1. Lesson from SPI activities 2010
First « water science meets policy » event
Brussels, 30th September 2010
2010 is the first year of implementation of the SPI ad hoc mandate. So, my presentation will focus on the lessons and feedbacks from this first year of the implementation of the mandate.
- first, presentation of the elements of context concerning the common implementation strategy of the WFD and within this framework, the ad hoc activity on water science Policy interface ;
- Then, the lessons learnt on the basis of the work carried out in 2010
- To finish, the perspectives for the 2 forthcoming years

2. Elements of context
Presentation of the Common Implementation Strategy :
Establishment in 2001
Forum of cooperation to tackle challenges raised by the implementation WFD
Organised around activities (working groups, expert groups, ad hoc activities)
Aims of the CIS :
coherent and harmonious implementation
common understanding and approach
Hydromorphology
Economics
Biodiversity
The implementation of the Water Framework Directive raises challenges, which are widely shared by Member States. These include:
• an extremely demanding timetable ;
• the diversity of solutions to scientific, technical and practical questions;
• the problem of capacity building and an incomplete technical and scientific basis to make the transition from principles and general definitions to practical implementation successful;
Established in 2001, the CIS aims to allow, as far as possible, a coherent and harmonious implementation of WFD. For instance, most of the challenges and difficulties arising are inevitably common to all Member States, especially in transboundary river basins where a common understanding and approach is crucial to successful and effective implementation.
The aim of the CIS is to clarify and develop, where appropriate, supporting technical and scientific information to assist in the practical implementation of the Directive (supporting documents such as guidance documents providing advice on operational methods are developed for this purpose).
Science Policy Interface
Ad hoc activities

3. Establishment of the CIS-SPI ad hoc activity :
Elements of context
Establishment of the CIS-SPI ad hoc activity :
Strong scientific and technical support needed by the WFD implementation
But knowledge transfer not satisfactory (few outputs taken-up)
Need of a sustainable Science-Policy Interface discussed in the framework of the CIS since 2005
Adopted at the last Water Directors Meeting (30th November 2009) for
Since 2000, technical milestones of the Water Framework Directive (e.g. characterisation of pressures and impacts, economic analysis, design of monitoring programmes, ecological status…) have called for scientific support, technical knowledge, practical experiences and availability of various tools. The forthcoming River Basin Management Plan ( ), the two following ones and daughter directives with their related updates (e.g. characterisation, groundwater status criteria in 2012, new RBMP in 2015), as well as new challenges such as adaptation to climate change, call also for a strong scientific basis (well focussed research or exchange programmes) helping to comply with legal requirements and providing timely support to implementing actors.
In this context, attempts have been made to establish working relationships among research projects and CIS groups. From the experience gathered over the last years, it appears that the transfer of knowledge resulting from these projects was not satisfactory enough as only a few projects could contribute effectively and timely to WFD policy milestones.
This requires new ways for ensuring operational and sustainable exchanges among research and policy-making communities, which cannot be conceived as a 'one shot' event but should rather be developed as a long-term undertaking.
In this perspective, the need for a sustainable Science-Policy Interface (SPI) in support of water policies has been discussed within the past five years in the framework of the CIS and
a preliminary activity has been initiated in November 2008 with voluntary countries, stakeholders and the participation of EC DG Research and the last Water Directors meeting in November 2009 adopted the ad hoc activity.

4. Elements of context
Presentation of the ad hoc activity on water science-Policy interface (CIS-SPI) :
Objectives :
ensure a dynamic interface
to identify research needs and to boost usability of available (or to be produced) results to support WFD implementation
Tasks of the mandate :
Task 1 : Inventory of research and implementation needs from CIS groups
Task 2 : Available research and research gaps
Task 3 : Improving transfer and usability of resarch
The objectives of the CIS-SPI activity are to support technical milestones of water policies and river basin planning process by linking the research needs of relevant end-users (Policy makers, Water managers, Stakeholders, NGOs….) with scientific research outputs.
The main goal of the activity is to ensure a dynamic interface to identify research needs and to boost usability of available (or to be produced) results to support the implementation of the WFD within the CIS framework. The activity includes the following tasks:
Task 1: Inventory of research and implementation needs from CIS groups. Each CIS-group makes an inventory of the needs on their field of activity based on their mandates. The SPI activity compiles the needs from the different WGs, and ensures that information on existing knowledge is transferred (Task 2), or that gaps are relayed to relevant funding organisations (Task 3).
Task 2: Available research and research gaps
Inventory of available research results relevant to CIS research and implementation needs. The SPI-activity identifies priority research projects and networks that address the research and implementation needs of the CIS Working Groups.
Identifying research gaps : Discussion of research gaps on a yearly basis within each or Activity to obtain a snapshot of needs as expressed by Member States policy makers. CIS-SPI activity summarise CIS groups needs and a list of priority research topics will be communicated to relevant funding organisations (DG RTD, ERANETs, JPI) to ensure that research gaps are known and possibly taken up in research programming activities.
Task 3: Improving transfer and usability of research outputs, notably by :
organising Water Science meets Policy events ;
reviewing science policy briefs (knowledge brokerage tools) relevant to policy-makers.

5. 2010 CIS-SPI working programme
SPI activities 2010 focused on the implementation of the mandate :
Identification of research and development needs from CIS groups (task 1)
Organisation of the first « Water Science meets Policy » event (task 3)
Improving transfer and usability of research outputs (task 3) :
expectations of CIS groups concerning research outputs dissemination
analysis of a sample of science policy briefs from Framework Programme research projects
In 2010, the objective was to start the implementation of the mandate in order to demonstrate the capacity of the CIS-SPI activity to provide useful support to CIS groups and to develop working relationships with CIS groups.
In this perspective, focus was on two main tasks :
identification of research and development needs from CIS-groups
organisation of the first « water science meets Policy event »
Secondary, CIS-SPI activity carried out a work related to task 3 of the mandate. It consisted in assessing the capacity of existing tools such as science policy to transfer available resarch outputs in an effective and proper way. The approach was based on analysing a sample of available science policy briefs from FP projects coupled with CIS feedbacks. This work is not really included in the mandate but provide useful information to improve resarch outputs dissemination

6. Action 1 : R α D needs inventory from CIS groups
Methodological aspects :
Identification of R α D needs based on a questionnaire
A pragmatic and pro-active approach
R α D needs caracterised by a limited number of fields :
The identification of the research and implementation needs induced by WFD implementation (task 1) is based on a questionnaire sent to CIS groups (CIS working groups, expert groups, ad hoc activities).
This questionnaire was deliberately as open as possible with open questions and qualitative answers. In this perspective, the filling recommendations ask the CIS group to adopt the widest perspective as possible when identifying research and implementation needs in terms of research areas, research disciplines addressed and time horizon. A response frame in the form of a table is proposed to facilitate the identification of research needs : CIS groups were asked to caracterise each R α D need by a limited number of fields. In this respect, a criterion of prioritization is introduced (low, normal, high priority) for each need.
Research area
Issue
Priority
(low-medium-high)
Comments
Research area 1 :
Topic 1 :
Topic 2 :
Topic n :

7. Action 1 : resarch and development needs inventory from CIS groups
Feedbacks of CIS groups :
A better overall return level compared to 2009
good quality contributions :
compliance with the framework
developed and detailed answers
effort of internal concertation
possible factors explaining the lack of response :
focus on working and experts groups
interaction with other requests
bad window of opportunity
CIS groups
Answer
Ecological status
Groundwaters X
Chemical aspects
Floods
Water scarcity and droughts
WFD and agriculture
Climate change
Biodiversity 
Economics
Hydromorphology
The return level is considered satisfactory compared to 2009 where preliminary inventory of CIS groups research and implementation needs carried out in the line of the CIS-SPI pre-mandate experienced a very low return level.
Even if the return level of the questionnaire could have been higher, the quality of the CIS feedbacks is generally quite satisfactory. It reveals that CIS groups had paid attention to the process and are aware of the stakes related to science policy interface approaches, notably formulating and identifying research questions
When filling the questionnaire, internal concertation have been organised within CIS groups :
"top-down" approach : on the basis of the workshops held during the last sessions outputs, CIS group leaders produced a “martyr” contribution and submitted it to the group participants for validation. CIS groups members returns were subsequently integrated to the definitive contribution of the CIS group.
"bottom / up" approach : leaders launched an intern consultation within CIS groups and produced the contribution of the group on the basis of the members feedbacks.
Several factors may be advanced to explain the lack of return :
focus on working and experts
Interaction with other requests at the same time ;
bad window of opportunity, particularly inauspicious period for substantive work .

8. Action 1 : resarch and development needs inventory from CIS groups
Outlines of the needs/results :
more than 100 needs divided into 22 research areas
majority of high priority needs
disciplines called/mobilised by CIS expectations :
mainly « hard » sciences
significant expectations concerning human and social sciences
Cross-disciplinary approaches
significant part of development and expertise needs (technologies, tools)
CIS groups
Research
areas
Topics
Groundwater 5 21
Chemical aspects 2 13
Floods 33
Water sc. α droughts 7 25
WFD and agriculture 3 12
Total 22
104
The 5 CIS groups have expressed more than one hundred needs divided into 22 research areas.
CIS groups have described the majority of their research needs as high-priority priority. For cons, just a few long term needs have been expressed.
Research and development needs expressed by CIS groups mainly call for "hard sciences“. This is particularly the case for "groundwater" and "chemical aspects” working groups.
In contrast, needs expressed by "floods" and "water scarcity and drought" groups call more for human and social sciences, notably sociology and economics. This situation could be explained by the fact that “floods” and “climate change” issues are transverse and often require cross-disciplinary approaches.
Overall CIS feedbacks mainly correspond to development and expertise needs such as technologies and tools.

9. Action 1 : research and development needs inventory from CIS groups
Lessons learnt and perspectives for the 2 forthcoming years :
visibility of the activity CIS-SPI improved within CIS organisation and partnership relations forged with CIS groups
improving the approach in the future :
to be more pro-active with CIS groups :
Specific sequence dedicated within or back-tu-back with CIS groups working session
Interviews with CIS leaders
to target different groups within CIS groups (implementers, policy makers)
Validation of R and D needs expressed by CIS groups needed
Institutionalising inventory of R α D needs (iterative and on-going process)
Developing relationships with relevant funding organisations (FP, JPI, Eranet) to feed research programmation
Carried out within the CIS-SPI ad hoc activity framework, this work represents a first attempt to identify research and development needs from CIS groups.
It has contributed to improve the visibility of the activity CIS-SPI within CIS current organisation, to develop partnership relations with CIS groups and to provide inputs for the SPI event.
From the 2010 experience, it is possible to draw some useful lessons that could improve the process in the forthcoming years :
a) adopting a more pro-active approach :
In order to ensure an higher return level, a more proactive approach should be adopted in the future :
- organising discussions within or back-to-back with regular meetings of the CIS groups or during CIS working sessions ;
- interviewing CIS groups leaders :
Instead of using a questionnaire, CIS groups research expectations could be directly inventoried by interviewing the leaders of each CIS groups giving a representative view of the whole group expectations.
b) targetting different groups within CIS groups :
In 2010, the goal was to begin to implement the mandate. The late start of the activity has led to limit the time allocated to the definition of the working method and to restrict the scope of work. For the 2 remaining two years, improvements can be made such as identifying expectations from different target groups within CIS groups (policy makers, implementers, stakeholders).
c) Validation of R and D needs expressed by CIS groups needed :
Then the needs identified by CIS groups correspond to “perceived needs”. Indeed, because of the lack of dissemination of available research outputs, there is a real risk that some of those needs will not correspond to real needs. In this respect, it is crucial to “filter” carefully research and development needs expressed by CIS groups on the basis of existing or on-going scientific knowledge. That’s one the purpose of the round tables when a CIS contribution is available.
e) Institutionalizing inventory of R α D needs as an iterative and on-going process :
With a view to taking better account end-users needs by EU-funded projects in the long term, this work must not be regarded as a “one-shot” process but as an iterative and dynamic process. For the 2 remaining years of the mandate, the objective is now to renew this work and make CIS groups update their research and development expectations.
f) Developing relationships with relevant funding organisations (FP, JPI, Eranet) to feed resarch programmation

10. Action 2 : first « water science meets Policy » event
Discussion arena involving scientists community (researchers, projects coordinator and end-users community (policy makers, implementers) from EU, national and river basin levels
Objectives of the seminar :
to draft a list of R and D needs to support the implementation of the WFD on the basis of CIS contributions if available
to list existing results or projects to address R and D needs expressed by CIS groups
to propose ways to improve the dissemination of results
Follows-up to SPI event :
communication of priority list of needs to relevant funding organisations (FP, Eranet, JPI)
transfering already available research results to address some CIS groups expectations
The SPI event could be considered as a sort of discussion arena involving scientists community and end-users community from EU, national and river basin levels.
The objectives of this arena are threefold :
First, to draft a list of the needs concerning research and development for the implementation of the WFD. If there is already a CIS contribution (Extreme Events, Agriculture, Ground Waters, Chemical aspects), then the objective is to validate collectively and specify the CIS group research and development expectations.
Then, to list results of past projects,
Finally, to propose ways to improve the dissemination of results.
Following the SPI event, two main actions will be undertaken :
- firstly, a list of priority research topics will be communicated to relevant funding organisations (DG RTD, ERANETs, JPI water, others) to ensure that research gaps are known and possibly taken up in research programming activities.
- Secondly, the SPI-activity will contribute to disseminate already existing research outputs that address the research and implementation needs of the CIS Working Groups.

11. Conclusion
Research and development agenda developed within CIS-SPI activity 2010 = key and structuring element for water research in support of WFD implementation
Perspectives for 2011 / 2012 :
Developing relationships with CIS groups, EU-funded research projects and funding organisations
Focus on task 3 related to research results transfer improvment in CIS-SPI working programme 2011
To conclude, there is no doubt that the research agenda developed within CIS-SPI activity will be a key element in structuring water research in support of WFD implementation.
For the period 2011 / 2012:
- the objective is to develop relationships with SPI activity partners such as CIS groups, EU-funded resarch projects and funding organisations.
- Focus is also on task 3 related to the improvment of research results transfer improvment in CIS-SPI working programme 2011