TAUC underlying theory and method

1
TAUC - underlying theory and method 3 the
legal discourse a European perspective
Dr Simon Gardner Environment Agency for England
Wales
2
79/923/EEC WQ models bacteriological
concentrations
Habitats Directive phosphate/orthophosphate nitrat
e/DAIN/DAIP nutrient budgets
91/676/EC NO3 -based surface and Groundwater
health protection and eutrophication models
91/271/EC WQ models phosphate/orthophosphate nitr
ate/DAIN/DAIP nutrient budgets
2005/07/EC bacterial pollution incident prediction
2000/60/EC COMMPS procedure - Frauenhofer
Institute Common Implementation Strategy
(CIS) Ecological Quality Ratios (EQRs) -
Predicting species assemblages Inter-calibration
(JRC) River Basin Characterisation (RBC) -
pressures and impacts

3
European Commission Infractions Interest
In the interests of driving what it regards as
full implementation of European Union
legislation, the Commission typically exerts
pressure on a Member State via either direct
legal pressure
1Commission ECJ action (Article 226) leading to
Article 228(1) judgment 2Second ECJ action fine
against non-compliance with 1st judgment (Article
228(2))
4
European Commission Infractions Interest
Or indirect pressure - prosecution of other
Member States as an example - informal
discussions - use of negative publicity -
encouraging Member States to infract each other
under Art. 227
5
European Commission Infractions Interest
Common triggers for the initiation of infraction
proceedings include
1. Unacceptable time delays - to the
transposition of Commission legislation into
domestic law - to the identification of sites to
be protected under the Directive in question -
to remediation measures designed to reduce
pollution in identified sites (NVZ Action
Programmes treatment additional to secondaRy at
qualifying discharges) - to reporting on the
environmental effects of implementation
6
European Commission Infractions Interest
Common triggers for the initiation of infraction
proceedings
2. Incomplete or incorrect transposition - via
inappropriate legal means (ex. Circulars) - via
too restrictive a site identification policy (ex.
flawed interpretation of an Article within a
Directive) - as a result of inadequate or
insufficient remediation measures employed at
identified sites (ex. an assessment of which
qualifying discharges are deemed to impact on a
Sensitive Area)
Potential modeling link
7
European Commission Infractions Interest
Subsidiarity - a double edged sword
The subsidiarity principle pursues two opposing
aims On the one hand, it seeks to uphold the
authority of the Member States in those areas
that cannot be dealt with more effectively by
Community action. On the other, it allows the
Community to act if a problem cannot be
adequately settled by the Member States acting on
their own.
8
European Commission Infractions Interest
Non-conformity Environment Cases (by Member
State, December 2002)
9
European Commission Infractions Interest
There is an extensive history of infraction cases
against EU Member States, and the UK is no
exception. Recent domestic infraction cases have
been drawn up on the basis of
10
European Commission Infractions Interest
11
European Commission Infractions Interest
A Directive may attract a sequence of legal
challenges from the Commission, and the nature of
the infraction often develops in parallel with
the stage of implementation of a Directive
12
Case study Timeline showing the implementation
of the Nitrates Directive against Commission
deadlines and the progress of the infraction case
against the UK
Dec 91. Directive adopted by Council having been
formally proposed 3 years earlier in Dec 1988 by
Commission.
Dec 03. Infraction chefs meet to decide on UK
case. If they are not satisfied with the UKs
response the case will go back to the ECJ and if
found guilty the UK will be fined.
Oct 01. Infraction proceedings progressed to the
next stage when the Commission sent a letter of
formal notice under article 228.
Oct 96. Infraction proceedings against the UK
begin with an article 226 letter of formal notice
from the Commission
Dec 93. Directive should have been transposed
into national law, NVZs should have been
designated and codes of good practice established
April 03. The Commission issues a reasoned
opinion under article 228 which the UK responds
to in May 03 detailing method and scope of new
designations.
June 98. Infraction progresses to second stage of
article 226 - reasoned opinion.
Dec 95. Action programmes within NVZs should
have been established.
Dec 00. After a hearing in the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) it rules against the UK and orders
them to comply.
28 months late
July 91. Codes of agricultural good practice
established prior to adoption of Directive
Dec 02. 2nd round of action programme measures in
force
36 months late
29 months before Commission deadline
Dec. 98. Action programme measures in place in
NVZs.
Oct 02. 2nd designation of NVZs in England
total NVZ area now 55
Commission deadlines. Department actions in
italics.
62 months after infraction proceedings began
April 96. 1st designation of NVZs in England
total NVZ area 8
Dec. 01. Consultation on 2nd round of NVZ
consultation in response to infraction proceedings
Dates relating to Commission infraction
proceedings
Time between deadline and date achieved
13
European Commission Infractions Interest
In the decade between 1992-2002, the Commission
registered 280 dossiers relating to presumed or
ascertained violations of EC environmental
legislation in the UK.
These dossiers were open on the basis
of complaints petitions parliamentary
questions, and Commission own-initiative
investigations
14
European Commission Infractions Interest
Infractions under Article 226 of the Treaty have
been initiated in 84 of these 280 cases
On the 2nd of October 2003, 106 dossiers
concerning presumed or confirmed breaches of EC
environmental legislation in the UK remained open
15
European Commission Infractions Interest
The UK can reasonably expect to experience
continued infractions pressure in the future,
because of three basic facts...
16
European Commission Infractions Interest
17
Some future challenges for the use of models in
the EU
- re-establishment of credibility (Arthur
Petersen) - detailed argument received as
disemblement or filler (only 5-10 of a document
is commonly read - Jeroen van der Sluijs) - the
precautionary principle underlining quantitative
certainty? (what is significant 1, 10,
30...) - clear usage, ie. for discrete and
qualified deliberative problem solving - despite
political pressure for perfect knowledge - to
educate Government Ministry Commission policy
and legal staff - a form of uncertainty
communication. Use of science/model
translators - to encourage the EC to develop
guidance on the consideration of models (a
difficult task given questions relating to
subsidiarity and institutional goals) -
involvement of policy-makers in model development
18
WHAT is theSKEP ERA-NET?
An Environment Agency led co-ordination
initiative to bring together the key funders of
national environmental research programmes to
generate this knowledge in partnership and
improve links with environmental protection and
policies
19
SKEP participants
17 partners from 13 European countries funding
environmental research to support environmental
protection regulation and policy
20
SKEP Observers
21
The aims of SKEP
22
SKEP Work Packages
23
Implementation timetable
June 2005
June 2009
24
Work Package 1 Management and co-ordination
25
SKEP administrative structures
26
(No Transcript)
27
Work Package 2 - Exchange of research programme
information
WP2 is dedicated towards developing an
understanding of the overall portfolio of
research being funded by the SKEP participants,
the identification of research themes, gaps and
the consequent identification of opportunities
for joint research activities.
WP2 outputs A consolidated database of research
activities (June 2006), and a strategic
assessment of environmental research activities
across Europe (June 2007 ) will be used
As a screening tool for Science Departments
to - prevent unnecessary expenditure on
parallel projects - promote collaborative
working on projects of joint concern to extend
their science budgets - disseminate their
science more effectively

28
Work Package 2
Exchange of research programme information
Milestones and expected results M.2.1 (6
months) Workshop to review existing systems and
finalise specifications for information tool and
analysis M.2.2 (12 months) Information tool
available on a live web site (D2.1) M2.3 (24
months) Portfolio analysis completed - including
the identification of areas for
information-sharing and collaboration to feed
into other Work Packages (D2.2)
?
?
29
The SKEP project website
30
The SKEP research database
31
(No Transcript)
32
Launched 30th June 2006
http//www.skep-era.net/site/81.asp
33
Graphical searches
34
(No Transcript)
35
Text searches
36
Knowledge management tools to support SKEP WP2
Phase 2

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Timeline for the exchange of research data
Part II Undertaking a strategic assessment of
exchanged data
40
Potential avenues (external) for future
development of the SKEP database of environmental
research funding
SKEP database
41
Work Package 3 Best practice in research
programme management
Stage 1 A study on programme management across
European countries will be undertaken. A
questionnaire for participants will be developed
which will investigate their programme project
cycles and specific issues of good practice and
concerns that they would like to investigate.
In-situ and telephone interviews will be made
of 15-20 key programme management staff in
participant countries. A 2-day workshop in
Finland will explore good practices on programme
management identified from the questionnaire. Key
topics will be to identify common good practices
on planning procedures and general programme
management mechanisms for research programme
development (e.g. how to identify policy needs
and ensure policy implementation of results)
leading successfully projects peer review
facilities
Progress to date
?
?
?
42
Work Package 3 Best practice in research
programme management
Stage 2 This task will explore research
evaluation schemes including proposal
evaluation project evaluation overall
programme evaluation The questionnaire developed
in Stage1 will have already collected some of the
initial information for this task. Based on the
results of the questionnaire, phone interviews
will be made to key programme management staff in
participant countries. Further issues to be
investigated are how, when, and should who carry
out evaluation schemes. Also whether the
objectives of the project/programmes were
achieved? The exact design of a workshop will be
defined after the interview phase. This task will
be completed by a 2-day workshop.
43
Methods used to assess project proposals
- In-house experts in the funding organisation
assessing project proposals and/or deciding on
the funded projects - External national and/or
international experts assessing project proposals
and/or deciding on the funded projects - A
programme steering group deciding on the funded
projects - Thematic evaluation teams (3-10
people) that quantitatively and/or qualitatively
assess how each of the proposals meet the set
criteria - A combination of a management
committee and thematic sub-committees of external
experts
44
Recommendations for best practice for evaluating
project proposals 1. An open two-step process
for inviting project proposals can be used in
larger research funding programmes. The intent of
applications in the first round is to highlight
what is being done in the research field, and
enable inviting the more promising projects to
submit a full research plan. 2. Clearly defined
criteria, that are linked to the objectives of
the Programme, and that are followed strictly and
transparently in evaluating the project proposals
reduce problems during the Programme. 3.
Scientific quality is the most important
criterion. It should, however, be balanced with
other important criteria policy relevance,
collaboration, innovativeness.
4. In addition other useful criteria can be used,
such as those related to societal benefits or to
dissemination of results. 5. A panel or a group
of people should be used in evaluating project
proposals to take into account the "big picture"
and make the evaluation more democratic.
45
i. Recommendations for best practice in programme
management structure 4. Using a programme board
whose members are motivated and somehow reflect
the aims of the programme is also recommended. A
programme board can consist of a variety of
members including funding agencies, scientific
experts, and the end-users of results, e.g. from
public administration, businesses and NGOs. 5. A
separate steering committee can be used for
following up and advising the programme or
individual projects. In this case ensuring the
commitment of the members of the committee is
important.
46
Work Package 4 Best practice in research
programme management
This work package is about comparing procedures
and tools for assuring the best communication
and use of research results. Stage 1 Current
dissemination and implementation activities A
questionnaire will be used to gather information
from policy makers and programme managers. A
consultant will carry out a mapping exercise of
how the process of implementation of research
results is undertaken in all the participant
organisations. The above questionnaire and the
consultant investigation will be presented at a
3-day workshop with 15-20 policy makers and
programme managers recruited from the different
funding organisations and the research community.
Stage 2 International Conference An effort
will be made to present the results of WP4 at an
international conference like the "Bridging the
Gap" conferences or other meetings such as
Science Meets Policy initiatives.
Progress to date
47
The case studies and survey will constitute the
heart of the study. They will explore the
following five areas 1. The planning and
management of research projects and programmes
in particular, the ways in which potential
end-users of the research are involved in
planning, project selection, project and
programme management, and potentially the
co-production of knowledge. 2. The
communication of results the routes and
mechanisms for bringing the research results to
the attention of users. 3. The roles of
interpreters and intermediaries in making results
available to users in a form which is
useful. 4. Engagement with stakeholders how to
ensure that information is made available to
stakeholders in a form which meets their
information needs, enables them to play an
effective role in the decision-making process,
and that processes are transparent and build
trust. 5. The evaluation of processes of
dissemination and utilisation.
48
European recommendations for best practice
WP3 A report on best practice in the management
of environmental research programmes (June 2006 )
and guidelines on common evaluation procedures
(June 2007 ) will be used to
WP4 A report on current activities in the
dissemination and implementation of science for
environmental policy makers of environmental
research programmes (June 2007 ) and guidelines
on best practice (June 2008 ) will be used to
- to guide the management of future Science
programmes - to increase the impact of our
Science by learning from European best
practice - to influence the development of
guidance for evidence-based policy - to
influence the wider debate on Science governance
within other initiatives in the domestic and
international (Science meets Policy) arena
www.SciencemeetsPolicy.eu
49
Work Package 5 Plan and develop collaborative
work areas
This work package will deliver two co-ordinated
actions to explore the feasibility of conducting
joint calls and to provide a framework for future
collaborative activities by environmental
research funders. A small-scale pilot joint call
for proposals will be launched in month 24 using
information collected in other SKEP work
packages. A review of this pilot call will be
conducted to examine the barriers and solutions
for collaboration and to inform the development
of a full-scale joint call for proposals
involving the members of the SKEP network.
Thematic areas of strategic and trans-national
relevance will be identified and developed for
this joint call through further outputs of WP2,
WP3 and focus on WP4 and WP6 to include WP6
Emerging themes (e.g. Environmental applications
of nanotechnology) or orphan themes area of
high importance for policy makers, but where
there may only be limited national research
capability (e.g. research at the interface
between social, environment and the economy,
environmental social justice) WP 4
Horizontal activities (e.g. Strategy for
effective communication of research, promotion of
evidence-based approach to policy making)
Progress to date
50
WP5 The creation of a lasting framework for
engaging in collaborative research (Test joint
call December 2007 Main joint call June 2008
) will be used to
- to pool scientific expertise across the EU in
order to produce effective, well-disseminated
research to European policy-makers - to extend
the effectiveness of Science budgets - to foster
partnerships activities and share expertise
51
Work Package 6 Investigate emerging issues for
future research planning
This work package has the objectives of
investigating current methods for future planning
or horizon scanning for research areas and
proactively investigating one emerging issue for
horizon scanning, identify the policy and
operational questions we need to address to
tackle the information needs of policy makers and
other stakeholders.
Progress to date
Progress to date
52
SKEP ERA-net Scientific Knowledge for
Environmental Protection Work Package 6
Investigate emerging issues for future research
planning Paris, June 12th and 13th How to
identify emerging long term strategic issues for
environmental research and policies ?
I. An examination of existing practice by
horizon-scanners across the EU, and II. A debate
on the topic area to be selected for in-depth
study (aided by two completed questionnaires)
53
Please take time to visit the project website and
request a either a Members log-in from the
co-ordination team, or to be added to our monthly
Newsletter
SKEP co-ordination team SKEP_at_environment-agency.g
ov.uk Project website www.skep-era.net