while promoting new public-private relationships. The Commission also supports efforts to improve the dissemination of research results. By working to promote communication and dialogue between key stakeholders, scientists, policy makers and the general public, the EC hopes to ensure that all citizens are better aware of hazards and risks as well as what can be done about them.

Forecasting and early warning

Volcanic and seismic events are among the most dramatic agents of change on Earth. Volcanic emissions, including gas and ash, can affect human health and life, as well as air traffic and other transport systems. Meanwhile, many people in areas at high risk of earthquakes still live in buildings that do not meet modern earthquake-resistance standards and that cannot be brought up to standard in an economically viable way. It is therefore vital to be able to predict and prepare people for these events.

Forecasting and real-time warnings enable quicker and more efficient disaster response, ultimately saving both lives and property. Accuracy and reliability are crucial – the consequences of too many false alarms can be grave in terms of public trust. The challenge, now being addressed by EU-funded projects such as VUELCO (see p14), is to enhance knowledge of the causative links between volcanic subsurface processes, precursors, unrest indicators and imminent eruption.

Effective support for policy

Developing good policy aimed at reducing vulnerability and better managing the risk of natural hazards means, first of all, knowing the facts. Policy makers need access to science and scientists in order to develop the best possible plans. Within this context, improving dialogue channels between key stakeholders and authorities at relevant levels is crucial to the development of a real and long-term risk reduction perspective.

The Commission interacts regularly with UNISDR (see p6) and communication takes place between the Commission’s own departments for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, the Environment, Climate Action, Research and Innovation and the European Environment Agency (see p67) regarding its disaster-related projects

EU research: Natural hazards and disasters is published by the European Commission and is available for free downloaded from their online bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

Could you introduce the International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI)? Upon what principles was it established?

IRI was established in 1996 by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Columbia University. Science is at our core, and the innovative research we conduct contributes to knowledge about climate and its impacts on the most vulnerable. IRI develops and shares prediction and forecasting products and other climate-related data that people need in order to turn climate risks into opportunities. We work with practitioners and decision makers in agriculture, health, water and several other sectors. IRI aims to create solutions that ultimately will increase adaptability to long-term climate change. Our work takes us around the world, training and collaborating with local, national and global partners to bring about real change.

What is climate risk management and how is this being integrated at IRI?

Climate risk management is a process that informs real-world decision making through the application of climate knowledge and information. Our approach consists of several interrelated components:

• Identify countries or regions most vulnerable to climate variability and change – almost every country is susceptible to droughts, floods, heat waves, etc. but the ability to mitigate adverse effects will depend on their livelihoods, technical capacity to anticipate and manage climate impacts, and the policies that exist to support action

• Provide climate information to support decisions – this includes the availability of observational data about past climate, monitoring capability of current climate and environmental conditions, and demonstrated skill in predicting future climate

• Identify technologies and practices that optimise results in coming years – forecasts could also help food security agencies determine if, when and where to pre-position food aid in anticipation of a crisis. Some crop failures may not be avoidable, but every famine is. In the water sector, engineers using good quality climate information can optimise the design of new dams; for existing ones, they can use the information to make better decisions on how to allocate the water, or better quantify the chances of getting extremely low or high reservoir levels

• Demonstrate the potential usefulness of climate information to support climate-related decisions – this will almost always include more factors than just climate. Demonstrations are most effective if conducted collaboratively with decision makers, as well as scientists, practitioners, and information providers. These individuals and events enable implementation of climate-related risk management

• Develop, if necessary, financial tools that are appropriate to the climate related risk and that can mediate residual risk – even the best quality climate information will still show a range of possible outcomes and thus risk. Climate or weather index insurance, for example, can enable rain-fed farmers to take loans for their seeds and materials without worrying about going bankrupt in the event of a drought

• Look for training and capacity-building opportunities – which are important throughout the process and across the groups involved. Whether it is about understanding the factors involved in climate and its prediction, technical tools that can be used to create or apply information, or sharing of best practices through successes and lessons learned, this is a nascent field. Teaching and training, again in a collaborative sense, are key elements in managing climate-related risks

In which areas do you predominantly work? What are the main climate related issues facing these locations?

We predominantly work in developing countries, with major activities in Africa, South America and Asia. These regions face a range of climate-related risks. Areas dependent on rain-fed agriculture are constantly under threat of food shortages and insecurity. Extreme rainfall events and flooding often turn into disasters that impact roads, homes, crops, and water quality. Variations in temperature and rainfall from one year to the next, and even one decade to the next, can alter the incidence and distribution of vector- borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, and threaten to overwhelm public health systems.

What efforts are you making in order to specifically meet the needs of the developing world?

The Institute works with partners at the local, national, and regional level to address their climate issues. Often solutions start with existing, but under-utilised, information that can bring better awareness of opportunities and risk mitigation – whether it’s analysing past risks, monitoring present conditions, or forecasting future seasons. In many cases, this process identifies gaps in existing information or in the scientific understanding that is needed to address the issue at hand. This is how our climate and sectorial research priorities are often defined: through a problem-driven, real-world context.

Our staff work with providers of climate information such as national meteorological services, local practitioners (water managers and agricultural extension officers), and decision and policy makers such as government ministry officials. IRI also collaborates with institutions that have a global reach like the United States Agency for International Development and development banks. These partnerships can offer development professionals a better appreciation of how climate information could be brought into their projects to create more effective and sustainable outcomes in the developing world.

Could you outline the main objectives of the Environmental Monitoring Program at IRI? What is the current focus of the Program?

The goal of the Program is to provide IRI clients and partners with state-of-the- art data and products to facilitate their work in climate-sensitive sectors such as public health, disaster management and food security. We ensure our partners have access to the most reliable and relevant information to aid their decision making and planning.

We currently focus on monitoring satellite-derived and on-the-ground estimates of vegetation, rainfall, surface temperature, surface water, atmospheric dust, land cover, and evapotranspiration. IRI develops new products in partnership with national meteorological agencies around the world, as well as US institutions such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We make them freely available online through our data library and map rooms. These products feed into operational early-warning systems for health, natural disasters, agriculture and food security, to name a few.

How is IRI demonstrating its commitment to training and education?

We understand that simply providing products and tools or publishing papers is not enough to affect real operational change. Every year, we hold numerous training workshops around the world and at Columbia University to train scientists and decision makers, for example, on how to generate seasonal forecasts for their countries based on state-of-the-art techniques and how to convert those forecasts into usable information such as rainfall, crop and river flow estimates. The participants come from national meteorological agencies, regional climate centres and universities.

We train public-health professionals from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national health ministries on how to understand and utilise climate information to make planning decisions for malaria, dengue and other climate-sensitive diseases. We are also deeply committed to education; we train graduate students in Columbia University’s Earth and Environmental Sciences Department and its Master’s programme on Climate and Society. The Environmental Monitoring Program is also a node for NASA’s DEVELOP programme, hosts and mentors students to work on applied science research projects.

Where would you like to see IRI in the future? Are there any particular goals that you would like to achieve?

I would like IRI to become a primary supporting partner on climate research, decision support systems and training programmes for the international-scale work of UN institutions such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and WHO, humanitarian institutions such as the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, as well as development agencies. Our collaborations with these organisations over the past 15 years, in many cases, has led to real operational change and a more sophisticated understanding of climate risk management as it pertains to sustainable development and adaptation. I see enormous opportunity in taking these initial successes to a higher level, significantly expanding the scale of impact.

To address the broad audiences these organisations serve, we are working toward the systematisation of many successful elements of our work. This includes information across timescales, which connects both shorter and longer timescales to the seasonal forecast information we already produce. It includes the development of financial tools that can be understood, trusted and implemented at local-to-regional levels, so that climate information can be used optimally. A range of training and educational materials and programmes that we have developed are also included here.

In terms of new areas for our work, I would like to strengthen our connections to other climate-sensitive sectors, such as ecosystems and energy. Training and capacity building are also key components of our mission – as important as collaborative development of information. The balance of these activities varies with country or region, but both elements exist in all our work.

www.iri.columbia.edu

October 2012 marked 40 years since the European Council meeting in Paris at which the decision was made to establish an environmental policy in what has since evolved to become the EU. It would have been difficult to forecast at that point in time quite how extensive the influence of the EU would be in shaping policies previously determined largely at national level. There is a rule of thumb that about 80 per cent of environmental policy measures in European countries originate from the EU.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) was founded soon after the Paris Summit and from the outset has combined an overview of the way in which EU policy is evolving and could develop in future with research work on specific issues relevant to the current agenda. In the last year, dozens of projects have been completed covering questions as diverse as funding for climate change, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and biodiversity, a review of EU water policy, environmentally harmful subsidies, the impacts of bioenergy on climate change, marine litter and extending producers’ responsibility for waste management.

Most of all, however, 2012 was a year for looking ahead.

Valuing global biodiversity

In June, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janiero provided a global forum at which the EU made the case for a greener economy and improved resource management. In turn, it was challenged on the contribution it would make to a development agenda, implying a significant shift in the pattern of trade, aid and resource management.

The Institute was active at the Conference, in particular presenting work on the green economy and the challenge of valuing biodiversity and other natural resources more accurately. There is increasingly widespread recognition of the need to invest in environmental accounting in the public and private sectors. As an active partner in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Initiative, IEEP has presented a range of case studies from different parts of the world as well as the generic need to capture the true value of ecosystems, both for their own sake and for their contribution to human welfare. If these principles were adhered to, there would be significant changes in decisions on the ground. At a global level, the Institute is exploring these in a new project for the Secretariat of the RAMSAR Convention on taking the TEEB approach to wetlands. Often these are poorly managed because of a failure to appreciate their contribution to ecosystem services such as flood control, coastal protection, water purification and food production as well as biodiversity. In parallel, IEEP is working with partners in Scandinavia in exploring how the TEEB approach could be applied in the countries belonging to the Nordic Council.

Water

Water policy in the EU was subject to a detailed review during the year, starting with a ‘fitness check’ analysis and a consultation, moving through to the publication of a Blueprint on Future Policy in Cyprus in November. This highlighted some substantial achievements, including significant reductions in surface and groundwater pollution and large scale investment in water treatment. Progress in using water more efficiently has been less impressive and relatively few countries have introduced effective water pricing, widely recognised as an effective means of curbing more extravagant use. The Institute was actively involved in the review and the thinking behind the Blueprint, scrutinising progress in implementing EU legislation and the areas where problems remain. A stronger focus in the Member States on achieving the outcomes previously agreed in the Water Framework Directive is critical if standards are to improve further and the increasing stress on water supplies in many parts of Europe is to be contained. The Institute sees this as an important component of the wider debate on resource efficiency and it will continue to be a priority in the coming years.

Making best use of Europe’s land resources

Policies on agriculture and climate are increasingly intertwined. During 2012 the Institute undertook a number of studies on different ways in which ‘greening’ measures within the CAP might work in practice. For example, the Institute considered both potential and operational aspects of ‘ecological focus areas’, a proposal from the Commission to dedicate 7 per cent of the agricultural area on many farms to environmental forms of land management. This offers great potential to reduce soil erosion, water pollution and loss of biodiversity, but only if measures on the ground are well directed and designed to fit local conditions. There are tensions between those approaches which are simple to monitor and enforce and those which are highly tailored to specific conditions. Papers from the Institute were widely circulated in the Commission and European Parliament.

In parallel, most European countries have been making greater use of bioenergy in order to meet their targets for renewable energy supply in 2020 and to comply with EU requirements for the use of biofuels. The wisdom of using biofuels from conventional food crops is increasingly being questioned; one study from the Institute this year showed the impact of biofuel policy on increasing global food prices, drawing on the different economic models now available in the literature. Some of the principal alternatives to conventional biofuels involve greater utilisation of waste and residues, many of them derived from the agriculture and forestry sectors. For example, another Institute study this year investigated the availability of straw from cereal crops as a source of bioenergy and biofuels. Increasingly, the research agenda is turning to the issue of longer-term land availability and the best means of using this scarce resource so that the ‘food versus fuel’ debate can be underpinned by better data and more robust analysis.

The next decade

On a broader front, IEEP has been considering the future direction of environmental policy in Europe. At a time when economic crises have dominated political attention there has been a danger of overlooking the multiple environmental challenges identified by organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank – organisations not noted for undue alarm about environmental trends. The EU now needs to make a decisive shift in ambition to meet global targets on climate and to consume a more proportionate share of the world’s resources.

With aid from the Villum Foundation a series of meetings with stakeholders and government officials was organised. This focussed on the priorities for the next decade and discussed which should appear in the EU’s Environment Action Programme due to be agreed in 2013 with a planned duration of at least seven years. This Programme provides an opportunity to draw together the different strands of environmental policy and signpost both new objectives and the means for achieving them. The results of the exploration were brought together in a report Running out of time? Stepping up action for Europe’s environment, published in December. This was presented at a stakeholder conference in Brussels organised on the same theme at which Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for the Environment, gave one of the first presentations of the proposals for the Seventh Environmental Action Programme, published a few days earlier.

There are several common strands in the Commission’s proposals and in the Institute’s perspective over a longer time period. One of these is that the gap between what has been agreed in European environmental legislation and practice on the ground has become much too large. There are many means of reducing it, including improved monitoring and enforcement regimes, increased transparency in the compliance and complaints procedures (with more access for civil society) and a greater European role in improving inspections on the ground.

There are also opportunities to focus EU funding mechanisms more precisely on environmental benefits. The Institute has undertaken several research projects during the year to examine the scope for aligning expenditure programmes with decarbonisation and biodiversity agendas putting ‘climate proofing’ into practice. This amounts to far more than earmarking budget lines for specific environmental purposes; there are issues of classification, monitoring, evaluation, guidance, capacity building and targeting funds in key areas where additional resources can be leveraged to the greatest extent possible. From a policy perspective, the strong rationale for prioritising low carbon and other public objectives has to be confronted with the realities of political hesitation and the current emphasis on administrative simplicity. Workable solutions are at a premium.

Innovative thinking and a capacity to integrate the different strands of policy bearing on the environment will be critical to delivering an increasingly demanding agenda within and beyond the Seventh Environmental Action Programme.

www.ieep.eu

Can you begin by outlining the main aims and objectives of the Joint Programming Initiative – Water Challenges for a Changing World (Water JPI)?

The Water JPI is part of the broader JPI process. In 2008, the European Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) agents were called upon to identify Grand Challenges which could benefit from a European approach. These Challenges correspond to knowledge fields in which the efforts of individual European countries will never be sufficient. 10 such Grand Challenges were identified covering different aspects (eg. health, culture, natural resources). The Water JPI, set to commence its Programming activities in 2013, is one of them. Today 17 European countries and the EC are partners of the Water JPI. JPIs focus on developing joint RDI activities and coordinating the national and regional RDI agendas.

European efforts to meet the current water RDI standards in Europe will be formulated in three coordinated directions: Horizon 2020, the Water JPI and the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Water. Coordination between these three pillars will be required for effectiveness.

European water policy has ambitious goals and deals with complex and systemic issues. It sets challenges for European RDI in the field of water: developing new knowledge and reinforcing mechanisms for knowledge and technology transfer. The Water JPI aims at tackling the ambitious challenge of achieving sustainable water systems for a sustainable economy in Europe and abroad. This will be obtained through a multidisciplinary approach encompassing economic, ecological, societal and technological considerations.

To contextualise this issue, could you summarise the challenges that Europe’s water sector faces?

The Grand Challenge of the Water JPI is certainly ambitious, as it addresses a number of issues of significant importance. Firstly, there is a growing gap between global water demand and water supply. The fast approaching bio-based economy will exert pressure to enlarge this gap. Secondly, with growing water demand and the discharge of different types of pollutants to the environment, our ecosystems will be threatened by overexploitation of water sources and increased quality problems. Thirdly, human activities and climate change are expected to intensify drought in some areas and flooding in others. This will result in damage to the ecosystems and society as a whole. Coordination of national and regional RDI policies and programmes will be used to tackle the different aspects of the Grand Challenge: economic, ecological, technological and societal.

According to the Global Water Intelligence Report 2011, the European water market will have an estimated turnover of US $43 billion in 2015, while the worldwide turnover will amount to $246 billion. The European water industry can benefit from this market, developing customised solutions for site-specific problems. To be competitive, investments in generating knowledge and its valorisation are essential.

Access to water is a basic societal need. Its quantity and quality affect the health and wellbeing of citizens in Europe and abroad, and this is of course strongly related to economic strength. Yet the anthropogenic pressures and the degradation of biological integrity of ecosystems contribute significantly to the decrease of water resources. Ecological challenges include the preservation and protection of waters as a crucial asset for sustainable development.

The current development of water technology is insufficient to meet the Grand Challenge of achieving sustainable water systems. Consequently, major scientific and technological breakthroughs are needed in all areas of water use and management. Crossovers are required with related scientific fields, such as energy, sensors, nanotechnology and health.

How are you tackling the ambitious goal of achieving sustainable water systems for a sustainable economy in Europe?

The Water JPI will address its objectives through the implementation of a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. At this time, efforts focus on the development of this document, which will be built around five research topics: maintaining ecosystem sustainability; developing safe water systems for citizens, promoting competitiveness in the water industry; implementing a water-wise bio-based economy; and closing the water cycle gap.

Agenda implementation will require a number of different actions. The development of joint activities will soon begin, with the publication by mid-2013 of a joint call for proposals. This will lead to RDI groups from different countries in Europe working together on projects with a European dimension, and funded by their national programmes. Partner countries will coordinate their national and regional agendas to exploit synergies and avoid duplications. This is a long-lasting process which will feed on the success of JPI activities. It is expected that through effective coordination at national level, partner countries will be able to obtain more RDI results per unit investment.

To what extent is your approach multidisciplinary and how important is this to achieving your objectives?

A multidisciplinary approach is essential to tackling the variety of challenges described above. As a consequence, the associated RDI programmes from partner countries show large differences in approach in a number of dimensions. Some programmes are thematic, focusing on specific aspects of the water challenges (from ecosystems to water technology, social sciences or applied mathematics); others just specialise on water or cover the whole variety of scientific fields. Some emphasise research and are only interested in the production of unspecific knowledge; others finance innovation in companies through the implementation of focused scientific knowledge. Some finance bottom-up, blue sky research, and select proposals on excellence; others use a top-down approach, and offer very focused, thematically narrow calls for proposals. Finally, some programmes specialise on projects, while others also focus on mobility or infrastructure. The successful uptake of the RDI results ensuing from Water JPI activities will be significantly boosted by an effective multidisciplinary approach.

With global investments in water technology increasing every year, the water market is very competitive. How is Europe keeping up with this? Has there been an increase in job availability in the sector?

To remain at the forefront of this competitive business, innovation is essential. European water businesses must enhance their capacity to cope with economic uncertainties, as well as demographic, behavioural and climatic changes. In recent decades, the development of business opportunities outside Europe has been very important. European corporations and SMEs are populating the water world, particularly emerging countries. Sustaining this international presence and business heavily depends on the innovation potential, and therefore on the production and valorisation of knowledge.

Ecosystem services and biodiversity are intrinsically linked with water. To what extent is the Water JPI working in these related areas to improve water sustainability?

An integrated, transdisciplinary research approach is particularly required to analyse and control the influence of external factors on biodiversity and on ecosystem services. The Water JPI is committed to address aspects such as the exhaustion, overexploitation and depletion of water resources; pollution; climate change, inducing short- to long-term variations in water availability; extreme events (droughts and floods); sea water intrusion; and morphological changes/ infrastructures and works on rivers and lakes.

Pollutants are damaging the natural balance of European ecosystems. Among its goals, this JPI aims at developing indicators and models for monitoring threats, risk assessment and early warning, as well as enhancing ecosystem resilience to stress with regards to human pressures.

What role can industry play in water reuse and nutrient recovery?

The possibilities for industrial action in water are enormous. The EC has developed a resource efficiency policy which is currently being realised through developments in raw materials and circular economies for a number of industrial commodities. Industries are charging cities and factories for their water treatment services. In the near future, nutrient (and energy) recovery from waste water could very well finance these services. In the medium term phosphorous depletion will threaten agricultural production worldwide; however, this critical nutrient could be extracted from agricultural waste water and reused for fertilisation. Circular economies for this and other elements will enable the control of ecosystem degradation while contributing to secure agricultural production; nutrient recovery brings benefits to all actors in the water arena.

Can you outline the economic benefits – not only in the agriculture sector but across the board – available to those that successfully reduce water waste?

Adjusting water use to requirements will not only bring economic benefits to all sectors, but – most importantly – will be required from all sectors. While agriculture is and will remain the most water-consuming sector in Europe, in many instances it is also very efficient. For example, urban irrigation in private households has often been found to use between two and four times its water requirements. This situation is far worse than in agricultural irrigation, where water costs, water scarcity and professional management lead to far more efficient water use.

Will farmers improve their benefits by using water more cautiously? I do not think this is the case in the long run, since prices will adjust to reward farmers for the utility their products give to end-users. However, what is certainly true is that farmers will not be able to secure water resources for their farming operations if they misuse water quantity and quality.

What research in water infrastructures is still needed to improve their design and maintenance?

Water infrastructure requires research to improve performance both under standard and critical conditions, to reduce vulnerability to natural and manmade hazards, and to reduce operation and management costs. New materials, standards and management models are required for the cost-efficient exploitation of these resources. Millions of kilometres of pipelines and remote pumping stations, valves, treatment plants and reservoirs represent a dream opportunity for the information technology sector. Communications, expert systems, telemetry and remote control are only incipiently exploited at present, and will soon be standard procedures in developed and developing countries. Market possibilities for infrastructure design, construction and operation are virtually unlimited and required in significant measure to sustain European market penetration.

You have set an ambitious target to achieve sustainable water systems for a sustainable economy. What do the next 10 years hold for the Water JPI?

The EIP on Water will support innovation efforts by removing barriers to innovation and actively supporting innovation activities. Given that both the EIP and the Water JPI will start their activities in 2013, while Horizon 2020 will start in 2014, the European water RDI sector is on the move!

Our objectives are set for 2020, and require very important efforts in the seven years to come. The Water JPI has committed to extending joint programming to 20 per cent of the national funds used for water RDI in Europe. This means mobilising more than €70 million a year, representing about half of the water RDI funding effort currently performed by the Framework Programme (€130 million a year). Although the Water JPI has set a wide variety of objectives, the capacity to mobilise resources through the implementation of Joint Activities is indeed a key success indicator. Building a culture of Joint Programming in Water is another key milestone to be reached by 2020

www.waterjpi.eu

Firstly, could you provide a brief overview of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)?

The BBSRC is one of seven UK research councils and principal funder of bioscience. We have a Royal Charter with a broad remit, covering basic and applied research, and postgraduate training. Our strategy embraces advancing fundamental knowledge, three thematic areas (outlined below), and three enabling areas – knowledge exchange, innovation and skills; developing new tools and techniques that can be applied more generally in biology and working in partnership. It’s a combination of advancing basic understanding and then applying it to some of today’s challenges, whether global or UK-based. One of my roles, as science becomes increasingly globalised, is to promote our international agenda and help forge new partnerships and funding consortia.

BBSRC has a broad remit. What are the Research Council’s key priorities?

Our Strategic Plan, The Age of Bioscience, outlines how we see bioscience as making a major contribution to some major challenges we face in the 21st Century. Our bedrock activity is supporting world-class science with the potential for big societal impacts.

Our three thematic areas are:

• Basic bioscience underpinning health: we do not focus on specific diseases but on understanding the mechanisms that can promote good health. We have a particular focus on healthy ageing – ie. staying healthy for longer. Linked to this is a keen interest in the functioning of the gut, diet, nutrition and their relationship with health

• Bioenergy and industrial biotechnology: sustainably produced biomass will be a key source of new materials, chemicals and renewable energy. BBSRC’s sustainable bioenergy programme has now broadened out to include industrial biotechnology and look long-term at the production of green chemicals, high value biological products and, eventually replacing petro-chemical feedstocks

• Food security: when the food security challenge came to the fore around 2007, BBSRC was well positioned having maintained investment in this area when less fashionable, but we recognised the need to increase our support. We established a strong food security programme and also recognised that the breadth of this issue is such that it needs the involvement of a whole range of disciplines. The Council stimulated the establishment of the UK Global Food Security Partnership, a collaboration between around 10 UK funding organisations, including the Department for International Development; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Food Standards Agency; and other research councils. This has allowed us to work together on cross-cutting themes and to identify priorities, making sure our investments are optimised

Working with our research partners we have encouraged a greater degree of collaboration around key themes, recognising that a university or research institute often can’t provide the whole solution, but working with others can achieve a much greater impact.

To what extent does BBSRC consider the link between biofuels and food security?

We see the two areas as complementary. A key aim is to increase the total amount of biomass – be it for food or energy crops – and to seek better understanding of the basic mechanisms for this such as photosynthesis. We don’t fully understand this complex process which works far more efficiently in some plants than others. BBSRC is supporting research that underpins the resource efficiency of plants, regardless of whether they are used for food, fuel or other products.

In terms of food versus fuel, the focus of our programme on bioenergy is looking to use marginal lands that are unsuitable for growing food crops. Good progress is being made in this area in crops such as Willow and Miscanthus giant grasses. A related theme is to utilise crop and food wastes. We look at the sustainability of the whole system and its effect on the environment: for example, is it carbon positive or neutral? So, for both food security and bioenergy we are not just focused on producing more but also doing so in a sustainable way.

How does BBSRC ensure that the research it funds is having an impact on the ground, both in policy and at a community level?

We place great emphasis on funding only outstanding proposals which are internationally competitive by ensuring that applications are reviewed against demanding criteria and through independent peer review. Besides the science in the proposal needing to be credible and well-constructed, we ask researchers to provide the anticipated impact of their research project. By ‘impact’ we mean the benefits scientific research has on the economy, society and knowledge. For example, it is no use doubling wheat yield while creating a variety that lacks vital micronutrients or that is unsustainable.

In what ways is BBSRC focusing on wheat and why is work in this area so vital?

Within our wheat programmes we are looking for advances that can be of benefit to both the UK and other countries. Wheat is the most widely grown crop worldwide and provides 20 per cent of our protein and food calories. It is also an enormously important crop for the UK. The demand for wheat is predicted to rise by 60 per cent by 2050. Fortunately, we have a long history of increasing yields; at the start of the 20th Century we were producing around two tonnes per hectare, which has increased to about eight tonnes. This rise in yields is now plateauing, which is where the problem lies as we move forward. The current rate of genetic improvement is not going to be sufficient to meet world demand. As a result we need to find a way of boosting the average increase in yield from about 1 per cent to around 1.6 per cent. Climate change and more extreme weather events are also important drivers. The UK has experienced both drought and record rainfall in 2012 which led to a 25 per cent drop in yield and lower quality grain.

Can you outline some of the factors constraining yield and the approaches that might be used to boost this?

Disease is one of the factors constraining yield. In parts of the world the limitation of water or the conditions of the soil are also massive influences, and varieties able to tolerate drought and salty conditions could bring huge benefits. A lot of the focus has been on genetic improvement that has proved critical, particularly now that we have an opportunity to apply genomic approaches. Managing genomic data is a vital activity and the BBSRC-funded Genome Analysis Centre in Norwich is taking an important role in an International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium. With greater focus on genomics the area of agronomy is one area that has not received the attention it merits.

In the UK we have tried to bring teams together by linking up institutions working on joint programmes and drawing on their expertise in areas such as improving the pre-breeding of wheat. This means that we can all have access to traits that are potentially useful to breeders, both for UK conditions and elsewhere in the world.

Could you discuss the G20-sponsored Wheat Initiative and what this entails?

The UK is one of many countries that recognise wheat’s vital role. During the French presidency of the G20 there was much discussion between BBSRC and our French counterparts, INRA. With them we lead the development of a proposal outlining the importance of an international wheat initiative which would examine the requirements of wheat research. It seeks to bring together groups of scientists and funding agencies in a far more integrated way.

The Wheat Initiative was launched in late 2011 and now has a wide international membership including private sector companies. It has a small Scientific Board, a Research Committee and an Institutions Coordinating Committee (ICC). I serve as the interim Chair of the ICC which mainly involves international funding agencies and focuses on finding better ways to collaborate, increase synergy and ensure that any investments avoid unnecessary duplication. For example, a wheat researcher might have to visit several different databases in order to find the genomic information they need. One of our goals is to unite these databases into a single virtual one, enable a single entry point and help speed up the process for developing new varieties with beneficial traits. This is a highly complex task but one that is very important and will bring many benefits.

The Wheat Initiative has developed a vision for wheat improvement (to be launched in May) which will serve to inform collective actions but also influence national activities. We are very keen to develop and coordinate knowledge sharing, and generally improve access to all resources and facilities, such as plant and seed collections around the world. By applying modern IT we can make this rich historical resource more widely available to researchers.

What are the next steps in addressing this current challenge?

Knowing that we need to increase the yield of wheat we are trying to work out how best to go about this. Valuable initial work by the International Wheat and Maize breeding Centre in Mexico, known by its Spanish acronym, CIMMYT, highlighted the urgent need to increase wheat yield and address threats such as climate change. Subsequent discussions between CIMMYT, BBSRC, USAID and the Mexican Government (as G20 chair in 2012) have culminated in the formation of a plan to establish an international Wheat Yield Network (WYN).

Can you expand upon the purpose of the WYN and explain how the Wheat Initiative ties in with the Network?

The purpose of the WYN is to bring together the best researchers from around the world, to form a network of funding bodies, to issue calls for proposals, and then to share their results in an open manner. It’s a challenge to bring together 20 organisations from 16 countries, each with their own funding rules and different approaches, and find a way in which we can successfully work together. However, excellent progress has been made. In the past, substantial private sector research investments in maize have not been mirrored in wheat but there is now an increasing interest in wheat, and so we are looking for opportunities to work in partnership with the private sector, recognising the scale of this challenge and the need to make a long-term impact. In so doing, we have to ensure that we can reconcile the natural tension between commercial aspirations and making results available for international public good.

The Wheat Initiative’s goal is to make data freely available, with transparency and openness among its principal users. WYN will work closely with public and private partners to find an equitable approach to balancing the tension between prompt release of data and commercial realities. For example, there might be scope for a short delay in the general release of information outside the Network. This would offer some time for the partner companies to draw on the results, while also ensuring public researchers have freedom to use their data. Whilst there is a tension between arrangements for release of data and the goal to improve the world’s supply of wheat, I am confident that an evident spirit of cooperation means that global requirements, commercial profit and academic interest in publications, can be reconciled.

www.bbsrc.ac.uk

www.wheatinitiative.org

www.foodsecurity.ac.uk

Can you begin by explaining the process by which algal blooms adversely affect the health of oceanic waters and even humans? What makes them harmful?

Algae can become harmful via two primary routes. The first is through the production of a variety of toxins that accumulate in the algal cells or are released into the surrounding water. These toxins can harm aquatic life directly by entering the food web where they reach high concentrations in organisms such as shellfish or fish. In turn, predators that feed on these organisms – such as marine mammals and humans – can be poisoned or killed. Toxins can also be inhaled when they are aerosolised by wave action. This often happens on beaches and can cause respiratory problems.

The other major route by which algae can become harmful is through massive growth or physical accumulation, often referred to as ‘high biomass’ algal blooms. These types of algal blooms are often but not always stimulated by nutrient pollution washing off from farms and cities or wastewater. The overgrowth of algae changes the balance of aquatic ecosystems, smothering submerged vegetation and other habitats, often causing the depletion of life-sustaining oxygen (hypoxia) as the high biomass of algae dies and decomposes.

From what context did the IOC Intergovernmental Panel on Harmful Algal Blooms (IPHAB) emerge?

It emerged from a need across countries and regions for a coordinated focus on research, observation systems and capacity enhancement in order to better mitigate the effects of harmful algal events. In recent years the IOC has focused on global ocean observations, transforming data into useful services such as hazard warnings, and sharing and synthesising scientific information in support of ocean management and governance. Unsurprisingly, IPHAB and its Harmful Algal Bloom Programme thus fit very well under this mission and IOC priorities.

As Technical Secretary of IPHAB, what are your main responsibilities? How does the IPHAB contribute to the structural organisation of the IOC and the wider responsibilities of UNESCO?

As Technical Secretary of IPHAB my primary responsibility is to jointly lead the IOC’s Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) Programme with the Chair of the Panel, including setting priorities and ensuring relevance to Member States. One of the ways in which we can ensure that the Programme addresses Member State priorities is to strengthen regional HAB organisations that coordinate and raise issues of regional concern. Communicating these priorities to IPHAB can help to mobilise the scientific assistance to manage these regional HAB problems. This scientific assistance can be provided by international bodies such as the international research programme Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful algal Blooms (GEOHAB) which IPHAB has established jointly with the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR). IPHAB can then use Member State priorities to drive science programmes at the global, regional and national levels. When IPHAB meets every two years, these priorities are captured in resolutions, recommendations and a workplan that are brought to the IOC Assembly for endorsement.

IPHAB is an example of a specialised yet typical activity of UNESCO, providing an interactive link between science and governments, science and application, and creating the global and regional platforms and structure for concrete action such as capacity development, knowledge sharing and, in general, the sustainable use of natural resources. Finally, IPHAB provides links between UN agencies and other organisations that have mandate to address various aspects of this highly multidisciplinary field (food, health, shipping etc). If we do our job effectively, this should imply that Member States gain a more coherent assistance and tools to address the HAB issue integrated in larger societal themes at the national level.

The proliferation of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) is an emerging trend. Can climate change alone be the causal factor? What else may be contributing?

The term HAB is a societal one, not scientific. Harmful algae are in fact a diverse group of unrelated organisms causing a long array of very different effects depending on occurrence, timing and what human activity it coincides with. As such, there are as many causal factors as there are types of harmful algal events. However, there are common features driving common events of common species in comparable systems, eg. typical factors that control blooms in upwelling systems, events in nutrient rich systems etc.

To a large degree we are conducting research in basic phytoplankton ecology to understand the factors controlling the occurrence of harmful algal events. Often, several factors will be working together to provide the conditions for proliferation of a given harmful plankton species, including temperature, nutrient loading, weather events, grazing pressure changes in the ecosystem at higher or lower trophic levels etc. Therefore, the most successful models to forecast HAB events are system specific, modelling a specific ecosystem.

Understanding if climate change has or potentially will impact HAB occurrences is extremely complex as a changing climate will alter many of the parameters that govern phytoplankton population dynamics. Furthermore, we rarely have sufficiently long time series of data to know if the changes we observe are unusual or cyclic, but it is an issue the scientific community struggle with and which we will focus on in the coming years to ensure that any hypothesising on the impact of climate change on HAB occurrences is based on solid science.

Eutrophication is becoming an ever-increasing problem for water courses. Could agricultural runoff and industrial processes be a concern to coastal regions also?

Degradation of water quality and nutrient input in coastal systems are expected to increase in many world regions in the future unless corrective actions are taken. It is well-established that eutrophication is a major environmental problem in many coastal ecosystems around the world.

Nutrient sources driving coastal eutrophication are primarily associated with increasing human population, food and energy production in watersheds and, in some cases, coastal aquaculture. The effects of eutrophication are various and may include increased algal biomass, high-biomass HABs, hypoxia/anoxia, seagrass decline, increased water turbidity, and change in fisheries yields. One of the aspects we focus on in our work is if we can predict how natural and anthropogenic factors interact to modulate coastal zone ecosystems and stresses on organisms from phytoplankton to fish.

The relationships between nutrient loading and ecosystem effects are complex and variable and depend on the specific nutrient sources and the physical dynamics of the receiving waters, among many other factors! We work closely with UNEP on this issue and with the Global Partnership for Nutrient Management.

Is the IOC working to identify the pollution pathways and source of these algae blooms?

Such questions are in the first instance research questions. To address them, the IPHAB has, as mentioned above, jointly with SCOR, established GEOHAB. This fosters international cooperative research on HABs in ecosystem types sharing common features, comparing the key species involved and the oceanographic processes that influence their population dynamics. GEOHAB is an international programme that coordinates and builds on related national, regional and international efforts in HAB research within an ecological and oceanographic context.

GEOHAB will encourage combined experimental, observational and modelling approaches, using current and innovative technologies in a multidisciplinary approach that is consistent with the multiple scales and oceanographic complexity of HAB phenomena. Through such efforts, the emergence of a truly global synthesis of scientific results should be attained.

The scientific results emerging from initiatives like GEOHAB can and are being used by MS to develop or optimise monitoring and management of harmful algal events as well as of the conditions leading to HAB events in the cases where these are linked to human activity of the way marine resources are being exploited.

Conservation bodies and marine scientists felt disheartened as a result of Rio+20. Would IPHAB agree with this sentiment?

IPHAB has not taken any position on the result of Rio+20, but the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, entitled ‘The Future We Want’ includes specific follow-up by DOALOS, UNEP, and IOC/UNESCO, namely to complete the first global integrated assessment of the state of the marine environment by 2014. With this UN World Ocean Assessment we will better understand the status, trends and interrelations in the marine ecosystem, and gain a better understanding of how human activities put pressure on and impact marine ecosystems.

Furthermore, there is the World Bank-led Global Partnership for Oceans which is a growing alliance of over 100 governments, international organisations, civil society groups and private sector interests that will mobilise knowledge and financial resources to address threats to ocean health, resilience and productivity. Their objectives by 2022 are to have sustainable seafood and livelihoods from capture fisheries and aquaculture, halve the current rate of natural habitat loss, and reduce pollution of the marine environment. This may become a very strong and important framework for implementing IPHAB activities on HAB management in relation to fisheries and aquaculture, develop capacity and manage better relations between nutrient enrichments and HAB events.

To what extent is GEOHAB multidisciplinary? How does it benefit the wider scientific community in developing a greater understanding of the marine environment?

The multidisciplinary aspect of HAB research is unavoidable. Today ecosystem research spans from molecular techniques in the laboratory to large-scale ocean measurements to ecophysiological studies. Moreover, the development of new HAB or HAB species, or toxin observation and toxicity testing technologies, draw on many disciplines and research communities. As HABs are defined by their impact on human activity, their study requires disciplines including epidemiology, mitigation techniques, fish behaviour and even sociological and cultural patterns.

As HAB-causing species are scientifically a part of the pelagic ecosystem, the focused research effort on HABs contributes directly to our general knowledge and understanding of the marine ecosystem. The establishment of GEOHAB has allowed fundamental questions in plankton ecology to be systematically addressed and this is much needed in a time where society expects fast, applicable results from science. With GEOHAB we endeavour to both deliver new and synthesised knowledge that is applicable and address the deeper complex and longstanding big questions.

IPHAB’s Medium Term Strategy currently focuses on capacity building, cooperative research and an authoritative integrated information system of HABs. What have been the major successes for this term? How will this guide future priorities?

The main successes are:

• A unique global platform for training in skills needed to monitor and manage HAB events

• The only shared and free access compilation of data on HAB events

• The GEOHAB research initiative, which has significantly influenced the research agenda

We will continue to listen carefully to the needs of Member States and their agencies; this is what guides us. As the HAB issue is not going away we expect the needs for internationally coordinated action to remain but of course to adjust its focus as societal needs change and as science delivers management and mitigation solutions.

In your opinion, what is the greatest challenge currently facing IPHAB? How do you hope to overcome this?

As for all of the UN agencies, the major challenge is the dwindling financial contributions for our work. The countries that have traditionally been the most generous contributors to fund international collaboration have budget problems or have changed policy. This requires us to refocus many activities and in many cases do what is possible instead of what is most needed. However, we are witnessing new Member States stepping in and taking responsibility and this is very encouraging too. Fortunately, part of the work we do only requires limited resources – mostly human resources – to facilitate processes, establish platforms for dialogue and transmission of science to the governments, policy makers and other stakeholders.

The IOC recently celebrated its 50th birthday. What are your hopes for the next 10 years?

I hope most of all that the introduction of the oceans and the marine environment into a high level international agenda – as we saw at Rio+20 – will continue. With the ‘The Future We Want’ and new ocean orientated initiatives such as Ocean Compact, I hope the UN system will be able to strengthen and condense its work on the oceans and the marine environment. Today, this work is scattered across many different agencies which means it is a challenge to coordinate and hard for Member States to build effective foundations within their national administrations. At the level of IPHAB and harmful algal events, I strongly hope it will continue to deliver initiatives and products which facilitate generation of new knowledge, sharing of this knowledge and its application for the benefit of us all: this is why the IOC of UNESCO and governing bodies like IPHAB exist.

www.ioc-unesco.org/hab

How precise do you believe a scientific assessment of risk – or the potential severity of risk – should be before action is taken under the precautionary principle (PP)?

The EEA has produced and refined a working definition of the PP that has proved useful in helping to achieve a more common understanding:

‘The precautionary principle provides justification for public policy and other actions in situations of scientific complexity, uncertainty and ignorance, where there may be a need to act in order to avoid, or reduce, potentially serious or irreversible threats to health and/or the environment, using an appropriate strength of scientific evidence, and taking into account the pros and cons of action and inaction and their distribution.’

This definition is explicit in specifying situations of uncertainty, ignorance and risk, as contexts for considering the use of the PP. It is expressed in the affirmative rather than the triple negatives found in, for example, the Rio Declaration. It explicitly acknowledges that the strength of scientific evidence needed to justify public policy actions is determined on a case-specific basis, and only after the plausible pros and cons – including their distribution across groups, regions, and generations – have been assessed.

At what point should a substance or practice be considered ‘guilty until proven innocent’?

The full body of credible evidence should be reviewed and each case should be considered individually. However, we can say that scientific uncertainty is not a justification for inaction when there is plausible evidence of potentially serious harm.

Where the ‘knowledge-to-ignorance’ ratio is high (implying much knowledge and little practically necessary ignorance), as with, for example, lead, asbestos and mercury, there is little need for either more research or for precautionary measures – in such cases we need to take preventative action. Where the ratio is low, there is a need for both precautionary measures following credible early warnings and novel research, rather than the ‘scientific inertia’ of excessive research on well-known substances.

Should field tests be a precondition of use of the precautionary principle, or are laboratory tests and models sometimes robust enough for action? Where should the line be drawn?

Every case is different. However, historically there has been an over-reliance on the statistical significance of point estimates compared to confidence limits based on multiple sampling. There has also been a bias towards using models that grossly simplify reality rather than using long‑term observations and trend data of biological and ecological systems. These approaches have sometimes led to the production of false positives.

More importantly the governance of scientific ignorance and unknown unknowns has been neglected.

How would you characterise the severity of the public health risk that they pose?

There is strong evidence of harm from endocrine disruptors (EDCs) in some wildlife species and in laboratory studies using rodent models for human health. However, the effects of EDCs on humans may be more difficult to demonstrate, due to the length, cost and methodological difficulties with these types of studies – so wildlife and animal studies may be seen in some cases as an early warning of the dangers.

In the last 10 years, risk assessment and regulatory frameworks for dealing with EDCs have been created and screening procedures have been developed to test chemicals for endocrine disrupting properties. There are still lots of factors that make the risk assessment process difficult. Chief amongst these is the fact that these chemicals can affect early development of, for example, the brain, reproductive, immune and metabolic systems in detrimental ways that are often invisible until several years or sometimes decades after exposure.

Scientific understanding is further complicated because mixtures of similarly acting EDCs may contribute to an overall effect, whilst each of these chemicals alone may not cause harm. These factors make it hard for scientists to identify thresholds of exposure below which there are no effects.

However, there is a large body of evidence linking chemical exposure to thyroid, immune, reproductive and neurological problems in animals, and many of the same or similar diseases and disorders are rising in human populations. Both animals and humans may be exposed to these chemicals in the environment, or via water or the food chain where the chemicals can build up.

What have been the worst mistakes made so far out of a desire to prevent environmental damage that proved misplaced, and what have you learned from them?

In the second volume of Late Lessons, we analyse incidents of false positives, where government regulation was undertaken based on precaution but later turned out to be unnecessary. In total, 88 cases were identified to be alleged false positives, however, following a detailed analysis most of them turned out to be either real risks, cases where ‘the jury is still out’, unregulated alarms, or risk-risk trade-offs, rather than false positives.

The analysis revealed four regulatory false positives: US swine flu, saccharin, food irradiation, and Southern leaf corn blight. Numerous important lessons can be learned from each, although there are few parallels between them in terms of when and why each risk was falsely believed to be real. This is a lesson in itself: each risk is unique, as is the science and politics associated with it; a flexible approach adapted to the nature of the problem is therefore needed. The costs of the false positives identified were mainly economic, although the actions taken to address swine flu in 1976 did lead to some unintended deaths and human suffering, and diverted resources from other potentially serious health risks. Determining the net costs of mistaken regulatory action, however, requires a complete assessment of the impacts of the regulation, including the costs and benefits of using alternative technologies and approaches.

Overall, the analysis shows that fear of false positives is misplaced and should not be a rationale for avoiding precautionary actions where warranted. False positives are rare compared to false negatives and carefully designed precautionary actions can stimulate innovation, even if the risk turns out to be unfounded or not as serious as initially feared. There is a need for new approaches to characterising and preventing complex risks that move debate from the ‘problem’ sphere to the ‘solutions’ sphere. By learning from the lessons in this chapter, more effective preventive decisions can be made in the future.

Industry advocates often cite the precautionary principle as a well-meaning luxury that Europe cannot afford at a time of recession; why are they wrong?

Lessons from history tell us this is incorrect – indeed, precaution is a catalyst for innovation, which could benefit Europe during times of recession. This is particularly true when precaution is supported by smart regulation or well-designed tax changes. It is encouraging to see some corporations have fundamentally embraced sustainable development objectives in their business models and activities in recent years.

Do environmental regulations of these kinds place a burden on industry that could potentially harm their international competitiveness?

The real question is ‘should we allow companies to market products which have been shown to harm users, solely in order to maintain their international competitiveness?’ It is important to consider what we want our economy to do for us. The focus of policy makers must be on maintaining the welfare of citizens, not economic competitiveness at any cost.

From the sole perspective of economic competitiveness, responding to early warnings can provide immense savings – avoiding companies becoming locked into paths which have to be discontinued due to the harm, or avoiding expensive compensation when a long history of harm has been proven, as was the case with mercury poisoning in Japan. Companies that respond quickly to early warnings are often frontrunners in their industries.

Virtually all reviewed cases in our report show that early warnings about harmful effects were available, but that the prospect of short‑term profit generated strong economic incentives for companies to continue with their practices. For example, this has incentivised the most efficient fishing methods, the sales and use of cheap and effective substances such as benzene, lead in petrol, asbestos, insecticides, or growth hormones for meat production. In these cases – and there are many more examples – there were subsequent costs.

Critics argue that opposition to DDT under the precautionary principle would cost thousands of lives; how would you respond?

We do not propose a complete ban on DDT. In the final negotiations that led to the Stockholm Convention, an exception was made for DDT with an acceptable purpose for use in disease vector control. Thus, under the Stockholm Convention, countries may continue to use DDT, in the quantity needed, provided that the guidelines and recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Stockholm Convention are met, and until locally appropriate and cost-effective alternatives become available for a sustainable transition from DDT.

In DDT-using countries, it is of utmost importance that DDT is used for its acceptable purpose only. Evidence continues to emerge showing that the chemical can be extremely harmful to humans and the environment. Thus it is important that when using such a chemical, the costs and benefits are properly weighed up and all evidence is taken into account.

How systemic is the pressuring of scientists assessing the safety of substances that pose a potential health or environmental risk?

Early warning scientists and others who identify potential impending harm have sometimes been discouraged in the past or actually lost positions or suffered various kinds of losses. However, they often bring forth useful and timely knowledge and therefore need to be encouraged and not harmed for their efforts. Good public policy suggests laws should discourage such actions in the first place and justice requires rectification if they are the subjects of retaliation.

The Late Lessons case studies have provided several examples of early warning scientists who were harassed after issuing or publishing their views. These include Snow (in relation to his work on cholera); Selikoff (regarding asbestos); Henderson, Byers, Patterson and Needleman (regarding leaded petrol); Osakawa (regarding mercury); Putzai and Chapella (regarding GMOs); Schneider (regarding climate change); and several scientists in the French bees story. In addition there are others who wish to remain anonymous.

Other examples from beyond the Late Lessons case studies include public servants who have been prevented from speaking out on environment or health issues.

Finally, you pinpoint the rapid and greater spread of technologies as a potential cause of alarm. Which of these give you most concern?

In the report we highlight several technologies where potential risk is multiplied by their rapid spread and development. Examples include genetically modified organisms, mobile phones and nanotechnology, but there are also many others.

These technologies are now taken up more quickly than before, and are often rapidly adopted around the world. This means risks may spread faster and further, outstripping society’s capacity to understand, recognise and respond to these effects in time to avoid harm.

To download Late Lessons from Early Warnings: science, precaution, innovation visit www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2

www.eea.europa.eu

How can one of the most popular species on the planet be so poorly understood?

Whales have been the subject of mythology, music and cultural lore, yet from a scientific perspective, so much remains undiscovered. This is particularly true for those living in Antarctic waters, where the inhospitable remoteness has made them even harder to locate and study.

Whales have been highly sought after for many purposes through the ages. Traditionally killed for products derived from their blubber, bones and ambergris, whales in the Southern Ocean were hunted from whaling stations on sub-Antarctic islands, such as South Georgia and South Shetland Island, the Kerguelen and Crozier Islands. The development of factory ships in 1923 liberated whalers from the logistics and expense of such stations, allowing them to take more animals at a greater rate than ever before, with a profound effect on whale populations.

The case of the Antarctic blue whale is a stark and tragic illustration of the impact of industrial exploitation. During the 20th Century, many thousands of blue whales were killed before the International Whaling Commission (IWC) – the global intergovernmental body now charged with the conservation of whales – banned the activity in 1964. Antarctic blue whales are now listed as critically endangered and, at its lowest ebb, numbers went as low as just 360.

Current population estimates are derived from historical data such as catch records and sightings surveys, but a more detailed understanding of the Southern Ocean species is severely limited. This is due partly to their elusiveness, but also because of the challenging logistics and great expense of conducting research in the Southern Ocean. The Southern Ocean Research Partnership seeks to change this by coordinating ongoing studies of Antarctic blue, fin, minke, humpback and killer whales.

Birth of the Partnership

The Southern Ocean Research Partnership arose after the Australian Government proposed the formation of a body dedicated to the development of new scientific techniques for cetacean research in the Southern Ocean, reporting to the IWC. In 2009 a partnership of 10 countries was endorsed for the coordination and delivery of nonlethal Southern Ocean cetacean science. The current membership of the Southern Ocean Research Partnership comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa and the US, with new members constantly welcomed. The global nature of the organisation has resulted in a major collaboration between scientists bringing vast and varied expertise to the six major projects underway.

The Partnership has a dual purpose at its core; an intention to establish innovative, accurate and effective non-lethal research techniques, and the delivery of data that will lead to a greater understanding of the components of Southern Ocean ecosystems. Feeding behaviour, seasonal migration patterns and contemporary abundance indications are all statistics that have yet to be determined for many species, and it is these fundamental elements of species conservation-planning that the Southern Ocean Research Partnership hopes to assemble.

Thankfully, the commercial value of whales is now largely derived from booming whale-watching and tourism industries, and as cetacean scientists continue to scrutinise these iconic creatures, the body of knowledge will grow. Ishmael – Herman Melville’s narrator in Moby Dick – described the whale ship as his ‘Yale and Harvard’, but today it is the whales themselves that are imparting precious knowledge.

SCIENCE AND OVERSIGHT

The Southern Ocean Research Partnership has appointed International Scientific Steering Committees to each project, endorsed by the IWC, to govern and guide the research of the projects. Technical committees advise on the use of satellite tagging for tracking animals, the use of passive acoustics, biopsy sampling for the identification of individual whales, and seagoing activities.

SCIENTIFIC CROWD-SOURCING

The Partnership’s collaborative approach has extended to the shipping, tourism and fishing industries with the launch of a webbased, whale sighting reporting page. Anyone spotting whales in the Southern Ocean, in particular blue, killer, southern right and humpback, is encouraged to add to the research database by uploading images at www.marinemammals.gov.au/sorp/sightings.

PROJECT SPOTLIGHTS

THE ANTARCTIC BLUE WHALE PROJECT

Put simply, the Antarctic Blue Whale Project aims to discover if the population of Balaenoptera musculus is recovering after 50 years of protection from exploitation. Yet, just as determining the abundance and distribution of the whale populations is a fundamental aim of the Partnership, so too is the testing of scientific methods for obtaining the data. The availability of new technology for finding and tracking Southern Ocean whale species is best illustrated with the flagship Antarctic Blue Whale Project. The six objectives of the project are:

• To identify the most appropriate and efficient method to deliver a new circumpolar abundance estimate

• To develop and refine methods to improve efficiency

• To deliver a new circumpolar abundance estimate

• To improve understanding of population structure

• To improve understanding of linkages between breeding and feeding grounds

• To characterise behaviour on the feeding grounds

Dr Mike Double is the Australian Antarctic Division’s Principal Investigator, working with a steering committee chaired by Professor Phil Hammond at the University of St Andrews. Dr Double has described looking for Antarctic blue whales in the Southern Ocean as akin to finding a needle in a haystack. As sightings are rare and hard to predict, new acoustic methods are being employed to increase the distance from which the whales can be detected.

The work comprises a series of voyages which will combine the use of new technology with traditional scientific methods, such as the mark-recapture method in which some animals are ‘marked’ (or sighted) then later re-sighted to measure the number of those individuals and estimate the size of the population. In 2012, directional sonobuoys were tested in a 100 km area along the Bonney Upwelling in southeast Australia, locating whales in real-time. The directional sonobuoy has a hydrophone, which is deployed to a depth of 30, 100 or 300 m. The hydrophone transmits sound back to the ship via a VHF radio link and scientists can process the sound to gain direction to the whales. If more than one sonobuoy is deployed, then the two bearings are used to triangulate the precise position of the whale. Acoustic scientist Dr Brian Miller of the Australian Antarctic Division, describes the method is “like a giant game of Marco Polo” (the children’s game in which one person calls while another, blindfolded, follows the sound to catch them).

The Antarctic Blue Whale Voyage

The success of the Bonney Upwelling tests meant the technology was ready to be used in tougher Antarctic conditions. During February and March 2013, the Antarctic Blue Whale Voyage has plied the waters on the edge of the ice shelf, west of the Ross and Davis seas, in search of the biggest – and possibly the most elusive – creature ever to inhabit Earth. A team of 18 scientists and researchers, boasting acousticians, observers and data surveyors drawn from around the world, are working from the FV Amalatal Explorer and a rigid inflatable boat (RIB) to gather genetic samples and insert satellite tags into the whales. Flukes, fins and markings will be photographed and compared for identification like fingerprints.

Posts from the voyage and accounts of their encounters with the colossal Antarctic blue whale can be read at www.marinemammals.gov.au/sorp/expeditions/antarctic-blue-whale-voyage-2013/vwhale.

KILLER WHALES

There are three ecotypes of killer whales identified in Antarctic waters that comprise at least three separate species. This project is investigating the distribution, relative abundance, migration pattern and foraging ecology of killer whales in the Southern Ocean. As killer whales play a key role in the Antarctic ecosystem it is necessary to learn more about these three ecotypes to understand the impacts they have on prey populations including marine mammals, fish and penguins. (Principal Investigator: Dr Robert Pitman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Centre, USA).

BLUE AND FIN WHALES

This project is using bottom-mounted, long-term buoys for passive acoustic monitoring. These measure trends in the Southern Ocean blue and fin whale population growth, distribution and seasonal movement, to augment the paucity of information relating to the life history of these animals post-whaling. (Principal Investigator: Dr Kate Stafford, University of Washington, USA).

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE HUMPBACKS

The work sets out to understand the movement and mixing of humpback whales in the Southern Hemisphere which is essential to assessing depleted populations. This requires estimating the pre-exploitation size and allocating the catch numbers to the appropriate stocks. Greater understanding of migratory patterns and feeding behaviour will also improve assessments of recovery. (Principal Investigator: Dr Rochelle Constantine, University of Auckland, New Zealand).

LIVING WHALES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE

Sharing the intent and outcomes of the Southern Ocean Research Partnership is a fundamental part of the initiative. In 2012 the first technical workshop took place in Puerto Varas, Chile, where partnering scientists shared research methods and early findings. Papers and proceedings from the Living Whales Symposium can be found in English and Spanish at www.simposioballenas.cl.

MEASURING THE APPETITE OF BALEEN WHALES

This study pursues the foraging ecology and predator-prey interaction between baleen whales and krill in a multi-scale comparative study across Antarctic regions. As research reveals more about the lynchpin role of krill and threats posed due its susceptibility to climate change, there is a grave gap in the understanding of cetacean foraging ecology. This study is logging data from the Southern Ocean relating to the types and frequency of consumption of krill by recovering populations of humpback and minke whales. (Principal Investigator: Dr Ari Friedlaender, Duke University, USA).

www.marinemammals.gov.au/sorp

Could you begin by explaining AIRCLIM’s focus and the reasons for its initial formation?

The AIRCLIM project consists of a group of scientists and technicians within the EC’s Joint Research Centre working on activities related to monitoring and modelling air quality, and the interlinkages of air pollution with climate change within the frame of the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme. AIRCLIM’s scientists play an active role in coordinating the scientific community and the world towards harmonised model and measurements methods that address these issues of air quality and climate change interactions.

How does the work of AIRCLIM relate to the goals of the EC’s DGs for Environment, Climate Action and Energy?

AIRCLIM activities give scientific and technical support to the implementation and development of EU policies in the areas of air quality, climate and related fields. The team comprises researchers and technical support staff who are able to monitor the level of implementation, progress and success of air pollution policies and advise on strategies for the future. Scenario analysis enables the researchers to learn from the past and look into the future. To give an example: we can investigate the impact of a car fleet of a certain composition (petrol/diesel) on air quality, human health, agriculture and climate.

How effective do you find integrated policies?

Integrated policies are indispensable to guide a sustainable development of society into the future. With today’s knowledge of interactions of different domains it is no longer sufficient to just look at a problem from only one angle. The impact of a decision has to be assessed looking at society, economy, environment, health and other factors of importance. The outcome of integrated cost-benefit analysis helps decision makers to come to a sound conclusion.

Immediate investments in low-carbon and carbon-free energy technologies are an obvious long-term solution (>100 years) for both air pollution and climate, but the short-term implications (<30 years), for climate in particular, still need to be carefully examined. What support is AIRCLIM offering in this area? Could you offer some examples?

An important example of the contributions of AIRCLIM’s efforts can be found in a scientific paper which was published at the beginning of 2012 in Science. It shows that a limited number of air quality measures can substantially mitigate near-term global warming and have significant benefits for human health and food availability. Together with 12 international partners, including United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), NASA and the Stockholm Environment Institute, AIRCLIM scientists identified 16 emission control measures. The paper, entitled ‘Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security’, builds on UNEP’s (2011) ‘Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone’. The Science paper expands on this Assessment by providing more detailed climate modelling; extending the impact analyses to the national level with more detailed spatial information and providing more detailed cost-benefit analyses. It finds that only a small fraction of air quality measures provide substantial warming mitigation but if these are immediately applied, in conjunction with measures to reduce carbon dioxide, they can help keep global warming below 2°C relative to preindustrial levels, mitigate warming in the Arctic and Himalayas, and reduce regional disruption to traditional rainfall patterns. It concluded that such strategies would annually help prevent up to 5 million premature deaths from air pollution and increase annual crop yields by 30-135 million tonnes. The benefits of methane reductions were estimated at US $700-5,000 per tonne.

The integrated models to evaluate the impact of human activities on climate change and air quality developed by AIRCLIM were the basis of this study. JRC scientists also contributed to the preparation of the emission inventories used in the study and applied the three-dimensional composition-climate ECHAM5-HAMMOZ General Circulation Model to assess how changes in emissions due to human activities can influence present and future climate. They also estimated the impact of the proposed emission reductions on crop yields around the world and contributed to their evaluation on human health.

The JRC mobile laboratory is measuring air pollution from ships. What result have you observed and what can this tell us about air pollution?

AIRCLIM has carried out a pilot study to measure ship emissions remotely, without stepping on board the ship, to verify the sulphur content of ship fuels. By measuring the sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide concentrations of the ship plume it is possible to calculate the sulphur content in the marine fuel used. During a pilot measurement campaign in the harbour of Rotterdam, where we validated the method, the results showed that all ships complied with European legislation.

AIRCLIM is further operating a mobile monitoring station on board of a cruise ship which is travelling on a regular route in the Mediterranean Sea. The ship is a unique platform to measure air pollution in an area that has not been studied until now. Air pollutant emissions from shipping have sharply decreased in EU ports thanks to an EU policy which limits sulphur content in fuels for ships at berth or at anchor in ports. The mobile AIRCLIM monitoring station measured key air quality parameters in Mediterranean harbours before and after the entry into force of the low-sulphur requirements in January 2010. In European harbours we found an average decrease of 66 per cent in concentrations of sulphur dioxide – a chemical compound that poses risks to health and the environment. Measurements taken in a non-EU port showed that levels of this noxious substance remained at the same high level.

The Action runs the European Reference Laboratory for Air Pollution (ERLAP), organising EU harmonisation programmes and creating measurement methods. What methods have been developed to achieve this?

AIRCLIM’s European Reference Laboratory for Air Pollution was founded in the late 1990s. The highly specialised laboratory works on the harmonisation and standardisation of measurement techniques, performs measurement campaigns with mobile laboratories in areas of particular interest, analyses the chemical composition of toxic and carcinogenic compounds in air pollution and develops reference and equivalent measurement methods to provide support to the Member States and the EC’s air quality policy.

Measurement methods for monitoring air pollutants are being developed and validated by ERLAP. Depending on the monitoring purpose and requirement it is possible to use different measurement techniques – eg. with lower or higher uncertainties, integrated or at a high time resolution. When the air in certain zones is close to a limit value of a European Directive, it is necessary to continuously monitor with high accuracy and precision. In other areas with low levels of pollution, a low-cost measurement method giving a more integrated result with a higher uncertainty could be sufficient. Currently the research work of ERLAP is also looking at micro-sensor and diffusive sampler applications which will in the future allow for a better spatial coverage with measurements including personal exposure assessment. In the future, air quality assessments will aim at a limited number of high quality multi-compound monitoring stations that can be combined with low-cost monitoring techniques, remote sensing and modelling.

ERLAP is the EC’s service organising quality assurance programmes for the Member States laboratories. On a regular basis the competent national institutes are invited to the JRC, where we run test programmes by generating various gas mixtures, and compare the results of the national institutes to the ERLAP reference results. Therefore, we ensure that the air pollution in Europe is measured with similar methods and quality.

What does the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme super site measure, and in what way is this contributing to the work of the Action?

Atmospheric monitoring started at the JRC site in Ispra in 1985 and the measurement programme has significantly evolved since then. The longest time series regard rain acidity, chemical composition and concentrations of regulated gaseous pollutants like SO2 and NO2. They show an impressive reduction in the occurrence of acidic depositions and a shift in the main source of acidity, from sulphur to nitrogen oxide emissions. We have also measured ground-level ozone for 25 years and observed a decreasing trend in extreme concentrations since 2001, whereas annual averages do not show a decrease, despite a reduction in ozone precursor emissions.

Presently, we focus on particulate matter (PM). PM2.5 and PM10 samples, which are collected on a daily to weekly basis on filters, are analysed for PM mass concentration and chemical composition. These measurements demonstrate a slight decrease in PM concentration over the past years. Furthermore, the measurements allow us to acquire information on the origin of the fine particles in the atmosphere.

Since 2004, we have also been monitoring the PM number concentration, size distribution in the range 10 nm-10 μm, and optical properties. The concentration of ultra-fine particles decreased – which is probably beneficial for health, but the blackness of the whole particle population increased – which is certainly favourable towards climate warming. All this data, together with measurements of the aerosol vertical profile (lidar) and the hygroscopicity of the aerosol particles, are being used to calculate the contribution of atmospheric particles to climate change. Our region in northern Italy – one of the most polluted areas in Europe – is indeed an extraordinary natural laboratory, where the effect of European policies and international agreements on air pollution and climate change can be best highlighted. Our continuous air pollution watch also led us to develop novel monitoring methods and methodologies, which are now applied on a European scale.

Supporting the EC and Member States in the implementation of the Air Quality Directives (AQD), AIRCLIM harmonises assessment methodologies through modelling and monitoring exercises. What form do these assessment methodologies take?

The JRC, together with the European Environment Agency (EEA), created a network called ‘Forum for Air quality Modelling’ (FAIRMODE). Its aim is to bring together air quality modellers and users in order to promote and support the harmonised use of models by EU Member States, with emphasis on their application to the European Air Quality Directives. Together with FAIRMODE, we have developed a benchmarking procedure which allows individual national models to be judged if fit for purpose.

Furthermore, within AIRCLIM the ENSEMBLE Platform for harmonisation of modelling has been developed. ENSEMBLE is a permanent web platform where modelling groups from around the world can come together to simulate common situations, compare model results and evaluate their results against defined measurements. The platform can accommodate atmospheric dispersion and chemical transport models at all scales. Different communities use the system for carrying out specific research projects or periodic model evaluation exercises. The advantage of using ENSEMBLE is that it makes all model results submitted available to all participating groups. Using statistical packages, these model results can be evaluated against common sets of measurements in the system. ENSEMBLE has been used to support emergency response situations, for example, nuclear accidents, chemical spills, volcanic eruptions by gathering several atmospheric dispersion simulations in real-time and providing several model results.

The Network for Air Quality Reference Laboratories (AQUILA) has also been founded by AIRCLIM. Together with AIRCLIM, this Network coordinates harmonisation activities related to monitoring and measurements. We organise and carry our inter-comparisons, proficiency testing and spot checks in Member States’ monitoring facilities, to ensure that air pollution is assessed with comparable methods giving equivalent results.

What is the potential for mitigating short-term global warming by reducing specific shorter-lived warming agents, notably black carbon, tropospheric ozone and methane?

AIRCLIM contributed to a recent UNEP Report on Climate Protection Actions which defines 16 measures that can save millions of lives, protect crops and limit climate change. AIRCLIM staff are among the international team of experts cited as lead authors in the latest UNEP Synthesis Report entitled ‘Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers’. This Report is a follow-up of the UNEP-World Meteorological Organization Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone published in June 2011.

The Synthesis Report describes concrete actions that can be taken to mitigate climate change. AIRCLIM was responsible for calculating the regional impacts (climate, health and ecosystems) resulting from each of the proposed emission reduction measures. If the actions were to be fully implemented worldwide, it would save close to 2.5 million lives a year, avoid crop losses amounting to 32 million tonnes annually, deliver near-term climate protection of about 0.5°C by 2040 and help keep the global rise in temperature below the 2°C target. The measures target short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) such as black carbon – a major component of soot, methane and tropospheric ozone. The report emphasises that fast action on SCLFs will not be able to keep global temperature rise below 2°C by the end of the century, unless governments decisively act on the principal greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide.

The 16 control options cover the wide range of sources of black carbon and methane emissions from cook stoves and diesel engines through to leaking gas distribution pipes and municipal waste. Seven priority measures are identified for reducing methane, and nine to reduce black carbon emissions. The relevant measures for Europe are: recovery of methane from oil and gas production; the reduction of leakage from methane transmission pipelines; separation and treatment of biodegradable municipal waste; and reduction of black carbon emissions – replacing current residential wood burning (stoves, fire places) with modern pellet stoves and boilers.

www.airclim.org

To begin, could you outline the purpose of the Copernicus programme? What are the main objectives of this venture?

Copernicus – formerly called Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) – is a strategic programme for the EU. It supports the EU 2020 objectives and also underpins important EU policies. It not only enables informed policy decisions to be made but is also a tool for job creation and growth.

Copernicus consists of elements to gather observations of the environment and a set of core services to process them and generate and distribute a comprehensive set of maps, products and information that can respond to stated end-user requirements. Hence it is a tool for sustainable development, through which the monitoring of the environment can be used to stimulate downstream applications, both public and commercial, and stimulate growth and create jobs. Exploiting the natural synergies between ecological, humanitarian and economic objectives constitutes the basis of the programme.

How did you become involved with Copernicus? Could you describe your role within the organisation?

I am the Head of the GMES/Copernicus Unit, part of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, managing a multidisciplinary team, some with a technical background and others with the skills necessary for the Commission’s day-to-day work. The Unit is in charge of establishing the governance of the Copernicus programme, dealing with the development of its Initial Operations, building up the operational Services and the management of the associated infrastructure. Among our responsibilities, we coordinate all actors involved in the venture: the European Space Agency of course, but also the Member States, the Joint Research Centre, the European Environment Agency and other partners who deal with specific components of this unique Programme.

In what manner do you utilise satellite technology? How will data from satellites be collected and utilised through the programme?

Satellites provide the major observational inputs to the programme. This involves a set of satellites dedicated to Copernicus (the so-called Sentinels) as well as existing satellites in the Earth observation domain. Five Sentinel satellite missions are in the advanced stage of planning, with the first of them due for launch later this year. Data from satellites, used alongside in situ data, serve a very wide range of applications. In particular, I would like to stress how data collected by satellites will not only affect space-related industry but will also result in the development of a lot of downstream applications of a wide variety. Many examples of these have already been demonstrated by the pre-operational Copernicus Services, illustrating how the public and private sector businesses can use those datasets to address their primary function and also to develop or widen their market sector. To mention just a few cases, we can think about precision agriculture, water transport and non-life insurance sectors.

What are the main Earth subsystems that will be monitored? How and what do you hope to achieve from this monitoring?

The Programme will include three specific Services addressing the needs of users with interests in monitoring the sea, the land and the atmosphere, as well as two cross-cutting Services covering security and emergency management. In addition to these five services, a climate change service is under construction. The envisaged achievements are mainly related to the provision of sustained and reliable information, which would enable European public authorities, commercial businesses and the scientific community to have a continuous picture of our evolving world. It is important to stress that Europe will be the first to have such a unique information pool and, thanks to a free and open data policy, the potential is virtually limitless.

The Earth’s resources are finite and need securing for future generations. In what way will the programme aid the protection of natural resources?

Monitoring the environment in order to support its protection and sustainable use is the main raison d’être of Copernicus. Again, the availability of up-to-date indicators about the state of the environment – in its different components – can provide the raw material for a lot of applications, including those related to sustainable resource management and biodiversity preservation. As examples of how the information will be used, we can imagine sectoral areas such as soil moisture, vegetation state, water quality and quantity, while resource-saving applications may range from precision agricultural techniques to forest management; marine resource management to pollution control.

How will Copernicus protect citizens from natural disasters such as weather driven hazards, geochemical hazards and other humanitarian crises? Will it help to improve security?

As mentioned, Copernicus includes an Emergency Management Service. This Service, which is activated by the detection of natural or manmade disasters, has been operational since 1 April 2012 and has already been activated many times. There have been 25 so-called ‘Rush Mode’ (highest level of emergency) activations. Of these, 72 per cent concerned EU continental territory. For instance, shortly after the serious earthquake that hit the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, new reference maps were available. This facilitated the work of the emergency teams.

Other interventions dealt with floods, forest fires and earthquakes using Copernicus satellite images. These achievements show how Copernicus has already helped emergency management; it will continue this vital role in the future, helping to protect citizens and guide rescue and recovery actions.

Other examples include hazards such as those related to geochemical materials and polluting chemicals. Copernicus data could help trace contaminant spills, thus helping in protecting/restoring the environment and identifying the sources.

As far as security is concerned, a specific Copernicus Security Service is being established, which is dedicated to maritime security and border surveillance.

Could you describe how Copernicus systems receive input from space and how they will provide careful analysis of gaps in provision?

As I have described already, there is both a satellite-based element of the observation infrastructure and an in situ element. The satellites play a key role in the observation of the environment and the Services interpret the raw data into a form most useful for downstream applications.

It is important to note that in the past, much of this Earth observation data has come from satellites operating in an R&D mode. The Sentinels will provide a sustained and assured supply of data, thus reducing the risks of lack of continuity and addressing gaps in data provision. Copernicus will be user-driven and hence, if gaps are identified by users, the programme will be geared to respond – for example, to create new products as necessary.

How would you distinguish the Galileo programme from Copernicus? In what way will Galileo assist navigation?

Although both Galileo and Copernicus are EU flagship space programmes, they are quite different. Galileo is about navigation, while Copernicus concerns Earth observation and environmental monitoring. Galileo is a new independent European satellite navigation system, offering more accurate usage than the existing GPS. In the same way that GPS has become an essential part of the everyday lives of so many users, so Galileo will stimulate many new, highly accurate satellite navigation applications. Galileo is new and is an advance on existing satellite navigation capabilities, whereas Copernicus is both new and unique.

Copernicus hopes to generate business prospects for Europe. What kind of business will be attracted to the development? Will SMEs benefit from the new opportunities?

There are a wide range of industrial sectors that may benefit from Copernicus. In particular, five sectors have been analysed by a recent study: water transport, oil and gas, non-life insurance, power generation from renewable sources, and agriculture. Examples of practical applications are solar power site selection and plant monitoring, damage assessment for insurance claim management, precision farming and oil pipeline encroachment monitoring. These and many other examples of the use of EO data demonstrate that free and open Copernicus data provision is an essential driver for the creation of new business opportunities.

It is true that big businesses already have the opportunity of buying very high resolution data because they can afford this type of investment and enjoy subsequent returns, but the case for SMEs is different. Copernicus will provide them with data of sufficiently high resolution to develop new business without the need for big, risky investments.

In what way do you estimate Copernicus could assert guidance on policy making in Europe?

Having continuous, reliable and high quality indicators is crucial to the development of well-focused and efficient policies. A wide range of Services at the EC are involved in this process, as well as their corresponding institutions at national or local level. What is also important is that Europe will have its own source of information, not being obliged to rely on Third countries’ data. Policy building, in particular in the areas of environmental protection, and adaptation and mitigation to climate change, will certainly benefit from Copernicus. Another important public task that will benefit from the programme is the monitoring of compliance with EU policy directives and the identification of non-compliances. Moreover, this information will be open to citizens as well, providing them with transparent access to the political process.

How will you influence the space manufacturing? Will this be important to European industrial policy?

The existence and deployment of the programme has already brought resources to R&D in the space sector, together with FP7 research funds, and to the development of applied research and new technologies. The satellite-building aspect is just one part of what can be developed in terms of innovation. We must not forget the huge spillover potential that space research and the space industry have always demonstrated in pushing the development of other sectors. This would mean growth possibilities for European industry and positive impacts on the life of citizens.

Copernicus recently investigated the potential for downstream job activities through sectoral analysis. Could you outline the results of this study and its implications for economic growth?

Initial results show that Copernicus is not only a monitoring tool for institutional needs, but can also stimulate economic growth and employment in a wide range of industrial sectors, leading to the creation or maintenance of approximately 20,000 direct jobs in Europe by 2030 if enabling factors are put in place. With highly skilled jobs in this sector typically impacting employment in other sectors, the economic stimulus provided by Copernicus could also result in a wider economic effect with an additional 63,000 indirect jobs secured or created by 2030. Overall, the impact on employment from Copernicus by that time is estimated at approximately 83,000 jobs in Europe.

Finally, which communities will be involved with the programme, and in what way will these different sectors collaborate to make use of the subsystem information?

Copernicus will involve a very large and enormously diverse community in its upstream data providers, core services and myriad downstream users. Copernicus is, of course, a European-funded programme and so its main focus will be on creating benefits for the European citizen. However, by virtue both of its free and open data policy and the global nature of many of its observation sources, there is potential for a worldwide audience and consequently for profound benefit to the widest possible global community.

Collaboration within the user community obviously has the potential to further enhance the benefits. For example, collaboration between individual users can widen the local benefits into a regional or national context; doing so across different societal areas and within cross-cutting ventures can result in significant added value. We should always bear in mind that our environment is best characterised when we are able to consider all of its facets. Copernicus will facilitate this.

Dr Reinhard Schulte-Braucks joined the European Commission in 1981 and has worked in a number of areas such as anti-trust, completion of the internal market, information society and space research. In June 2012 he took up his present position as head of the GMES Unit in the European Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. GMES – or Copernicus as it will now be called – consists of the development of Earth observation services in the areas of land observation, emergency, oceanography, atmosphere, international security and climate change monitoring.

www.copernicus.eu