Connecting Research to Policy Experience from International Water Research Cooperation

1. Connecting Research to PolicyExperience from International Water Research Cooperation Cornelia E. NauenInternational S&T Cooperation (INCO) European Commission Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

2. Background to the IWRM Review • > 50 international S&T cooperation projects have been financially supported by the INCO Programme through Research Framework Programmes (FP4, 5, 6) • This represents an investment of >50 MEuro • International expert group to analyse what we have learnt through this cooperation • Guiding principle: sustainable development Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

3. Prof. Dipak Gyawali, Nepal (Chair) Prof. Anthony Allan, UK (Rapporteur) Prof. Paula Antunes, Portugal Dr. Basim Dudeen, Palestine Prof. Pietro Laureano, Italy Prof. Cassio Luiselli, Mexico Dr. Pedro Monteiro, South Africa Dr. Hong Khanh Nguyen, Vietnam Prof. Pavel Novacek, Czech Republic Prof. Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Germany International Review Panel Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

4. Environment Economics Social Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

5. Scoring methodologySustainability • Social Has the research addressed the priorities of society and the sustainability of society? Ex: Equitable access. Role of women. • Economic Has the research addressed the priorities of the economy and the sustainability of the economy? • Environmental Has the research addressed the priorities of the environment and the sustainability of ecosystems? Ex: Millennium Ecosystem Ass. • Politics Has the research addressed the role of politics, governance and law in the analysis and in its conclusions? Ex: Was there awareness? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

6. Scoring methodology • Was technical work context-specific? • Was an integrated approach practiced? • Was there constructive engagement with government, civil society, private sector, education system? • What was the impact, uptake by others? • Communication research-society – were the narratives effective for sharing research? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

7. Scoring methodologyWas technical work context-specific? • Were the technical solutions sensitive to the socio-economic context? • Were the technical solutions sensitive to ecosystems/environmental requirements? • Were the technical approaches and solutions realistic/effective in the prevailing institutional/political context? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

8. The perception gap • Researchers investigate the fundamentals of nature and/or society • The perceptions of social actors about the same issues are very different • The human brain has a predisposition for processing and accepting stories • Conceptual approaches need to be contextualised to ‚speak‘ to non-scientists • Monodisciplinary work tells too small a part of the story to be useful to policy Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

9. Ingredients for sustainability • Support dialogue-type social processes where narratives can be developed • Social learning takes place • Local capacity building • Public knowledge goods • Pro-activity in social and political engagement, conflict prevention and communication Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

10. Further information • Some more background information on http://ec.europa.eu/research/water-initiative Look for IWRM Review • http://ec.europa.eu/research/ - policy • http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7 Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

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

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

13. Scoring methodologyWas an integrated approach practiced? • Was there real integration? How effective? • What has been integrated? • What was excluded? • What changes have been effected? • Are these long-term? • Was co-dependence of the water sector and other sectors clear? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

14. Scoring methodologyWas there constructive engagement? • With government (central, local…)? • With private sector? • With civil society movements? • With other academics? • With the educational system? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

15. Scoring methodologyWhat was the impact? • Development of knowledge • Contribution to societal problem solving • What was the uptake by others? • Legacy – capacity strengthening, educational effects etc. Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

16. Scoring methodologyCommunication research-society • Are non-watershed issues being considered in communicating research results? • Are the political determinants of water using practices and water policy-making considered? • belief systems and power relations • the options of water users • the state of water managing and water regulating institutions • Are ‘narratives’ of knowledge-sharing effective? Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007

17. Some results of Review Panel The constructive outcomes of INCO resulted from • The evolving approaches and debate since the early 1990s which raised the profile of the challenges facing political leaders, policy-makers and water users. • Reflecting these trends through guiding the research community to integrate its science and address policy priorities and thus contribute to the EU Water Initiative. • The EU mode of collaborative research involving partners from EU and other parts of the world, which stimulated the adoption of new ideas and approaches to water policy and policy-relevant applied water science. Numerical Modelling for Policy Interface – Stuttgart, 12-13 March 2007