1
00:00:00,570 --> 00:00:05,010
Lakes, rivers, streams and ponds are teeming with extraordinary life.

2
00:00:05,700 --> 00:00:08,190
There are scientists who study these fresh waters.

3
00:00:08,550 --> 00:00:17,310
There are a huge number of freshwater snails which are just in one single spring or in one single tiny stream or so.

4
00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:24,030
And I believe that they are quite easily protected. And policy makers who decide how best to use and protect them.

5
00:00:24,060 --> 00:00:27,390
Policy making is very diverse and complex.

6
00:00:28,050 --> 00:00:31,200
So what happens when those two groups of people get together?

7
00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:39,939
In January 2014, more than 100 scientists and policymakers from over 30 European countries came together

8
00:00:39,940 --> 00:00:44,890
in Brussels to talk about new scientific horizons for biodiversity and water policy.

9
00:00:45,070 --> 00:00:51,190
This was Water Live's A Science Policy Symposium for Freshwater Life, organised jointly by Fire,

10
00:00:51,190 --> 00:00:58,450
fresh and refresh to EU funded projects that are both coming to an end and that both focussed on the biodiversity of fresh waters,

11
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:01,720
including how they can be protected in the face of climate change.

12
00:01:02,080 --> 00:01:08,650
I'm Helen Scales and I went along to the meeting to peer behind the scenes and explore the interface between science and policy.

13
00:01:09,100 --> 00:01:14,200
In this podcast, I'll be finding out what the challenges are for communicating science to policymakers and

14
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,040
what can be done to help encourage and improve these sorts of important discussions.

15
00:01:18,730 --> 00:01:24,850
Coming up, we'll hear from policymakers the key things they think scientists should know about the process of policymaking.

16
00:01:25,090 --> 00:01:25,720
But first,

17
00:01:25,930 --> 00:01:33,640
one thing at the Water Live symposium that was very clear to me was that everyone there agreed on the immense importance of freshwater life.

18
00:01:34,090 --> 00:01:42,909
And that's what is the most dynamic, the most complex and the most diverse ecosystems that we have on Earth, our rivers and lakes.

19
00:01:42,910 --> 00:01:47,380
These are our topic rainforests in respect to the biodiversity as well.

20
00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:57,129
It's a hidden diversity there. The decline in biodiversity is much faster and pragmatic in freshwater standard disinterest

21
00:01:57,130 --> 00:02:02,530
in lower marine systems because there's much more so kind of pressure from a human,

22
00:02:02,530 --> 00:02:08,140
said Clement, talking to there from the Life Mates Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries,

23
00:02:08,710 --> 00:02:16,150
as well as the many threats to freshwater life. Another problem is that for most people, most of the time it's out of sight and out of mind.

24
00:02:16,540 --> 00:02:22,720
Paul Jepsen from Oxford University. One of the slightly tricky things about freshwater is a lot of them are very murky.

25
00:02:23,170 --> 00:02:27,879
So if we think of the marine environment, you go and dive in the marine environment, you can take wonderful images.

26
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:32,970
It's blue, there's fishes, there's coral reefs. The freshwater environment isn't quite like that.

27
00:02:32,980 --> 00:02:37,299
I mean, it's, you know, it's murky, it's cold, it's rocky, it's fast flowing or, you know,

28
00:02:37,300 --> 00:02:39,860
of course, the lakes aren't quite like that, but then they're dark and cold, maybe.

29
00:02:40,030 --> 00:02:45,760
And here's William Dowell, who heads up the Freshwater Biodiversity Unit at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

30
00:02:46,150 --> 00:02:51,010
IUCN, talking about what they're doing to help raise the profile of freshwater biodiversity.

31
00:02:51,610 --> 00:02:58,060
One collaboration we are building at the moment is with an excellent underwater photographer for Freshwater,

32
00:02:58,210 --> 00:03:05,320
Michel Rogo, and he's been doing underwater photographs around the world for the last 20, 30 years, I think.

33
00:03:05,740 --> 00:03:13,569
But he goes to the places where you can see what's going on in the clear waters of the world and got some fantastic images which

34
00:03:13,570 --> 00:03:20,649
we're hoping to use to try and raise public awareness because there's absolutely beautiful landscapes underwater in freshwater.

35
00:03:20,650 --> 00:03:26,830
And some of the freshwater creatures are amazing, wonderful creatures that may just disappear.

36
00:03:26,830 --> 00:03:34,750
And we were completely unaware that they even existed. As well as the challenge of getting to grips with these out of sight ecosystems.

37
00:03:35,050 --> 00:03:39,310
The other major issue tackled at the Water Live symposium is something that applies

38
00:03:39,310 --> 00:03:43,990
to many different areas of science getting scientists on the one side of things

39
00:03:44,260 --> 00:03:48,879
to interact and discuss with the policy makers on the other side who ultimately

40
00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:53,080
make decisions about how their findings are translated into real world policies.

41
00:03:53,740 --> 00:03:57,880
Here's Bridget Tobias from the European Commission speaking at the symposium.

42
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:03,610
We are talking much today about science policy interface,

43
00:04:04,060 --> 00:04:13,600
and the value of that is today widely acknowledged because successful policy making goes hand in hand with a solid knowledge base.

44
00:04:13,750 --> 00:04:21,730
Not only is good science vital for good policy, but good policy is also vital for successful science.

45
00:04:22,450 --> 00:04:29,379
Interaction and dialogue between scientists and the diversity of stakeholders involved in water resources and biodiversity.

46
00:04:29,380 --> 00:04:34,440
Conservation management are the very essence of science policy.

47
00:04:34,450 --> 00:04:42,609
Interface activity is extremely challenging, sometimes daunting, even for both the scientist and the policymaker.

48
00:04:42,610 --> 00:04:48,550
But I'm sure that is worth the effort and actually to make people's activities successful.

49
00:04:49,060 --> 00:04:53,320
So why is it so difficult for scientists and policymakers to talk to each other?

50
00:04:53,980 --> 00:04:59,080
His teamwork happens from the EcoLogic Institute in Berlin, one of the organisers of the symposium,

51
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:02,880
because they have different languages, they have they come from different worlds.

52
00:05:02,890 --> 00:05:06,879
And there are conceptual thinkings, theoretical frameworks from the scientific part.

53
00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:16,350
Not all of them, of course, but many. And then there are these every day real politics, which of course, influenced policymakers in there,

54
00:05:16,570 --> 00:05:26,110
even if they like to have more deepening of of concepts, more provocative thinking and all these kind of things, they definitely appreciate that.

55
00:05:26,110 --> 00:05:31,660
But of course, at the end, they come to certain, you know, decision making process where.

56
00:05:31,750 --> 00:05:33,340
Where there are so many different interests.

57
00:05:33,730 --> 00:05:38,530
And then they have to make a compromise and they need they have to look for which arguments are the right ones.

58
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:45,760
And Paul Jeppeson caught up with two of the policy makers at the symposium, Antilla and Francois Vecchione from the European Commission,

59
00:05:45,760 --> 00:05:51,730
DG Environment, to see what their thoughts were on this disjuncture between scientists and policymakers.

60
00:05:52,790 --> 00:05:56,449
So sometimes we might think that in some ways, like today in this meeting,

61
00:05:56,450 --> 00:06:00,680
we've got two different cultures coming together or two different tribes coming together.

62
00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:05,240
Do you see it like that and do you see that this particular challenges in communicating?

63
00:06:05,660 --> 00:06:12,530
I don't see it like that because in our day to day work there is constant interaction with the scientific community,

64
00:06:12,860 --> 00:06:15,860
either in the form of bilateral exchanges in meetings,

65
00:06:16,100 --> 00:06:25,700
either through, you know, the examination from our side of all the relevant material that is available from the scientific community.

66
00:06:25,700 --> 00:06:29,420
So that interaction exists and is very thriving.

67
00:06:29,810 --> 00:06:32,840
However, in these types of events,

68
00:06:32,840 --> 00:06:41,930
what you see is that our agendas and ways of operating are still disconnected in the sense that the scientific community

69
00:06:42,350 --> 00:06:50,839
does not necessarily always understand the constraints of policymaking and the immediacy of policymaking in terms of,

70
00:06:50,840 --> 00:06:58,670
you know, the need to have response to difficult questions. If you want to advance with your political process and at the same time,

71
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:04,909
the policymaking community does not always understand or appreciate the fact that the scientific community cannot always

72
00:07:04,910 --> 00:07:11,150
provide the answers to the questions they face and which prevent them from making progress at the policymaking level.

73
00:07:12,260 --> 00:07:18,440
Yes, I see. We will see some evolution and a very positive evolution in the last years.

74
00:07:18,920 --> 00:07:24,049
But there is a need to to better understand how we work respectively.

75
00:07:24,050 --> 00:07:31,160
And I don't think that many scientists are reading directives that we are adopting.

76
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:38,740
And I must say that the scientific articles are often difficult to to read and to understand from our side.

77
00:07:39,050 --> 00:07:46,640
So therefore, we need to better understand each other and maybe to format things a bit differently so that

78
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:53,840
we can then really have a common understanding of the issues and the policy priorities.

79
00:07:54,920 --> 00:08:05,629
Things are changing. There are more and more scientists know who are engaging in policymaking and maybe to a new profile over I mean,

80
00:08:05,630 --> 00:08:08,930
I'm not expecting all scientists to to do that,

81
00:08:08,930 --> 00:08:16,909
but to to be able to translate science to policymakers in a format that can be used for policymaking and vice versa.

82
00:08:16,910 --> 00:08:21,350
I was able to understand the policy questions and to frame it in a scientific context,

83
00:08:22,100 --> 00:08:25,280
despite the challenges of bringing these groups of people together.

84
00:08:25,580 --> 00:08:28,550
There's no doubt that it's incredibly important.

85
00:08:29,330 --> 00:08:35,569
I think that the main driver is the recognition that we can only be effective if we bring together the two communities,

86
00:08:35,570 --> 00:08:42,200
because the issues with which we deal are of such a level of complexity that policymakers

87
00:08:42,230 --> 00:08:49,130
on their own depend on the scientific advice and knowledge which they do not have in-house.

88
00:08:49,460 --> 00:08:51,050
And at the same time,

89
00:08:51,530 --> 00:09:03,590
we also see a need for the scientific community to understand better how its contributions can be used and can be tailored to a policymaking audience.

90
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:12,740
Yes, I mean, the complexity we have to deal with nowadays is such that, I mean, nobody alone can can make the difference.

91
00:09:13,160 --> 00:09:24,380
So we are dealing with systems which are interacting and are also we have different pressures, which mean tremendously a change of the whole dynamics.

92
00:09:24,620 --> 00:09:34,820
And therefore, there is a need to put all this science, all this knowledge together and try to then design our policymaking differently.

93
00:09:35,690 --> 00:09:41,150
One way that the symposium is try to overcome this barrier between scientists and policymakers

94
00:09:41,420 --> 00:09:45,830
was to plan things a little differently from the normal way science conferences are often held.

95
00:09:45,980 --> 00:09:51,650
Here again is teamwork. We had the choice. We had a long discussion about the symposium, how it should be organised,

96
00:09:51,650 --> 00:09:57,979
and the choice was always to have a kind of a usual format, how it is implemented in many,

97
00:09:57,980 --> 00:10:06,530
many research projects where you have a certain more research focussed conference where scientific outcomes are presented and discussed.

98
00:10:06,890 --> 00:10:12,080
So that is one thing and we realised that it's, it's, it's not only nicer,

99
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:23,270
it's also much more needed to have a real policy science policy dialogue on the outcomes because we, we also saw the policy relevance and the results.

100
00:10:23,780 --> 00:10:30,770
And yeah, there are some ongoing initiatives on at the EU level, but also on some national level where,

101
00:10:31,490 --> 00:10:35,990
where this interface between policy and science should be improved.

102
00:10:35,990 --> 00:10:43,129
And we thought that we could even jump on the same train, you know, and make a good contribution to that.

103
00:10:43,130 --> 00:10:52,130
And both biodiversity and water policy are so are so crucial issues and there are so many open questions for the for the future design of.

104
00:10:52,190 --> 00:10:58,489
A policy and everything which science could possibly contribute should also be directly brought to the policymakers.

105
00:10:58,490 --> 00:11:05,420
And I think that was the overall aim. So as well as some of the bio fresh and refreshed scientists presenting their work to the symposium,

106
00:11:05,660 --> 00:11:10,820
there were also smaller outbreak sessions where particular topics were discussed by everyone in the room.

107
00:11:11,270 --> 00:11:18,260
They called this the Science Policy Café Timo Cup, thanks to moderated the lively debate about ecosystem services,

108
00:11:18,590 --> 00:11:22,070
something that a lot of participants at the symposium were keen to discuss.

109
00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:33,590
I actually enjoyed it quite, quite a lot. I knew that the that the topic is probably quite attractive to people to join the symposium here because

110
00:11:34,250 --> 00:11:42,410
it seemed that it was quite became quite a controversial issue in the debate about ecosystem management,

111
00:11:42,710 --> 00:11:48,320
biodiversity conservation, nature, conservation and these and these issues.

112
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:54,469
And yeah, especially the ecosystem service approach which, which has been widely applied,

113
00:11:54,470 --> 00:12:00,200
especially in biodiversity policies, has its weaknesses I would say.

114
00:12:00,680 --> 00:12:08,360
And, and we were interested in really having to viewpoints on that issue from,

115
00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:14,240
from key actors in that respect, which is, which are the scientists on the one hand,

116
00:12:15,290 --> 00:12:26,299
who are usually probably in the position to provide scientific evidence of the linkages between ecosystems,

117
00:12:26,300 --> 00:12:28,790
biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services.

118
00:12:30,050 --> 00:12:37,820
And on the other side, there are the policymakers who who actually want to implement a policy based on that concept.

119
00:12:37,820 --> 00:12:41,690
And they need this this evidence from from from science.

120
00:12:42,170 --> 00:12:46,999
And we felt that there is a certain gap which probably needs to be filled.

121
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:49,159
And that was the overall topic of the discussion.

122
00:12:49,160 --> 00:12:59,900
But we already we also had noticed that there are so many other surrounding issues coming into play of yeah,

123
00:13:00,110 --> 00:13:04,070
for example, the right communication of science, the right communication of policy.

124
00:13:05,210 --> 00:13:13,540
These are two aspects which I still have in mind from the from the discussion, but other limitations, I would say.

125
00:13:13,550 --> 00:13:21,580
So there is it's it was very broad. So my personal impression was it was not easy to moderate that session because it was very broad.

126
00:13:22,730 --> 00:13:33,780
But I think we figured out some of the key problems and even to some extent some possible ways to at least alleviate the problems.

127
00:13:33,800 --> 00:13:39,050
I wouldn't say that we solved them. So you only had like an hour, so but I mean,

128
00:13:39,170 --> 00:13:46,489
so there are obvious challenges to just almost physically getting these people in the same room in a sense,

129
00:13:46,490 --> 00:13:52,100
like what opportunities are there for scientists and policymakers to actually sit down and and talk over these things?

130
00:13:52,310 --> 00:13:58,730
Is that is that becoming a more common event or is it still difficult to to fit this in?

131
00:13:59,210 --> 00:14:03,960
I actually hope so, because you could already feel at the very beginning that the people,

132
00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:11,990
of course, when they enter the room, they, first of all, had a kind of a distance to that forum.

133
00:14:11,990 --> 00:14:18,830
And so they felt a bit uncomfortable just standing around in a room and with two person at the front talking.

134
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:25,310
But I think they got used to it. And it's, of course, a big difference to these kind of these plenary sessions where you have,

135
00:14:25,790 --> 00:14:29,780
you know, clear roles, people sitting in the audience and listen to speakers.

136
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:36,259
But I think in terms of a dialogue, it's much better to have that kind of format where people are free to speech,

137
00:14:36,260 --> 00:14:46,430
where you can see everyone, you know, standing in a circle at least, and where everyone has as well.

138
00:14:46,430 --> 00:14:51,739
Can this develop the feeling that he or she has can contribute to that discussion?

139
00:14:51,740 --> 00:14:58,700
And that turned out quite well. It took it took some time. I think at the beginning they were a bit hesitant, the people, the participants.

140
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:09,049
But then after a certain time, a certain threshold, it would say you really felt like, you know, everyone has its own its own opinion about that.

141
00:15:09,050 --> 00:15:14,420
And then it became became kind of quite visible. And this is that was a quite nice process, I think.

142
00:15:15,590 --> 00:15:23,510
So at the end of two days of presentations and discussions, sometimes quite heated, how are people feeling about the success of the symposium?

143
00:15:23,810 --> 00:15:25,790
I caught up with some of the scientists involved.

144
00:15:26,270 --> 00:15:33,829
The benefits of this particular event is that we've been able to combine our networks, the Biodiversity Network,

145
00:15:33,830 --> 00:15:38,780
with bio fresh in the Water Frame Directive network with them with refresh to bring

146
00:15:38,780 --> 00:15:42,980
together policymakers that perhaps don't talk to each other as often as they should do.

147
00:15:43,670 --> 00:15:49,700
And I think it's given us a then an opportunity to try to broaden our dissemination message.

148
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,100
This was a great meeting because we saw solid results.

149
00:15:54,100 --> 00:15:57,760
First of all, these two projects are finishing.

150
00:15:57,940 --> 00:16:06,729
They produced good, solid results. I hope that this results will help policymakers reform their policies accordingly.

151
00:16:06,730 --> 00:16:12,130
So we will be able to halt biodiversity loss in freshwater systems.

152
00:16:13,210 --> 00:16:16,900
Well, the biggest benefit to me is actually to have made contact with the people

153
00:16:16,900 --> 00:16:21,640
who I think I've been told are the ones that can actually have an influence.

154
00:16:22,030 --> 00:16:29,680
So that was one of the main objectives of being here, actually. So from that point of view, yes, I do think it's been a big success.

155
00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:39,220
I've also become much clearer what the sort of limitations of what we might expect from how much we can influence policy.

156
00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:44,950
That's become much clearer, and we can understand that there are clear limits to what can be done.

157
00:16:45,670 --> 00:16:53,230
That was Martin KERNAN from University College, London. Maria Stansbury from the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, and William Doyle from IUCN.

158
00:16:53,590 --> 00:16:56,680
And how about some of the policy makers? How did they think it went?

159
00:16:57,160 --> 00:17:05,710
I research policy, what I'm taking home from here, I'm taking home some identified knowledge gaps and new research priorities,

160
00:17:06,070 --> 00:17:11,620
and I'm taking home more on how to deal with science policy interfaces.

161
00:17:12,430 --> 00:17:14,860
That was Adrian Perez from the European Commission.

162
00:17:15,430 --> 00:17:21,220
Paul Jepson also caught up with and Helen Farnsworth you from the European Commission to see how they felt the meeting had gone.

163
00:17:21,310 --> 00:17:27,430
You know, as I said, we've come together for these two days in this sort of format where, you know, we're dialoguing face to face.

164
00:17:27,850 --> 00:17:32,200
It's costly to us all in terms of time and resources. Do you think these are part of the solution?

165
00:17:32,830 --> 00:17:36,940
I think they are. I think they are. And it's an important part of improving the dialogue.

166
00:17:36,970 --> 00:17:42,400
I'm really pleased by the fact that the discussions have been truly interactive.

167
00:17:42,400 --> 00:17:49,360
It's not always the case in such a. So this is certainly to the credit of the organisers of this conference.

168
00:17:49,750 --> 00:17:58,780
Now I don't think it's sufficient. I think that these are extremely useful opportunities for more, I would say relaxed discussions about,

169
00:17:58,780 --> 00:18:01,870
you know, how we can do things better, how we can reinforce the interaction.

170
00:18:02,320 --> 00:18:11,580
But the reality of our work requires that we do that on a constant basis when dealing with the challenges that we face on a on a more regular basis.

171
00:18:11,590 --> 00:18:14,010
So we need to have mechanisms in place.

172
00:18:14,020 --> 00:18:24,280
We need to have tools through which we can interact more directly and more spontaneously in order to to be truly effective.

173
00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:28,810
Yes, I think that I mean, I see this as an investment from both sides.

174
00:18:29,110 --> 00:18:33,339
I guess that in the future, there are many things that we will need to do to repeat,

175
00:18:33,340 --> 00:18:40,540
to explain to each other, because we would better understand how we work and but as are as France facing.

176
00:18:40,750 --> 00:18:45,310
I think also that DG research will play in the years to come,

177
00:18:45,970 --> 00:18:56,080
also a role in facilitating this dialogue and therefore that we could save our time and resources as much as possible.

178
00:18:57,220 --> 00:19:04,990
And after all that, what happens next? What else can be done to help boost the communication between scientists and policymakers?

179
00:19:05,710 --> 00:19:09,610
Here's Brian Moss, retired professor of biodiversity from the University of Liverpool,

180
00:19:09,850 --> 00:19:18,040
who opened the symposium with a talk pointing out that both scientists and policymakers need to try a bit harder to communicate to each other.

181
00:19:18,700 --> 00:19:27,040
I think you need a level playing field at the moment. Government and policymakers essentially are the first link of government influence,

182
00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:32,440
much more by business, by the concept of growth economies and so forth,

183
00:19:32,650 --> 00:19:37,690
and so that the ear is much more open to them than to people saying, actually,

184
00:19:37,690 --> 00:19:44,230
we're facing major problems and the only way of really tackling them is to change the system in a very big way.

185
00:19:44,260 --> 00:19:51,580
They want to do things in a small way and it's in business interest because they're interested really in their profits over the next five years.

186
00:19:52,270 --> 00:19:55,180
It's in their interest to have things done in a small way, in a short term.

187
00:19:55,390 --> 00:20:00,940
But you really do have to think on the long term and on a planet on a truly global scale.

188
00:20:01,210 --> 00:20:04,900
Clement Tickner thinks that there are a few key things that both scientists and

189
00:20:04,900 --> 00:20:09,820
policymakers can think about to help improve links between them and share ideas.

190
00:20:10,690 --> 00:20:16,390
I mean, there's one prerequisite from both sides that may facilitate this discussion.

191
00:20:16,900 --> 00:20:22,570
The first one is curiosity to be interested in the science and that we as

192
00:20:22,570 --> 00:20:27,100
scientists are interested what happens with the knowledge that we are generating.

193
00:20:27,700 --> 00:20:37,120
There must be a fundamental interest. The second, of course, is we are learning jointly to speak the same language and disrupt the issue.

194
00:20:37,230 --> 00:20:46,780
And then speaking as a scientist, there is through this feedback, we get fascinating questions that we as scientists need to answer.

195
00:20:46,960 --> 00:20:52,090
And it's the simple questions that the most difficult and the most challenging one to answer.

196
00:20:53,170 --> 00:21:03,100
It would be fascinating to close this loop between basic science, empirical research, modelling, and then implementation as well.

197
00:21:04,090 --> 00:21:09,790
This needn't be done by a single person, so not each of them needs to to close this loop.

198
00:21:10,420 --> 00:21:20,320
But you need a very fascinating. Combination were excellent in all this and were just open minded and interested to close this loop.

199
00:21:21,310 --> 00:21:27,610
And here's your cry of who, like Clement, is also from the Leibniz Institute to Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries.

200
00:21:28,270 --> 00:21:30,820
All this is also a question of solidarity.

201
00:21:31,390 --> 00:21:43,060
So Europe is not just an aggregation of member states, but we we stand together as one unit, also also for conservation.

202
00:21:43,390 --> 00:21:51,070
We hope, of course, that this message has reached the policymakers and the message that there is really a

203
00:21:51,070 --> 00:21:58,030
need to do something which might not just be solved by optimising ecosystem services.

204
00:21:59,020 --> 00:22:04,390
We hope that this has reached them and will have some beneficial outcome to them.

205
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:10,240
So what key things do scientists need to know about the process of policymaking?

206
00:22:10,870 --> 00:22:15,550
That was the question Paul Jepson put to Antilla and Francois Vecchione from the European Commission.

207
00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:21,250
You say it's important for scientists to better understand the constraints which which you're working under.

208
00:22:21,910 --> 00:22:24,430
What might be the key ones you think we need to understand?

209
00:22:25,300 --> 00:22:36,070
One of the constraints is the is linked to the need to convince people that are not experts and will never be in any policymaking process.

210
00:22:36,460 --> 00:22:41,950
You have at some stage to reach the top level to make a difference and get decisions to go through.

211
00:22:42,310 --> 00:22:51,730
And in those discussions, what you need is to be able to translate very complex scientific findings into an extremely simple,

212
00:22:51,760 --> 00:22:58,930
layman's language that will convince someone who will not have the expertise that you would expect them to have on some of the issues.

213
00:22:59,140 --> 00:23:05,320
But at the same time will be the one that will be ultimately making the decision that will make a scientific difference,

214
00:23:06,040 --> 00:23:12,070
not from scientists have been very good in the last decade to raise the problems,

215
00:23:12,490 --> 00:23:19,390
but not so good in proposing solutions and operational solutions that the society could accept.

216
00:23:19,870 --> 00:23:23,500
So often we are asking them, okay, and so what?

217
00:23:23,950 --> 00:23:29,350
I mean, we are losing these species or this ecosystem is under threat.

218
00:23:30,100 --> 00:23:35,200
So what? How will it affect our our daily life and what can we do about it?

219
00:23:35,200 --> 00:23:41,620
And I think there is a change to be also made from that point of view, to look not only at the identification of problems,

220
00:23:41,620 --> 00:23:50,210
but also at solutions that can be maybe not ideal, but at least can be acceptable by the society.

221
00:23:50,860 --> 00:23:58,900
And oftentimes you need simple solutions, which will be easy to translate into regulatory or other types of measures.

222
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:03,700
And where there can be a difficult interaction sometimes is in relation to the

223
00:24:03,700 --> 00:24:07,990
fact that science is complex and there are no easy solutions to certain issues.

224
00:24:08,140 --> 00:24:15,310
And that can be a difficulty. And what strikes me all the time is that they should start with these and they should start with the resolve to think

225
00:24:15,310 --> 00:24:23,230
which can attract the policymaker and by making a direct link to some policy action if there is no link to policy action.

226
00:24:23,420 --> 00:24:27,160
Well, you know, I mean, interesting. But, you know, what can I do about it?

227
00:24:27,490 --> 00:24:32,709
And then when you have this attention, then you can, you know, go more into the detail.

228
00:24:32,710 --> 00:24:38,500
And as I saying, depending on the person who will act and use the information,

229
00:24:38,500 --> 00:24:44,650
you may then go to a very high level of detail, but you should really start with the the catchy conclusions.

230
00:24:44,830 --> 00:24:46,149
And usually it's the other way around.

231
00:24:46,150 --> 00:24:51,490
You have a lot of context, background methods and so on, and then at the end you have maybe one centre left to lead.

232
00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:55,389
And another dimension that I would underline there is linked to what I was just saying.

233
00:24:55,390 --> 00:24:58,420
It relates to cycles, policy cycles.

234
00:24:58,420 --> 00:25:06,640
Policy cycles are short cycles. You know, you work on a strategy and then three or four years later you assess whether it's been effective and

235
00:25:06,940 --> 00:25:11,170
obviously you've got the electoral dimension to political cycles as well that comes into the picture.

236
00:25:11,560 --> 00:25:19,990
And scientists don't often realise that this places specific constraints in terms of the messages that one may wish to convey.

237
00:25:20,650 --> 00:25:27,610
For instance, focusing all the debates on what will happen in 2050 if we don't do certain things is not

238
00:25:27,610 --> 00:25:32,110
necessarily going to trigger the responses that you would require from a policy perspective,

239
00:25:32,110 --> 00:25:43,390
because your political constraints will make it compulsory for you to be able to identify what the impact will be two or three years down the line.

240
00:25:44,470 --> 00:25:52,000
So there you have it. Some ideas fresh from the European Commission policymakers on how scientists can help to smooth the discussions

241
00:25:52,000 --> 00:25:58,480
and exchange of ideas with the people who use their science and ultimately put it into real world policies.

242
00:25:58,960 --> 00:26:02,230
That's all for this podcast from the Water Dev Symposium in Brussels.

243
00:26:02,620 --> 00:26:09,060
You can find out more about both the refresh and bio fresh projects at their websites that's refreshed on UCL,

244
00:26:09,070 --> 00:26:12,460
DOT, Act, UK and freshwater biodiversity.

245
00:26:12,630 --> 00:26:14,400
Don't you? Thanks for listening.