JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

1 of 53

Science for Policy 101

Meetings | Publications | Outreach | www.egu.eu

2 of 53

Coming up…!

Chloe Hill, EGU Policy Manager

Agnieszka Gadzina-Kolodziejska, Deputy Head of the Science for democracy and evidence-informed policymaking Unit, the Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission

Erika von Schneidemesser, Research Group Leader at Research Institute for Sustainability

Ilias Grampas, Deputy Director, European Bureau for Conservation and Development

3 of 53

Science for policy: Key terminology

Policy: a plan of action developed to achieve a desired outcome
Science for policy: Transferring information from the scientific community to decision-makers with the intention to produce evidence-informed policy
Evidence-informed policy: when the best available scientific evidence is used to help make policy decisions
Policy for science: dictates how science is funded, conducted, and communicated

4 of 53

Why Should Scientists Engage with Policy?

What motivates you?k

To help guide effective policy and improve policy outcomes

To mitigate risks and uncertainties

To increase the impact of research outcomes and expertise

To expand professional networks and create new opportunities

5 of 53

When is Science used in Policymaking?

Scientific evidence can be used in many ways throughout the policymaking process.

Help define the issues that need policy action
Provide explanations of complex systems that allow policymakers to see unintended consequences of policies
Find solutions to specific issues during a policy’s implementation
Evaluate the impact and effect of a policy
Help policymakers respond to a crisis, e.g., COVID-19 or a natural disaster

Science is also used at many different government levels! E.g., Global, EU, national, regional or state, and city or town level!

6 of 53

�The different ways in which policymakers use science can also be shown in the policy cycle.��The policy cycle is a commonly used process that explains how policy should be drafted, implemented and assessed. It breaks down the areas or steps that are required to create a policy BUT it is also *very* idealised… meaning that it is never quite this simple of clean cut. We’ll use it as a basis to jump off from and fill in the details as this course progresses. Just keep in mind that it serves more as an instructive guide for those new to policy than as a practical strictly-defined process.

The policy cycle, as it is commonly depicted, is made up of roughly six stages -AND science can be incorporated into every step.

It’s very important to note that this is really an idealized vison of what the policymaking process looks like. It’s simplified and in reality it probably looks more like this. But it’s quite useful for looking into the different ways in which scientists can engage.

1. Agenda setting

This step identifies new issues that may require government action. – in a European context agenda setting is done by the European Commission who proposes new policies. But these proposals can be spurred on by the Parliament or even citizens can request the Commission make a proposal through the European Citizens Initiative’

Foresight scanning (identifying issues): scientific information can help highlight issues that need to be resolved. Things like biodiversity loss and climate change are two issues that were first highlighted by scientists and are now key policy issues. Now the the IPCC – will create reports specifically for policymakers to outline where the issues are and what needs to happen to avoid worse effects

It could also relate to specific local issues and the current (or future) problems that they will cause. E.g. highlighting the high level of heavy metals in one of the town’s rivers.

Sometimes the Commission will socialite this advice through an EU Commission Consultation or by creating an EU Commission Expert group (more on these later!). Other times, scientific institutions –

�Foresight scanning may also include outlining new evidence which re-emphasizes the importance of a particular issue (or shows it from a different angle). For example, highlighting the likely economic impact of climate change on a particular industry.

�

2. Formulation

This step defines the structure of the policy. What are the key issues? What goals need to be achieved? Will there be additional implications? What will the costs be? How will key stakeholders react to these effects?�

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: aim to comprehensively assess what effects will occur from a potential policy. This step generally involves the EU Commission (which is the European Union’s) agenda setting body, asking another EU institution to undertake a meta-study on this issue that synthesises all of the relevant information. Although this research is often coordinated “in house” (by an EU institution), they use and ask for external expertise through a number of different outlets. We’ll get to both the key EU Institutions (and how they use science) as well as some of these science for policy pathways soon! ��

3. Adoption

Once sufficient evidence is gathered and stakeholders have had an opportunity to provide input a proposal is created that then needs to be adopted. In Europe, it’s the Commission that creates the proposal and the Council and Parliament that are responsible for amending it, adopting it or rejecting it.

Support and advice to legislative bodies: Policymakers in the Parliament & Council need to review a new policy proposal before passing, amending or rejecting it. During this process they may need expert advice. This advice might be solicited (i.e. asked for) or unsolicited. It’s important to know what stage a policy proposal is at so you know how needs the advice and the type of input that is helpful. �

�

4. Implementation

Once the policy has been adopted, it then needs to be implemented. Often outlining the steps that are required to implement a policy requires support from multiple establishments. It may even result in the creation of a new body (such a as the Biodiversity knowledge centre which was created in 2020 following the adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy).

Methodological guidance on implementation: In the EU, implantation of a policy often happens on an EU member state level. Here we can think about the example of the Biodiversity Strategy. There are certain EU targets that EU member states should contribute to (like increasing protected areas to 30%). How EU member states go about this will depend on the resources they have and situation that they are in. To make these decisions and ensure that the policy is implemented as effectively as possile, national-level policymakers are likely to rely on advice of national experts!

5.Evaluation

This step assesses the effectiveness and success of the policy. Did any unpredicted effects occur? These assessments can be quantitative and/or qualitative.��6. Support / maintenance

Provide advice on how the policy could be developed or improved as new situations arise. ��Show the messy complicated-ness in reality (red stuff appears)

7 of 53

Roles that bridge the science-policy divide

Researchers: contributes to creating and gathering evidence

Knowledge Brokers: facilitate the transfer of knowledge

Science Advisors: provide relevant and contextualised information

Practitioners: Implementation and action on the ground

Policy Advisors: Advise those in decision-making roles

Policymakers: Consider the evidence and make decisions

“Policymakers”

8 of 53

The Honest Broker

When scientists engage in policy, it is vital that they understand and communicate the role that they are playing!

Pielke, 2007

Honest Broker

Issue advocate

Pure Scientist

Science Arbiter

Level of engagement with stakeholders and decision-process

Low

High

9 of 53

Science for policy: The challenges

Scientists and policymakers have different norms, cultures, and language
Both communities work on different timeframes – and both have limited time and resources!
Scientific novelty is not always exciting (or useful) for policymakers
Policymakers and scientists have a different approaches to uncertainty
Both communities have different communication styles
There are limited opportunities for two-way dialogues!

10 of 53

Finding solutions

Become bilingual in both science & policy
Learn more about the political landscape (particularly in your research area)
Practice using concise formats, avoiding jargon, and using narratives and visualisations
Get outside of your bubble: Join policy events, engage with interdisciplinary working groups, learn science for policy competences, go to #EGU25 sci-pol sessions!
Engage in the policymaking process early and participate in co-creative processes!
Expand and strengthen your scientific network

11 of 53

EGU – bridging the science-policy divide

We provide our members with resources and opportunities to engage with policy
And synthesise timely, accurate, and useful scientific evidence to support decision-making!

12 of 53

13 of 53

Subscribe to the EGU Science for Policy Newsletter

Monthly updates on:

EGU’s #Sci4Pol activities
Opportunities to engage with policymakers
Science-policy events and workshops
Geoscience-relevant policy news

14 of 53

Join our monthly #Science4Policy Hangouts

Discuss how researchers can more effectively engage with policymaking
Learn about science for policy opportunities
Ask your science for policy questions
Virtually mingle in a relaxed, informal environment!

15 of 53

Find your EGU Division Slack Group

Learn about and share relevant policy opportunities and resources
Coordinate with other researchers to provide information to policymakers
Connect with others interested in engaging with policymaking!

16 of 53

Join more #EGU25 science for policy sessions!

Have your say on policymaking: Answering a call for evidence 14:00–15:45, Wednesday

A glimpse into life inside political institutions 10:45 – 12:30 on Thursday

Meet your EGU Division Policy Officer 14:00–15:45 on Thursday

How to write a policy brief 16:15–18:00 in Thursday

Strengthening policy t hrough science: Insights from the interface 8:30–10:15 & 14:00 -15:45 Friday

EGU Science for Policy Help Desk – everyday from 12:00 until 13:00 at the EGU Booth

17 of 53

10 Resources to start engaging with Science for Policy today!

18 of 53

Why Evidence Informed Policymaking?� �

EGU General Assembly, 29 April 2025

Agnieszka Gadzina-Kolodziejska

European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Unit S.2 Science for Democracy and Evidence-Informed Policymaking

19 of 53

The Joint Research Centre (JRC)

KC on Cancer

KC for Disaster and Risk Management

KC for Territorial Policies

KC on Migration�and Demography

KC for Biodiversity

KC for Bioeconomy

KC for Food Fraud�and Quality

KC for Food and Nutrition Security

KC on Earth Observation

Science and knowledge service in support of EU policies

Directorate General under Commissioner Ekaterina Zacharieva

Board of Member States Governors

2000+ scientists, across 6 sites and different KC and CC

Yearly over 2800 peer-reviewed publications

20 of 53

Over 50 JRC facilities – some examples�Virtual tour at https://visitors-centre.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/media?type=8

European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)

Hopkinson �Bar facility �(HOPLAB)

Vehicle Emission Laboratory (VELA)+ vehicle Market Surveillance Laboratory

Battery Testing Facility Laboratory

Nuclear Forensic Laboratory

European Interoperability Centre for Electric Vehicles and Smart Grids

21 of 53

Why do we need evidence-informed policymaking?

We live in complex societies, with multiple crises and diverse perspectives on how to address policy challenges

Evidence provides us with the best available picture of reality to make informed policy choices

Evidence can help inform our policy decisions at different stages of the policymaking process and make more robust decisions

Source: https://www.businessillustrator.com/product/complexity-cartoon/

22 of 53

Evidence use good for democracy

23 of 53

Evidence use good for building trust in governments

24 of 53

The importance of building trust in democratic settings

The principle of informing policy through evidence corresponds to democratic principles. It is not technocratic

Evidence Informed Policymaking enhances transparency, public scrutiny and accountability

Recognise the importance of identity, values, worldviews, and behavior.

Mobilise evidence in the consultation process, engaging in informed deliberation with citizens on pressing issues provides clarity on policy decisions and their impact.

Providing a solid justification for the direction of policies, rooted in transparent evidence enhances citizens' trust

25 of 53

A political process in support of science for policy is in motion

Commission Document

�Oct 22

COMPET Council Policy Debate

�

Dec 22

Commission Conference on Science for Policy

Brussels�Oct 23

COMPET Council Conclusions

December 2023

Ghent Declaration

�February 2024

26 of 53

�A shared commitment by Member States to strengthening science for policy

Key principles

Science-informed policies of higher quality

All fields of science can and should play a role in policymaking

R&I policy measures positively impact society and resilience of democracy

Call for joint EC-MS actions, incl

...foster a European science-for-policy ecosystem connecting science and policymaking

...develop tools for training, dialogues and mobility of staff between science and administration

...foster the use of TSI to support public policymakers in science for policy

8 Dec 2023: EU-27 governments (via research ministers) agreed to Council Conclusions on R&I use for public policies.

27 of 53

Technical Support Instrument project on Evidence Informed Policymaking in 7 EU Member States

TSI project funded by DG REFORM and delivered by the JRC and OECD

Mixed group of beneficiary authorities (so called “demand” and “supply”)

Aims to improve capacity for evidence-informed policymaking

Country analysis of organisations, processes and interconnections
Capacity-building workshops for professionals
Mutual learning exchange (foresight, policy evaluation, AI in policymaking)

At the end… roadmap with recommendations for reforms

Better inter-ministerial coordination (networks of science advisers)
Improving the weight of scientific evidence in RIA, policy evaluation, foresight, etc.)

28 of 53

Insights

Using science to inform policy is a political choice, not a technocratic one, so needs political commitment.
Dynamic nature of EIPM – no simple linear development – EIPM needs systemic thinking, each phase comes with its own challenges.
EIPM doesn’t happen by accident. The eco-system will not self-organise. It requires leadership, incentives, and structures that actively encourage its use.
Trusted relationships and networks matter as much as good science!
There is no perfect model or "one-size-fits-all" solutions – common problems and success factors, common principles but context-specific solutions.
A shared language matters.

29 of 53

Insights

Most countries have a good supply – is there anyone inside government with the time to read the reports and ask questions?
Better use of scientific knowledge in government is a key
Focus on long-term and cross-departmental knowledge agenda, gather evidence needs
Strengthen collaboration within and between ministries and academia, work on reducing siloes
Scientists: don’t use advice giving to lobby for research funding!

30 of 53

Technical Support Instrument project on Evidence Informed Policymaking – second edition

National Office for Science Advice, Prime Minister Office

Ministry for Science, Innovation and Universities
the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)
The Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT)
The Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Service
The National Institute for Public Administration (INAP).

Secretariat for the Coordination and Support of the Government Programme

Research and Innovation Foundation
Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance
General Directorate for Growth, Ministry of Finance

Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS)

The Central Statistics Office (CSO)
The Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES)
The Department of Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC)

Ministry of Science and Higher Education

The Chancellery of the Prime Minister
Ministry of Industry
Ministry of Infrastructure
Ministry of Climate and Environment
The Polish Academy of Science

Competence Centre for Planning, Policy and Foresight of the Public Administration (PlanAPP)

Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Labour, Solidatiry and Social Security
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Portuguese Agency of Enviornment
Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
National Agency of Innovation (ANI)

L’Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement

Interministerial Direcotrate for Public Transformation (DITP)
Ministry of Tertiary Education and Research
L'Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (INSEE)
General Commission for Sustainable Development (CGDD)
Ministry of Ecological Trasition

Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research

The Austrian Council for Sciences, Technology and Innovation
The Austrian Academy of Sciences
Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK)
Statistics Austria
The Science Office of Austrian Parliament
Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (BMKÖS)

31 of 53

JRC Competence Frameworks on S4P

32 of 53

JRC Competence Frameworks on S4P

Create a comprehensive overview of competences

Inspire & provide orientation

Provide actionable insights for capacity building

Highlight & mainstream novel and best practice

33 of 53

The Competence Framework for Researchers

34 of 53

35 of 53

The Smart4Policy self reflection tool

Smart4Policy is an online self-reflection tool. Its purpose is to help policymakers and researchers working in science-for-policy reflect on their level of competence in various fields.
It helps understand the strengths and areas where improvement is needed.

The Smart4Policy online self-reflection tool helps you understand where your strengths are and which areas of improvement you have. Completing a self-reflection in one session takes around 30 - 60 minutes, but you can save your self-reflection and return later. You can also decide to answer only some competence clusters. Then it takes less time.

Upon completing the questionnaire, you will automatically receive a report on your competence level in each cluster with suggestions on next steps and resources helping you improve. Based on the results, you can make an informed decision about your personal learning and development plan. For example, you could aim to be a generalist, who is somewhat good at everything. Or you could be a specialist, who aims to be excellent at one or a few connected areas of competence. Importantly, the competences are a collective set of activities, which organisations should be able to perform. But no individual policymaker or researcher can be expected to excel in all or even many of them.

36 of 53

Trainings for Scientists

Goal: develop the relevant mentality and capacity on the main actors of the system

Training for Scientists on Science for Policy

For JRC scientists
Developing a Science for policy ecosystem in MS

(Training of Trainers - ToT)

Content

Understand policy making process
Be able to present your work
Understand the different pathways of policymaking
Be able to communicate your work
Be prepared
Learn the specifics of a policy problem

37 of 53

How can our work be used?

Capacity building

Career path – conversation starter

Training needs analysis

Individual self assessment and teams assessment

Curriculum development

Projects – do we have the right competences?

For EU institutions but also supporting Member States and Regions

38 of 53

European Community of Practice on EIPM

39 of 53

Understand policy-making

Question the questions

Plan for policy impact early

Policy impact is a team sport

Build trust

Network beyond scientific circles

Become bilingual in science and policy

Contextualise, provide synthesis, provide options

Be aware of your values and background

Be clear about uncertainties and limitations

10 TIPS

40 of 53

Learn more!

Final country reports:

Greece: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC141465
Belgium: https://doi.org/10.1787/223b01a8-en
Czechia: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC140040
Estonia: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC139946
Latvia: https://doi.org/10.1787/2b43bc19-en
Lithuania: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC141125
Netherlands: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC139581

Reflection papers on the future of EIPM and trust in S4P by the JRC:

Final TSI conference materials:

41 of 53

Thank you!�

Unless otherwise noted the reuse of this presentation is authorised under the CC BY 4.0 license. For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the EU, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective right holders.

42 of 53

Lessons Learned from Science-Policy Engagement (at the Local Level)

Erika von Schneidemesser

Research and Dialogue �for Sustainable Societies

43 of 53

PhD in Environmental Science and Technology (focus atmospheric science) from University of Wisconsin – Madison, USA

Post-doc at the University of Leicester, UK; Part of a EC H2020 Project (Policy relevance)

(Science-)Policy training, National Science Foundation, Washington DC, USA; Practical experience

Research Group Leader at Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) at GFZ, Potsdam, Germany; Transdisciplinary research approach

My Background

Forschungsinstitut für Nachhaltigkeit | am GFZ

Autor*in Vorname Name

44 of 53

RIFS Approach – Transdisciplinary Methods

A key component of the RIFS approach to research�
Phase 1: Problem framing, team building

NGOs, policymakers, stakeholders
Co-define research questions / goals
Plan research approach

Phase 2: Co-creation of research

Data collection and analysis
Regular reporting of progress
Reformulation of approach (if needed)�

Phase 3: Application of knowledge

Uptake into societal discussions
Impulse for new research
Application / adaptation of methodological approach to new case studies

(Lawrence et al., 2022. Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth, 5, 1, 44-61.)

45 of 53

Air quality measurements

Use new generation of low-cost sensors and portable instrumentation in combination with reference instruments�
Quantify changes in air quality and exposure related to mobility measures/urban infrastructure�
In collaboration with local government bodies and other stakeholders

Urban Air Quality, Mobility, and Health

Flaniermeile Friedrichstraße (collaboration with Berlin Senate Department for Environment and Mobility)

RIFS ‘LuftRad’

46 of 53

Radfahrstreifen am Kottbusser Damm

Policy Implemented: Coordinated with: An Output:

New bike lane
Community space

Schmitz et al., 2021

47 of 53

Relationships take time!