methodological framework for the systematic identification
Post on 16-Oct-2021
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
June 2017
A project for the European Commission, Directorate-General
Environment
Final Methodological Framework
June 2017 Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited, UK
in association with: Milieu Limited, Belgium
ALVA, Research & Consulting
Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging issues for the
environment Service Contract No.: 070203/2016/736533/SER/ENV.A3
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic i Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Contract title: Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging risks to the environment
Service Contract No.: 070203/2016/736533/SER/ENV.A3
Contracting organisation: European Commission, Directorate-General Environment
Lead contractor: Collingwood Environmental Planning Limited (CEP)
Contact details: Head office: Address: 1E The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London,
SE1 7QY, UK Contact: Ric Eales Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950 Email: r.eales@cep.co.uk Website: www.cep.co.uk
Contact details for this contract:
Contact: Owen White (Project Manager) Tel: +44 (0)117 230 8700 or +44 (0) 117 315 5214 Email: o.white@cep.co.uk
Partner organisations: Milieu Ltd - Law & Policy Consulting Address: Chaussée de Charleroi 112, Brussels 1060, Belgium Contact: Tony Zamparutti ALVA, Research & Consulting Address: Rua Professor Aristides Amorim Girão, 51, 3510-049 Viseu
- Portugal Contact: António Alvarenga
Report details: Report title: Methodological Framework for the systematic
identification of emerging issues for the
environment
Date issued: 9th
June 2017
Version no.: 1.0
Author(s): Owen White (CEP); Tony Zamparutti (Milieu); Paula Orr
(CEP); Rolands Sadauskis (CEP); Liza Papadopoulou (CEP);
Robert Pederson (Milieu)
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic ii Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Contents
1. Introduction and foundations ......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction and structure of this document ......................................................................... 4
1.2 Rationale and context ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Aim, objectives and added value ............................................................................................ 6
1.4 Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Defining emerging environmental issues and risks ........................................................ 6
1.4.2 Defining other key terminology ...................................................................................... 8
1.5 Focus and scope ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.5.1 Conceptual scope of the methodological framework .................................................... 8
1.5.2 When is an issue considered to be ‘emerging’? ............................................................. 9
1.5.3 Environmental sectors and topics ................................................................................... 9
1.5.4 Geography and time ..................................................................................................... 11
1.6 Actors and audiences ............................................................................................................ 12
1.7 Development through a pilot and learning-by-doing ........................................................... 13
2. Methodological framework – outline of the system .................................................................... 14
2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Principles of operation .......................................................................................................... 14
2.3 System governance and institutional roles ........................................................................... 14
2.4 Procedural overview and system flow-chart ........................................................................ 16
2.5 System processes and activities ............................................................................................ 16
2.5.1 Step 1: Information gathering and scoping .................................................................. 19
2.5.2 Step 2: Sense making and selection .............................................................................. 21
2.5.3 Step 3: Characterisation ................................................................................................ 22
2.5.4 Step 4: Validation .......................................................................................................... 24
2.5.5 Step 5: Outputs and communication ............................................................................ 25
2.6 Emerging risk assessment and management ........................................................................ 26
3. Setting up the system: the pilot phase and beyond ..................................................................... 28
3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Key steps ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Piloting the framework ......................................................................................................... 28
3.3.1 Setting up the pilot ....................................................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Topic for the pilot .......................................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 Pilot approach and key issues for the steps .................................................................. 30
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic iii Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
3.3.4 Reviewing the pilot and preparing a roadmap ............................................................. 31
3.4 Options for the level of activity for the framework .............................................................. 31
Annex 1: Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................... 34
Annex 2: Review of existing methods and approaches ........................................................................ 41
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 4 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
1. Introduction and foundations
1.1 Introduction and structure of this document
This document is the final report of a project1 to support DG Environment and the Environmental
Knowledge Community (EKC)2 which had the general objective to devise a methodological
framework for the identification of emerging risks to the environment, such that timely and effective
policy action at EU level can be considered.
Through the course of the research and consultation undertaken during the project, it became
apparent that the appropriate focus and therefore title of the methodological framework should be
on the identification of emerging issues rather than emerging risks. This is described in more detail
in section 1.4 and reflected in the report title and other references to the methodological
framework.
This document is divided into three sections:
1. Introduction and foundations
Which sets out the foundations by describing: the rationale and context for the establishment of
a methodological framework for the detection of emerging issues; the aim and objectives of the
framework; how emerging environmental issues are defined in this context (see also Annex 1,
glossary of terms); the proposed focus and scope of the system, describing when an issue is
considered to be ‘emerging’ and which sectors and topics are to be considered in the
framework; and, who the key actors in and audiences for the framework are.
2. Methodological framework – outline of a system
Which builds on the foundations in Section 1 and describes principles of operation, suggested
governance and institutional roles, before setting out a procedural flow chart and description of
the proposed key methodological steps. Each methodological step includes information on the
roles of different actors and key sources of information and expertise.
3. Setting up the system
Which describes what activities may be required to establish the system described in Section 2,
including through a pilot phase to test key elements of the system. Recognising that strategic
decisions will need to be taken regarding the development of the system, this section also
proposes three illustrative options for implementing the system with different levels of activity.
1.2 Rationale and context
Priority Objective 5 of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7th EAP)3 established the need to
improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment policy, to ensure, inter-alia, ‘that
(by 2020) the understanding of, and the ability to evaluate and manage, emerging environmental
and climate risks are greatly improved’.
1 Service contract: ENV.F.3/SER/2016/0004
2 The EKC is a partnership between DG ENV, DG CLIMA, DG RTD, EEA, JRC and EUROSTAT, and was established
to strengthen the knowledge base for the 7th
EAP, including the management of emerging issues 3 Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a
General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 5 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Responding to Objective 5 of the 7th EAP, in 2015 the EKC endorsed a Roadmap which set out the
basis for cooperation to strengthen the generation and sharing of knowledge on the environment,
including the objective ‘to strengthen the Commission's capacity to anticipate emerging issues,
including through foresight tools as well
as to monitor and identify opportunities
and complex risks and foresee their
impact on environment and society’.
The need to identify and respond to
emerging issues is highlighted by, for
example, the Late Lessons from Early
Warnings reports published by the
European Environment Agency (EEA) in
20024 and 20135 (see box).
Many processes and activities exist within
and outside the Commission that
consider aspects of the detection and
assessment of emerging issues, including
established risk assessment and
management procedures in existing
environmental policy areas, initiatives
such as the emerging risks unit at the
European Food Safety Authority6, and
committees and working groups including
the Scientific Committee on Health,
Environmental and Emerging Risks
(SCHEER)7 at DG Health and Food Safety.
However, no systematic and participatory
(including across institutions) approach
exists that seeks to detect and prioritise
emerging issues of potential relevance to
the EU environment and environmental
policy.
Following the mandate on risk established by the 7th EAP, DG Environment has developed a review
of existing approaches to the management of risk and uncertainty in EU environment policies and
organised high-level workshops with Commission and external experts to discuss the added value of
a system for the identification of emerging environmental issues.
Following these activities, in 2016, a project was commissioned to support DG Environment and the
EKC in the development of a methodological framework for the identification of emerging issues for
the environment. This report and the description of a methodological framework it represents is the
final deliverable of this project, which has been developed through: desk-based research into
4 EEA (2002) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue
report No 22/2001 5 EEA (2013) Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report No 1/2013
6 See: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/emerging-risks
7 See: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer_en
Late lessons from early warnings Summary: Case study –
The use of PCE in mains water pipes
During the twentieth century PCE (perchlorethylene) was
widely used as a chlorinated solvent for processes such as
dry cleaning, metal degreasing, printing and medical
applications, for example for the treatment of hookworm.
Scientific research identified potential hazards such as
poisoning associated with PCE use in the workplace,
usually involving effects on the central nervous system
and liver damage, although the threshold at which such
damage first occurred was unclear.
PCE began to be used to produce plastic linings for
drinking water distribution pipes in the USA in the 1960s
and 1970s. Many early warnings suggested the need for
caution in introducing PCE based mains pipe linings.
However, this new and relatively untested type of pipe
was used in over 700 miles of New England's water
distribution systems, until it was discovered in 1976 that
PCE had been leaching into the water from the pipe lining.
The resulting widespread contamination still requires
remediation today.
The pipe manufacturer was apparently not aware of or did
not investigate the medical literature on PCE. As
information was available, the principal reason seems to
be that nobody required it. The main lesson of this case
study is that mechanisms are needed to ensure
information about exposure and effects is produced,
shared and publicised.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 6 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
existing relevant processes and activities (see Annex 2); bilateral consultations with EKC and external
experts; a brainstorming event; and a project workshop which brought together Commission and
external experts to discuss a draft version of this methodological framework.
1.3 Aim, objectives and added value
Building on the objectives of the 7th EAP and EKC roadmap, as well as discussions with experts8 the
overall aim of the methodological framework for the systematic identification of emerging issues for
the environment is:
To identify, characterise and assess emerging issues that may represent risks or
opportunities to Europe’s environment, and to communicate these results to policy-
makers and other stakeholders, encouraging appropriate and timely action to be taken.
Ultimately the aim is to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to prevent or
effectively manage emerging risks, and to ensure that opportunities are identified and
exploited.
The objectives of the methodological framework are to:
Establish a system, including clear procedural steps for the detection of emerging issues,
their assessment and prioritisation such that emerging risks and opportunities are identified.
Set out a systematic framework to bring together existing knowledge, expertise and
practice within the EKC related to emerging issue detection, assessment and management.
Establish a process for the involvement of relevant institutions, experts and information
sources outside the EKC.
Characterise detected issues, providing information that can support their further
consideration within appropriate agencies or institutions.
Communicate emerging issues to policy makers and risk managers in a timely manner so
that they are able to decide what action needs to be taken.
Once established the framework is intended to become a self-sustaining ‘system’ with a clear
operational structure, roles and responsibilities.
The added value of a participatory and systematic approach to the detection and prioritisation of
emerging environmental issues is that such a system is designed to collect and structure evidence
and provide it to decision makers to support them in making early decisions.
1.4 Definitions
1.4.1 Defining emerging environmental issues and risks
The aim of the methodological framework is to detect and prioritise emerging issues that may
represent risks or opportunities for the environment. While the methodological framework itself
does not seek to assess or manage emerging risks, a definition is important to provide a context for
the detection of issues and their prioritisation.
A broad literature review found no single accepted definition of 'emerging risks’. This partly reflects
the use of the term in different contexts and disciplines. As risks can emerge from different sectors
and sources, an all-encompassing definition may be neither realistic nor useful.
8 Discussions have included bilateral telephone interviews with EKC experts and others with knowledge of
emerging issue and risk detection and management, a project brainstorming on 1st
December 2016; and a project workshop on 4
th May 2017
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 7 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
The review and expert discussions that have supported the development of this methodological
framework suggest that the system should make a clear distinction between ‘emerging
environmental issues’ and ‘emerging environmental risks’9, and that the focus of activity within
the system will be on the detection and characterisation of emerging issues, which are then
prioritised, characterised and communicated to relevant policy makers and stakeholders to consider
what further action may be required.
For the purposes of the methodological
framework we propose the following
definitions:
An emerging environmental issue10 is defined
as being something potentially in or affecting
Europe’s environment that is not yet known
and potentially needs to be considered, or
something that is already known but is either
changing, or due to new understanding, needs
to be investigated further. Emerging
environmental issues are those for which
currently available data and information is not
yet sufficient to conduct comprehensive risk
assessment or predict future development11 12.
An emerging environmental risk or
opportunity is understood as a potentially
new risk or opportunity resulting from an
entirely new emerging issue with potentially
significant and/or very uncertain effects on
the environment, and known issues where public perception and/or their understanding indicates
significant new risks or opportunities.
In this context: risks would have potential negative effects on the environment (and/or on the need
for environmental responses, i.e. EU policy); and opportunities could have positive effects on the
environment (e.g. via greater resource efficiency) or on environmental policy (e.g. new monitoring,
management or other tools). These definitions are intended to represent a degree of flexibility in
interpretation, as a rigid definition and framework would be inappropriate for the subject of
emerging issues and could present a barrier for their inclusive identification13.
9 This approach reflect that taken by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in their emerging risk activity,
as described in: Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification (EFSA, 2012) 10
An ‘issue’ in this context is defined broadly to include topics, developments or trends in developments 11
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2009) Emerging Issues and the Role of the SCENIHR Position Paper 12
North Carolina University Institute of Emerging Issues webpage: https://iei.ncsu.edu/emerging-issues/ (accessed 09/03/2017) 13
This reflects the experience of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCHENIR, 2012)
There is increasing recognition of the need to
understand and effect change in socio-technological
systems so that we are able to address key drivers of
environmental change and realise goals such as a
resource-efficient or circular economy. However
such large-scale changes can also represent
Systemic Risks that are complex and driven by
multiple casual factors often with multiple indirect
and direct interdependencies leading to a high
degree of uncertainty. Systemic risks can result in
total system collapse, where tipping points in a
system can create cascade failures resulting in large-
scale shocks.
The methodological framework does not explicitly
address or seek to identify systemic risks (or issues),
but it will be important for DG Environment to work
with EKC partners, in particular the European
Environment Agency who are seeking to improve
the knowledge base for understanding and
responding to systemic environmental risks.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 8 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
1.4.2 Defining other key terminology
Throughout this report reference is made to numerous types of approach and activity, for example
‘(early) signals’, ‘horizon scanning’, or the use of ‘expert panels’. A glossary of key terms is included
in Annex 1, which draws on existing definitions from European Commission and other sources (e.g.
OECD and the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)).
1.5 Focus and scope
A known problem with emerging issue detection or horizon scanning systems is that they can easily
become overwhelmed with information. It is important to set a clear focus for what the system will
consider in terms of sources of emerging issue and types of emerging risk and opportunity i.e. issues
emerging from where and what type of risks or opportunities they represent.
1.5.1 Conceptual scope of the methodological framework
The focus of activity within the framework will be on the detection of emerging issues, their
categorisation and prioritisation, and the referral of prioritised issues to appropriate institutions
and/or stakeholders to consider what action may be required, see Figure 1. It is therefore proposed
that the assessment and management of specific risks and opportunities is completed outside the
system following referral within institutions with appropriate technical knowledge and the ability
and/or remit to respond. A detailed flow chart of activity within the system is presented in Figure 2
(see sub-section 2.2).
Implementation of the methodological framework will need therefore to establish meaningful
communication with appropriate DGs, policy units, and external institutions such that identified risks
and opportunities can be referred to.
Figure 1: Conceptual overview of the methodological framework
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 9 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
1.5.2 When is an issue considered to be ‘emerging’?
The proposed methodological framework is intended to detect and enable the prioritisation of
emerging issues that may pose risks to or opportunities for the environment. Various factors may
lead to an issue being considered as emerging in a particular institutional or sectoral context. In the
context of the methodological framework, for an issue to be considered as emerging, the following
categorisation is proposed:
Completely new: based on available information the issue appears to not have been
previously identified as an issue for the environment in the EU, there is limited relevant
scientific research or understanding, and no institutions are known to be assessing or
seeking to manage the issue. Issues like these could emerge from, for example, new
products, consumption patterns, social developments, and technologies with uncertain
impacts.
Known but new to EU policymakers and the EKC: there is a body of existing knowledge
related to the issue and/or evidence that the issue has been identified by institutions
outside the EKC, however the issue is new to EU policymakers (i.e. there is no existing
European policy, or the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the issue) and EKC
partners have not sought to assess or manage the issue.
Known to EKC, but controversial or uncertain: the issue has already been identified by one
or more EKC partner as being of potential relevance to the environment, however there is
high uncertainty about the potential implications (e.g. the use of geo-engineering) and/or
the scientific understanding of the issue is controversial or contested (e.g. nanomaterials or
pharmaceuticals in the environment).
Known to EKC but changes to understanding, exposure or perception: the issue has already
been identified by one or more EKC partner as being of potential relevance to the
environment, however, new scientific understanding of the potential impacts, increased
exposure and/or changes in public perceptions mean that the issue requires additional
attention.
Note, where issues are detected within the system for which there is evidence that they are already
being regulated or managed within European policy and related risk management, these will not be
considered for further characterisation or prioritisation within the system.
1.5.3 Environmental sectors and topics
The methodological approach (see Section 2) proposes the use of an issue characterisation template
to collate and present key information on identified and prioritised emerging issues. This approach
depends on a common understanding of the categorisation of emerging issues and environmental
areas where impacts (risks, opportunities) may be seen14. This is a means by which emerging issues
can be categorised and either proposed for further consideration or archived for future review (see
Figure 2).
14
In horizon scanning this is generally known as the scan-field or scan topics, and sets out under what headings / in what topics a system or process will seek information weak signals.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 10 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Categorising weak signals of potential emerging issues
Based around the established STEEP15 categorisation (of environmental or other change) it is
proposed weak signals (see box below) detected by the system will be categorised according to the
following drivers:
Societal developments and discourses (e.g. new social movements), and changes in
perceptions (e.g. people feel that an issue is more important to them).
Technological developments and innovation (e.g. new industrial processes such as 3D
printing, autonomous (driverless) vehicles, advanced genetic engineering, new chemical
compounds)
Environmental developments (e.g. changes in exposure, improved understanding)
Economic developments and new business models (e.g. the emergence of Uber and Air
bnb); and changes in consumer behaviour and lifestyles, often driven by new technologies
(e.g. use of virtual reality for ‘enhanced reality’ and shared experiences changing the way
people interact with their surroundings and each other)
Political developments (e.g. greater political division, emergence of new political movements
alongside the rise of populism)
Potential impact areas for emerging issue categorisation and characterisation
The aim of the system is to detect and prioritise emerging issues that may pose risks or
opportunities to the European environment and therefore require management and an EU policy
response. In this context it is proposed to characterise prioritised emerging environmental issues
following the DPSIR16 framework using topics derived from the structuring of information within DG
Environment’s Science for Environmental Policy17, and the Environmental topics used by EEA18. This
categorisation will be tested and further developed
through the Pilot phase (see Section 3).
Driving forces19:
Production
Consumption
Demographics
Recreation
Agriculture
Transport and mobility
Pressures20:
Polluting substances
Radiation
Noise
Land use
15
Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic, Political 16
DPSIR: Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impact, Response 17
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/themes_menu.htm 18
See: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes 19
Describe the social, demographic and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in life-styles having an impact on the environment. 20
Developments in release of substances (emissions), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and the use of land.
Early warnings or weak signals?
In horizon scanning signals of potential future
change are often referred to as ‘weak signals’
or ‘early warnings’. For example JRC defines
weak signals as ‘emerging issues, outlier
behaviour, discontinuities, unconventional
wisdom, or disruptive technologies indicating
that potential future changes may occur’. In
the methodological framework the term ‘weak
signals’ is used to represent both ‘warnings’ of
emerging risks, but also ‘signals’ of new
opportunities.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 11 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Waste
Use of natural resources (mineral and biotic)
State of the environment and health:
Land and soil
Biodiversity and ecosystems
Human health
Air
Atmosphere (including climate)
Marine and coastal
Freshwater
Materials
In the context of the system, impacts of emerging issues are assumed to manifest as changes in
driving forces, pressures or the state of the environment and human health. The appropriate
response to emerging issues and the risks or opportunities they represent will be considered outside
the system. This may be through for example additional risk assessment and management,
amended or new policy responses.
It is expected that cross-cutting issues will also emerge: those that do not fit within pre-defined
categorisations. These issues may be classified as being relevant to multiple topics, or if they do not
fit in any of the existing environmental topic areas can be defined as new topics with an appropriate
name, or as cross-cutting. The uncertainty that is likely in relation to many emerging issues suggests
that a rigid framing of environmental topics may not be appropriate or possible and it is proposed
that these topics should not be static, and are reviewed and revised on a regular basis, such as
annually.
For more information on the approach to categorisation of emerging issues see sub-section 2.5.3.
1.5.4 Geography and time
Geographic focus
The geographic focus of the methodological framework will be on the detection of issues that may
pose risks or represent opportunities for the EU (i.e. that are relevant to the EU 28) and/or that
require an EU policy response.
Where issues are detected that are considered important but may represent risks or opportunities
for a group of countries (e.g. Nordic countries), at a member state or sub-national scale, these would
not be considered further in the system and would be referred to the appropriate authority for
further assessment and management.
Time considerations
A defining aspect of emerging issues is that they and/or their understanding or perception, are
changing (emerging) over time, and that this change is potentially rapid and/or highly uncertain.
Although it will not always be possible to identify the time-frame over which a detected issue is
expected to emerge, it is proposed to categorise issues as considered likely to emerge over the
following time periods: in the short-term (1 – 5 years); in the medium-term (5 – 10 years); and in the
long-term (10+ years).
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 12 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
For the purposes of the methodological framework it is proposed that issues expected to emerge in
the short-term would be prioritised as they may require an urgent response, including through
new policy or regulatory responses. However, a degree of judgement will be required as some long-
term issues may require short-term management action to put in place effective management
procedures in order that significant future risks can be avoided (e.g. climate change).
1.6 Actors and audiences
The proposed actors (those who play an active role) in the methodological framework fall into three
main categories:
EKC Task Force: from EKC partners with a defined contributing role to the operation of the
system.
Contributing actors: from institutions outside EKC (but generally within EU institutions), who
have a role in contributing evidence or expertise e.g. through meetings.
External experts and networks: from a wider group of public and private institutions who
may contribute evidence and expertise on an ad-hoc basis, e.g. in relation to specific issues
or sectors.
More information on the proposed actors within the system, their roles and responsibilities is set
out in sub-section 2.3.
The principle audiences for the outcomes from the methodological framework are:
Senior and middle management within EKC partners21 who will need to: be informed of
new emerging issues in their policy areas; make decisions about whether emerging issues
detected within the system represent emerging risks or opportunities; and may need to
carry out or commission further assessment or research to decide how to respond to
particular issues.
Staff in other Commission DGs, with responsibility for policy development, monitoring and
risk management, who may need to respond where emerging issues are detected that fall
outside the remit of EKC partners and are therefore referred to other appropriate
Commission institution/s.
The potential secondary audience includes:
Member state authorities, research institutes / universities and private sector
organisations, who may have a role to play in further research into emerging issues, as well
as their assessment and/or management.
Public and wider stakeholders, who may be interested in being informed or in responding to
emerging issues.
Each audience will require different types of outcome and communication, some quite informal (e.g.
briefing notes and meeting reports) others more formal and taking the form of more technical
reports and formal publications. In the first instance and during the pilot phase it is proposed that
the system focuses on developing outputs for the primary audiences.
More information on the audiences, outcomes and communications related to the methodological
framework are set out in sub-section 2.5.5.
21
DG ENV, DG CLIMA, DG RTD as well as EEA, JRC and EUROSTAT
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 13 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
1.7 Development through a pilot and learning-by-doing
The establishment of a methodological framework for the systematic identification of emerging
environmental issues is an ambitious goal. Experience from existing systems of emerging issue
detection and management22 suggest that such systems can require a number of years to become
established and that issue detection and assessment procedures may need to be reviewed and
modified over time and through practice. In addition the effective functioning of such systems
requires knowledge and capacity to be built within participating experts and institutions, which also
takes time.
Section 2 describes a proposal for the system including detail of the methodological steps. However,
given the challenges in establishing such a systematic approach, the proposal is that the
methodological framework will initially operate through an 8 month pilot phase. The pilot is
described more fully in Section 3.
During the pilot phase the activity within the system may be focused around one or more specific
topics, and the aim will be to demonstrate its operation and added value, while also developing and
exploring institutional relationships and providing an opportunity to learn from the experience and
test different approaches. At the end of the pilot phase the results should be reviewed and
decisions will need to be made on how to proceed.
22
Such as the emerging risk unit at the European Food Safety Authority, or the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks at DG SANTE
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 14 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
2. Methodological framework – outline of the system
2.1 Overview
This section describes the elements of the proposed methodological framework, that if implemented would become a ‘system’ i.e. a systematic process that, as long as supported, would provide a basis for the detection and characterisation of emerging environmental issues. The section builds on the foundations set out in Section 1, and proposes governance and institutional roles and a series of procedural steps.
The system described in this section could be set up and implemented in various ways, depending on the level of commitment made by participating actors and the level of resource available. Following this section, Section 3 sets out a preliminary proposal for setting up the system, including through a pilot phase to run for approximately 8 months to test elements of the system and help establish the working relationships required.
2.2 Principles of operation
The proposed principles of operation for the system is that it should:
Be as simple as possible while meeting operational objectives.
Make maximum use of and links to existing activities, processes and networks.
Enable and encourage thinking and activity outside and across traditional EU policy topics,
by bringing together diverse knowledge, expertise and institutions.
Be proactive primarily: the aim is to detect new things, but once established, the expertise
and networks could be used reactively and respond to requests from policy makers.
Deliver outcomes for internal, policy and risk management audiences within the European
Commission.
Contribute ‘down the line’ to public communication by providing outputs that can be used in
existing public-oriented processes, e.g. DG Environment’s Science for Environmental Policy
news alerts23.
2.3 System governance and institutional roles
The EKC was established to strengthen the knowledge base for the 7th EAP, including the
management of emerging issues. Therefore, the EKC institutions are proposed to provide the core
of the system and be its driving force, as it already has a mandate for work in this area in the EKC
Roadmap. Unit A3 of DG Environment will act as a secretariat, providing the coordination lead for
activities within the system.
The main governance and institutional roles are set out in Table 1. More information on specific activities within the system are included in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, and Table 2 provides an overview of the points at which different institutional partners are expected to participate in the system. Estimated resource needs are described in Section 3. Each of the roles described in Table 1 will be tested through the pilot phase, and revised as required to reflect the realities of implementing the system in practice.
It is suggested that the participation and connection with member states and the public is managed through existing processes and networks rather than the establishment of a new process. For
23
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/newsalert.htm
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 15 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
example, Eionet24 could provide a mechanism for member states to comment on, participate in or feed information into the system.
Table 1: System governance and institutional roles
System component Who is involved? Description
1. Governance oversight
EKC Director Generals or other senior management (e.g. directors or heads of units)
A dedicated governance structure including oversight from EKC Director Generals, led by DG Environment. It is proposed that EKC institution Director Generals (or directors / heads of unit) will act as a management board, allocating time in existing scheduled EKC meetings to receive and consider the results of the system, oversee progress and help establish of the high-level institutional commitment required.
2. Secretariat DG Environment A small secretariat with dedicated staff within DG Environment (Unit A.3) with responsibility for the day-to-day management and coordination of activities and institutions within the system.
The secretariat’s tasks would include the organisation of meetings, preparation of materials and templates and the collation of information and findings. The secretariat would also have responsibility for developing or coordinating the development of outputs and communications related to emerging issues.
3. EKC Task Force Representatives from each EKC partner that has made a (voluntary) commitment to contribute
A core institutional group (EKC Task Force) formed of one or more representatives from each EKC organisation who have an institutional commitment and dedicated time to participate in the system and to contribute regularly.
The role of the Task Force is described in sub-sections 2.4 and 2.5 and Table 2 provides an overview of when the Task Force is expected to contribute to the system.
4. Scientific committee: SCHEER
Experts on health, environmental and emerging risks, including on broad, complex or multidisciplinary issues
It is proposed that the emerging issues detected through the system are considered by SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) established by DG SANTE
25.
The role of SCHEER is described in section 2.5, and Table 2 indicates when SCHEER would be expected to contribute to the system.
5. Commission institutional partners
EU institutions outside the EKC
Wider institutional partners within the European Commission who are willing to contribute their institutional expertise and evidence on an ad-hoc or regular basis.
The potential for involvement of institutional partners, and who these should be, would be considered through the pilot phase.
24
Eionet (European Environment Information and Observation Network) is a partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its member and cooperating countries. It consists of the EEA itself, six European Topic Centres (ETCs) and a network of around 1000 experts from 39 countries in up to 400 national bodies dealing with environmental information. See: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/about 25
Pursuant to Commission Decision of 7.8.2015 (C(2015) 5383 final) on establishing Scientific Committees in the field of public health, consumer safety and the environment in order to give advice to the Commission on health and environmental risks: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/docs/call_2015_5383_decision_with_annexes_en.pdf
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 16 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
2.4 Procedural overview and system flow-chart
The proposed system for identifying emerging environmental issues is built on activities, processes and relationships that have developed over several years and for different purposes. The system is conceptually organised into five ‘steps’: Step 1: Information gathering and scoping; Step 2: Sense making and selection; Step 3: Characterisation through additional research and use of existing tools; Step 4: Validation by a scientific committee; Step 5: Outputs and communication.
These steps are presented in Figure 2 which sets out the system as a flow chart. Table 2 then provides an overview of the institutional roles and information sources contributing to each step.
The system flow chart in Figure 2 and overview in Table 2 presents a linear process as part of a regular cycle. It is proposed that the five steps presented can be implemented through an annual cycle, although this frequency and the timings proposed should be reviewed through the pilot phase.
Figure 2 represents an overview of the system once operational. The Secretariat and EKC Task
Force will need to establish agreements and set up the mechanisms for the system to begin to
function. The development of the system will involve establishing governance structures and
instruments and setting up the processes to be used. More information on how the system might be
established and operate in practice is set out in Section 3.
2.5 System processes and activities
This section describes how the methodological framework will operate from a technical perspective, including the operational steps foreseen and the methods, approaches and processes to be used or developed. Each of the steps set out in Figure 2 and Table 2 are elaborated in more detail in the sub-sections below.
It is proposed that the methodological framework will be based on existing processes and outputs being used by EKC partners, and others where relevant, rather than seeking to generate or implement new methods and approaches.
As noted in sub-section 1.5, a known problem for emerging issue detection is ‘information overload’, and the need to move from information to intelligence i.e. making sense of information to identify what is actually important. The system puts a strong emphasis on expert input to make sense of information collected, through sense-making workshops to involve EKC members and external experts (Step 2) and the use of a scientific committee (Step 4).
Box 1: Capacity building
Capacity building is not a step within the process, but is critical to the maintenance and improvement of the system. The members of the EKC Task Force will need to have skills in recognising or detecting potential emerging risks and in sifting irrelevant information. The expertise of those involved is likely to improve with experience, but actions to promote capacity building should be part of the system. This will not just increase the capabilities of individuals working in the system but will also develop understanding and skills in people who come into contact with the system and this will contribute to widen the pool of expertise on emerging risks.
The pilot phase can be used to identify gaps in knowledge and expertise and specific capacity building needs and opportunities.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 17 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Figure 2: Procedural overview flowchart
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 18 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Table 2: Overview of the system: contributing activities and roles [to be reviewed during pilot phase]
Step System governance and administration
Step 1: Information gathering and scoping
Step 2: Sense making and selection
Step 3: Characterisation
Step 4: Validation Step 5: Outputs
Description
Primary contributing sources
JRC Horizon Scanning
DG Environment text mining of scientific literature (Tool for Innovation Monitoring)
DG Environment text mining of online and social media (European Media Monitoring customised tool)
Eionet FLIS26
Horizon Scanning
27
Other system activities
Desk based research
Consultation with experts
Workshops and meetings
Who is involved EKC DGs / directors Secretariat EKC Task Force
SCHEER External experts
Estimated time to complete Ongoing 2 months 2 months 2 months 4 months 2 months
Purpose and outcome Effective admin and governance
Detect long-list of weak signals (approx. 200) and generate short narratives
Review weak signals to select short-list of (10-15) potential emerging issues
Collate existing evidence on shortlisted issues and complete issue templates
Convene meeting of SCHEER working group to review and validate selected issues
Prepare issue briefing notes and an annual report to communicate all issues detected
For full description see Section 2.3 Section 2.5.1 Section 2.5.2 Section 2.5.3 Section 2.5.4 Section 2.5.5
26
See: https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-flis 27
Note: EEA are in the process of discussing and developing a horizon scanning system within Eionet FLIS. This will not be operational during the pilot phase, and the secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning activity is expected to commence.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 19 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
2.5.1 Step 1: Information gathering and scoping
Purpose of Step 1 The purpose of Step 1 is to collate information on potential weak
signals from a range of sources to provide the best possible
opportunities for the system to detect emerging environmental
issues.
Who is involved? The key actors in Step 1 will be the secretariat in DG Environment,
JRC and the EEA (Eionet FLIS).
JRC will provide a list and short description of weak signals
identified through its Horizon Scanning Service.
The secretariat (DG ENV Unit A3) will undertake searches
using text mining systems (Tools for Innovation Monitoring
(TIM) and the European Media Monitoring (EMM) system).
These will identify additional weak signals.
When operational28, EEA will collate additional weak signals
identified through the horizon scanning activities of the
Eionet FLIS and share these with the secretariat.
Timing / frequency Step 1 is intended to take approximately 2 months to complete, and
will be completed once per annual cycle.
Outcome A long-list of detected weak signals: it is expected approximately 200
weak signals will be detected. Each weak signal will be described in a
simple template.
The detection of emerging issues requires
information to be gathered from a range of
sources (institutions/organisations, networks,
experts, processes) and brought into the
system so that it can be considered through a
process of review and ‘sense-making’: a
process of developing intelligence about
potential emerging issues.
Intelligence is defined as information about
a topic or trend combined with knowledge
and expert judgement to interpret the
information in order to identify weak-signals
of change. Step 1 represents the collation of
information related to weak signals, which is
then reviewed through the sense-making
procedure outlined in Step 2 to develop
intelligence about potential emerging issues.
28
EEA are in the process of discussing and developing a horizon scanning system within Eionet FLIS. This is not expected to be operational during the pilot phase, and the secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning activity is expected to commence.
Two horizon scanning systems will provide
information on weak signals for the system. JRC has
developed a horizon scanning system that collects
weak signals from across the JRC’s knowledge
management units (e.g. knowledge for energy union,
knowledge for sustainable development and food
security) using a coordinated procedure with
dedicated resourcing for scanning, collation and
sense making of weak signals. The EEA is supporting
Eionet FLIS in developing a horizon scanning system
that will collect weak signals from EU member states,
through the use of templates and annual meetings of
Eionet FLIS experts to review and select weak signals
detected across Europe. The Eionet FLIS horizon
scanning is currently under development, and the
secretariat will need to liaise with EEA following the
pilot to discuss when Eionet FLIS horizon scanning
activity is expected to commence.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 20 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
As outlined in sub-section 1.5.3 the detection of weak signals will be directed by using the STEEP
categorisation of drivers of change and considering potential impacts related to the DPSIR
framework. A simple format is proposed for recording each weak signal, a template that includes: a
title; a short narrative (2 – 3 sentence) description; and a list of source/s of information. A suggested
template format is included in Table 3, however it is understood that JRC are developing a template
for weak-signal recording, which could be adopted as the standard template for the system.
Table 3: Step 1 Weak signal recording template
Weak-signal title Title / name of the weak-signal
Weak-signal description 2-3 sentence narrative describing the weak signal
Information source/s List source/s of information related to the weak signal.
If relevant, list specific reference/s that identify the issue, e.g. journal articles, conference papers, web-articles. Provide web-links where possible.
A digital filing system or online shared-space should be developed so that all detected weak-signals
of change can be recorded. It is understood that the existing EKC web-based ‘shared-space’ can be
used (subject to feasibility) to provide a dedicated online space for the recording and archiving of all
weak signals collected by the system.
In Step 1 the system will draw on three main sources of information (see Table 4), and the
secretariat will have responsibility for collating and compiling a list of weak signals coming from
these sources. It is expected that there may be overlaps or similarities in the signals that different
sources detect, so the collation will involve an element of review and rationalisation to develop one
coherent set of weak signals of change.
Table 4: Sources of information
Sources of information Contribution to Step 1
Primary sources
Horizon Scanning system at JRC JRC Horizon Scanning system will produce a long-list of weak-signals collected from active ‘scanners’ across JRC Knowledge management units. JRC will collate and share these with the secretariat in the agreed format.
Text mining using JRC developed Tools
for Innovation Monitoring (TIM) and a
customised version of the European
Media Monitoring (EMM), as piloted
by DG Environment
DG Environment Unit A.3 will regularly conduct reviews using a range of relevant search terms to identify weak signals.
Eionet FLIS Horizon Scanning EEA will coordinate the collection of weak signals from the Eionet FLIS, and collate and communicate these to the secretariat.
Secondary source
EKC Task Force professional intelligence
29
EKC experts to identify and report on any potential weak signals they have become aware of through their work, e.g. from participating in meetings, workshops and through research they come across, in particular through RTD network of foresight correspondents
29
Identification of information by EKC experts based on their own knowledge and experience e.g. from participating in meetings, workshops and through research they come across through their work
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 21 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
2.5.2 Step 2: Sense making and selection
Purpose of Step 2 Step 2 will make sense of the potentially large number of weak
signals collected in Step 1. The purpose of Step 2 is to bring together
a range of experts to review and discuss the weak signals and select
those judged to represent potentially important emerging
environmental issues.
Who is involved? The Secretariat will prepare materials for and convene a sense-
making workshop to review the outcomes of Step 1.
The workshop is expected to involve experts from EKC institutions,
including those engaged in horizon scanning at JRC and the Eionet
FLIS.
External experts are also likely to be involved, however the number
of experts and expertise required will depend on the weak-signals
collected in Step 1.
Timing / frequency Step 2 is expected to take approximately 2 months to complete.
One sense-making workshop is intended to be organised in each
annual cycle to follow the completion of Step 1. A one-day
participatory workshop is proposed.
Outcome Workshop record including a short-list of approximately 10-15
weaksignals, together with initial reflections on their potential
importance for the EU environment or society (i.e. the extent to
which they represent emerging issues, risks or opportunities).
Weak signals considered relevant and important will be taken
forward for characterisation in Step 3.
In Step 2 the Secretariat will need to collate the
outcomes of Step 1 and prepare materials for a
participatory ‘sense-making’ workshop to bring
together EKC and external experts (see box) to
review, discuss and select from the long-list of
weak-signals those considered most important for
the EU environment and society. To ensure good
participation it is proposed that a date is agreed
and participants are identified and invited as soon
as possible in the annual cycle, and at least 2
months before the workshop if possible.
One sense-making workshop is proposed,
although, if a very large number of weak signals are
detected or if there is a wide range of areas of
expertise required to contribute to sense-making,
it may be necessary to convene more than one
workshop. It may also be useful to cluster the weak signals into broadly similar types (e.g. according
to the STEEP driver categories in which they have been detected, i.e. are they technological
Expert input to Step 2
It is expected that some external experts will
need to be involved in the sense-making
workshop to ensure a sufficient diversity of
knowledge and expertise to consider all the
weak signals detected. The exact range of
expertise required will depend on the type of
signals detected. It is proposed that during the
pilot phase an initial ‘pool’ of experts is
identified, which can be drawn upon as
required in future implementation of the
system. It is anticipated that over time
networks of experts can be established and the
relationship between these experts and the
system will develop.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 22 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
developments, social developments etc.), to provide a basis for small group discussions during the
workshop.
A one-day workshop is proposed and could include the following sessions:
Overview of Step 1 outcomes: long-list of weak signals
Working sessions to review and discuss weak signals, divided into small working-groups (e.g.
by cluster of weak signals).
Plenary session/s to select the 10-15 most important weak signals, and discuss initial
reflections on relevance for EU policy and society.
The outcome will be a workshop record, including a list of selected weak signals (10-15) together
with any additional information emerging through the workshop discussions (drawing on the
collective expert knowledge), in particular related to how the weak signal may be important to or
impact the European environment or society.
Weak signals short-listed and selected through the sense-making workshop will be carried forward
to Step 3: Characterisation. Weak signals not selected through the sense-making workshop will be
managed in one of two ways:
Those considered not relevant in the short-term, but which may develop over time will be
recorded and reassessed in the next system cycle (as new information may be available etc.).
Those considered not relevant for the system in general will be archived, and may be
reported in the annual report but not reconsidered within the system.
The existing EKC web-based ‘shared-space’ can be used (subject to feasibility) to provide a dedicated
online space for the recording and archiving of all weak-signals collected by the system.
2.5.3 Step 3: Characterisation
Purpose of Step 3 To provide a characterisation of the weak signals selected through
the sense-making in Step 2. The characterisation of weak signals is
indented to enable the description of the type and nature of
emerging risks or opportunities they may represent.
Who is involved? The Secretariat supported by EKC Task Force members and, where
required, input through consultation with external experts.
Timing / frequency Characterisation will follow the sense-making workshop, and is
expected to take approximately 2 months.
Outcome The outcome of Step 3 is an emerging issue template completed for
each weak signal selected during Step 2, characterising each weak
signal and describing the risks or opportunities it may represent.
Step 3 involves the characterisation of weak signals drawing on multiple sources. The Secretariat will bring together available evidence about each of the weak signals selected in Step 2. This will include reviewing information available through the source/s identified in each weak signal description (from Step 1), additional sources of information identified during the sense-making workshop (Step 2) and if necessary additional information identified through desk-based research and bilateral discussions with external experts, for example:
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 23 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Literature searches, using existing tools available to the secretariat at DG Environment: text mining using TIM and EMM; and (if time allows) reviews of academic literature requested through the Science for Environmental Policy service contract.
Requests for information from the EKC Task Force and other external experts, particularly where knowledge of evidence sources are required in particular thematic areas, sectors or topics.
Bilateral discussions, such as through interviews with external experts (see box) with knowledge of a particular topic or sector.
If after completing the above further information is still required, additional informal information gathering interviews with members of existing expert panels and committees could be used30 as appropriate.
Working with the Task Force, the Secretariat may make use of tools such as trend analysis and causal chain analysis or mind-maps to develop a better understanding of the scale and significance of specific issues.
The outcome of Step 3 will be a completed emerging issue characterisation template for each selected weak signal (see Table 5), accompanied by any supporting references or literature as required.
The level of detail possible in the template will depend on the available information, although it is assumed that each template will be a maximum of 2 – 3 pages in length.
Table 5: Step 3 Emerging Issue characterisation template
Step 3: Issue characterisation
Emerging issue title
Title / name of the emerging issue
From Step 1 weak signal template, amended based on sense-making discussions (Step 2), and information review (Step 3).
Emerging issue description
Short narrative describing the emerging issue (1-2 short paragraphs)
Include description of the STEEP category the weak signal related to the emerging issue comes from, based on STEEP
31 categories of drivers.
Based on description of weak signal from Step 1, amended and expanded based on sense-making discussions (Step 2), and information review (Step 3)
Type of impact expected: potential risks or opportunities
Short narrative describing how the emerging issue is expected to effect the EU environment or environmental policy. Identify potential negative impact (risks) as well as positive impact (opportunities).
Consider the following areas of impact in which risks or opportunities may be seen (based on the DPSIR framework
32):
30
E.g. SCHEER at DG SANTE; the emerging risk unit at EFSA; the Science Advise Mechanism (SAM) hosted by DG RTD; European Forum on Forward Looking Activities (EFFLA) high level experts; and the European Parliament Science and Technology Option Assessment (STOA) panel. 31
Societal developments / perceptions; Technological developments and innovation; Environmental developments; Economic developments and new business models; Political developments 32
As noted in sub-section 1.5.3 ‘Impacts’ and ‘Responses’ are not considered explicitly in the system. ‘Impacts’ of emerging issues are assumed to manifest as changes in driving forces, pressures or the state of the environment and human health; and the appropriate ‘response’ to emerging issues and the risks or opportunities they represent will be considered outside the system.
Expert input to Step 3
It is expected that some external experts will
need to provide input to the characterisation of
weak signals, to ensure a sufficient diversity of
knowledge and expertise is available. The exact
range of expertise required will depend on the type
of signals detected. It is proposed that during the
pilot phase an initial ‘pool’ of experts is identified,
which can be drawn upon as required in future
implementation of the system. It is anticipated that
over time networks of experts can be established
and the relationship between these experts and the
system will develop.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 24 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Driving forces: Production; Consumption; Demographics; Recreation; Agriculture
Transport and mobility
Pressures: Polluting substances; Radiation; Noise; Land use; Waste ; Use of natural resources
State of the environment and human health: Land and soil; Biodiversity and ecosystems; Human health; Air; Atmosphere (including climate); Marine and coastal; Freshwater; Materials
Timeframe of emergence
Describe when the emerging issue is considered likely to emerge as an issue, and what factors may influence this emergence.
Consider whether the issue is expected to emerge in the: Short-term (1-5 yrs); Medium-term (5-10 yrs); Long-term (10+yrs); or Long-term, but requires an urgent response
Uncertainty
Briefly describe the level of uncertainty associated with the weak signal / emerging issue and the risks / opportunities identified.
A simple scale could be used to indicate the level of uncertainty, from very certain to very uncertain.
Policy status Describe briefly the policy status of the weak signal / emerging issue it may represent. Does EU or international policy exist relevant to the issue? Is the issue relevant to an existing policy topic of the Commission? Is the issue cross-cutting?
Notes on additional research or evidence that may be needed
Add any notes on additional research or evidence that may help further characterise or understand the emerging issue.
Reference/s List specific reference/s that identify the issue, e.g. journal articles, conference papers, web-articles. Provide web-links where possible.
From Step 1, amended and added to, based on sense-making workshop discussions (Step 2) and evidence review (Step 3)
2.5.4 Step 4: Validation
Purpose of Step 4 The purpose of Step 4 is to validate the outcomes of Steps 1 – 3
through their consideration within a scientific committee: the
Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks
(SCHEER) at DG SANTE.
Who is involved? The Secretariat will have responsibility for liaising with the SCHEER
secretariat to organise one of more meetings of the SCHEER. These
meetings will be convened under usual SCHEER procedures. If
agreed, a dedicated SCHEER working group33 on emerging
environmental issues could be established.
Timing / frequency The SCHEER would meet in each annual cycle following completion of
Step 3. It is expected that approximately four months will be
required for the committee to consider the outcomes of Step 3 and
convene one or more meetings to discuss and validate these.
Outcome The outcome of Step 4 will be an opinion by SCHEER on the emerging
issues characterised in Step 3 and where possible on the level of
scientific consensus around each emerging issue and the risks /
opportunities.
33
See: https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/minutes_wg_meetings_en
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 25 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
In Step 4, the Secretariat liaises with SCHEER to arrange emerging environmental issues working group meetings to review the Step 3 characterisation emerging issue templates, debate the evidence, comment on and validate the outcomes, in particular the risks and opportunities identified and the levels of uncertainty and scientific consensus.
The SCHEER working group should consider a set of key questions, including:
Is the emerging issue as described plausible?
Is the emerging issue likely to have the risks and/or opportunities described, or others?
Does the working group agree with the expected time-frame of emergence, in particular those issues expected to emerge in the short and medium term (i.e. that may be of highest priority for an urgent response)?
It will be important that the SCHEER working group should have face-to-face meetings with sufficient time for broad deliberations around each issue.
2.5.5 Step 5: Outputs and communication
Purpose of Step 5 Step 5 concerns the preparation of outputs from the system, and
their communication with relevant audiences and stakeholders.
Who is involved? The Secretariat will have responsibility for the preparation of
reporting from the system, and the EKC Task Force will approve and
provide support on particular topics or issues.
The secretariat and EKC Task Force will help communicate outputs to
the appropriate senior staff in their institutions and to the annual EKC
DG level meeting.
Timing / frequency Communication represents the outcome of each ‘cycle’ of the
system, and therefore outputs would be expected annually.
Issues detected during the annual cycle that are considered of an
urgent nature could be communicated immediately, through ad-hoc
briefing notes to relevant stakeholders.
Outcome It is proposed that two key outputs be developed:
Short and accessible briefing notes or alerts to be prepared at
the end of each cycle (annually) to provide information to EKC
DGs on emerging issues requiring policy attention. Ad-hoc
briefing notes could also be prepared where urgent issues are
detected.
Annual reports to present and summarise the results of the
system each year, including an overview of all weak signals
detected.
As noted in sub-section 1.6, the proposed principle audiences for the outcomes of the system are
senior and middle management within EKC institutions (e.g. directors general, directors, heads of
unit), and staff of similar grade in other Commission DGs who will need to be informed of emerging
issues in their policy areas and make decisions about how to respond (e.g. through additional
research, new policy responses etc.). It is proposed that EKC directors-general will be informed of
the outcomes once a year through their regular EKC meetings.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 26 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
It is proposed that in Step 6 the following outcomes are developed:
Key Output 1: At the end of each cycle (e.g. annually) briefing notes or alerts developed for
‘decision makers’ which can be relatively informal and short. These briefing notes will
summarise information and recommendations on identified and prioritised weak signals and
associated emerging issues, together with information on the potential risks and
opportunities they represent, and present this to the annual EKC DGs meeting for further
assessment and decision making on appropriate management responses.
Key Output 2: Annual report to record all weak signals examined, prioritised, referred on or
archived. To minimise the need to generate new materials, the annual report could be
largely based on individual templates developed in Steps 1 and 3.
Outputs can be communicated directly with relevant audiences and stakeholders, however existing
communication tools could also be used. Online versions of outputs could be published through the
DG Environment website, and the annual report could be circulated through the Science for
Environmental Policy news alert mechanism34. The outputs of the system could also provide an
input to reporting by other EKC institutions, for example input for EEA publications such as the
European Environment – State and Outlook Report (SOER), or through the Eionet input to member
state processes and reporting, including national state of the environment reporting and horizon
scanning (e.g. feeding back into Eionet FLIS).
Once the system is operational, consideration will need to be given to how outputs can be
communicated to wider audiences beyond the primary audience. A wide group of institutions and
experts (e.g. Eionet, existing expert networks) are expected to contribute to the system by providing
information, and it will be important to provide such contributors with recognition and benefit to
their involvement.
Archive of weak signals
Although not a formal communication output of the system, as noted in Step 2, based on the
outcomes of sense-making an ‘archive’ of weak signals will be maintained within the EKC web-
based shared-space. This will represent a record of all signals detected including those not
recommended for further consideration. As indicated in sub-section 2.5.2 these are expected to fall
into two categories: those that are considered not relevant in the short-term, which will be reviewed
in the subsequent cycle to ensure that a weak signal that was not selected in a previous assessment
is regularly checked against new information or changes in understanding and perceptions; and
those which are not relevant to the system at all, which will be archived but not considered in the
next cycle.
2.6 Emerging risk assessment and management
The outcomes of the system represent the detection of emerging environmental issues,
characterisation of potential emerging risks and opportunities, and their review by an established
scientific committee (SCHEER). It is proposed that formal emerging risk assessment, and where
required risk management (or interventions to exploit opportunities) is undertaken outside the
system: the system refers issues and related information that is useful to support decision making
about next steps.
34
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/newsalert.htm
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 27 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Established risk management procedures exist within the Commission, including those related to
specific thematic policy areas (e.g. DG Environment previously completed a review of risk
management processes in use across all environmental sectors / areas of legislation35); and through
processes established specifically to help understand the nature of and appropriate responses to
risks in particular areas (e.g. the Science Advice Mechanism coordinated by DG RTD, see Annex 2 for
more information). Which institution or process is best place to undertake specific risk assessment
and management will depend on the sectors and types of risks and opportunities detected and
prioritised through the system.
35
DG Environment (2014) Mapping on approaches to risk and uncertainty in DG ENV. Unpublished internal review.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 28 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
3. Setting up the system: the pilot phase and beyond
3.1 Overview
This section discusses the approach for establishing the system described in Section 2. It first
outlines the steps to be taken in the first year, when a pilot will test the system. The section then
presents key elements for a roadmap to formally establish the system. Finally it presents options for
implementing the system itself and their estimated resource requirements.
3.2 Key steps
An overall objective for the framework is that it should be practical and can be put into operation.
For this reason, we propose that DG Environment and its EKC partners run an informal pilot of the
framework using currently available resources and then review the pilot experience for the
preparation of the full, formal stage of work for the framework. Figure 3 presents a schematic idea
of this ‘launch’ phase, including initial start-up actions, the pilot and its follow-up with an internal
review, as well as work leading to the more permanent stage: this initial trial period might take one
year in total.
Figure 3: Schematic of the proposed ‘launch’ phase (also see Section 3.3)
The pilot is discussed in further detail in the following sub-section 3.3. Sub-section 3.4 then
discusses key elements of the roadmap to be prepared, while sub-section 3.5 outlines three options
in terms of the scale of the permanent framework.
3.3 Piloting the framework
The goal in the pilot phase will be to ‘learn by doing’: it would trial the systematic approach
developed in this project within a defined topic area, and its results would be used to refine the
approach and to communicate its value. The first goal of the pilot will be to develop and test the
framework set out in Section 2.
Start-up actions
(months 1-2)
Pilot
(months 2-8)
Internal review of pilot and preparation of roadmap
(months 9 - 10)
Present formal framework for approval
(month 11)
Launch formal framework
(month 12)
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 29 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
3.3.1 Setting up the pilot
This pilot could be carried out on an informal basis among EKC partners (and other EU bodies that
agree to participate). DG Environment would provide an informal secretariat for this work, drawing
on resources that are currently available.
During the setup phase, several questions will need to be addressed: the definition of the topic (see
sub-section 3.3.2 below), the roles and working relationships among participating bodies, and the
operational plans for each of the steps set out in section 2. In terms of planning, it will be important
to ensure that key inputs – such as horizon scanning from JRC and EEA/Eionet FLIS – will be available
to meet the timelines. The suggested review questions for each step of the pilot phase are set out in
sub-section 3.3.3. As indicated, it is expected that the pilot will be carried out on an informal basis;
nonetheless, agreements may need to be established between EKC members and with other
participating bodies, notably with DG SANTE and SCHEER.
3.3.2 Topic for the pilot
Discussions during the project brainstorming and workshop recommended that the pilot should
focus on a single, relatively well-defined thematic area. The project workshop in May 2017
considered several possible topics, and the discussion results are presented in the Workshop
Report36. The topic selected for the pilot is: new technologies in the urban environment.
Table 6 shows the opportunities associated with the elements of this topic and the challenges that
should be addressed in the pilot. By combining these individual topics, potential concerns regarding
each topic individually being too broad can be addressed by providing a focus for each e.g.
considering those new technologies that may have implications in an urban setting, and by limiting
the breadth of urban issues that could be considered by focussing on those influenced by new
technologies.
Table 6: Pilot topic opportunities and challenges from project workshop
Proposed topic Opportunities Challenges to be addressed in the
pilot
New technologies An opportunity to focus on specific types of new technology or sectors
Good access to secondary sources
Opportunity to do a ‘retrospective’ pilot alongside a ‘prospective’ one
Will need a clear time frame – e.g. issues emerging since 2010
Very broad area – may need to be narrowed to make text mining practical
Speed of technology adoption varies, resulting in uncertainties
The topic is often considered in foresight studies: a clear value added for the pilot should be identified
Urban issues A broad topic – useful to test the framework methodology
New topic at EU level and for emerging issues
A focus on ‘smart cities’ would touch on all three areas discussed, but this term needs definition
As a broad topic, the scan may need significant preparation
36
CEP (2017) Methodological Framework for the systematic identification of emerging risks to the environment – Final record of workshop, 4 May 2017, Brussels
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 30 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
3.3.3 Pilot approach and key issues for the steps
The pilot will work through the five steps of the systematic approach. At each step, the level of work
will be reduced compared to the full framework set out in section 2 – the approach is described in
below. The focus of the pilot will be to test the methods, relationships and processes proposed (e.g.
templates, sense-making workshop etc.). A set of review questions is proposed for each step.
Step 1. Information gathering and scoping
Did the results provided by horizon scanning (undertaken by JRC and possibly also via
EEA/Eionet FLIS) provide useful information for this step?
Did text mining from scientific literature and online media provide useful information?
Were there problems of information overload (too many results or too much detail) or lack
of information?
Is the weak signal template an appropriate format for collecting a large number of weak
signals?
Step 2. Sense making and selection
What are the best ways to organise the EKC sense-making workshop? How much time is
needed for effective and useful discussions?
How well does weak signal recording template used in Step 1 provide the appropriate level
of input for the workshop?
If external experts are involved in sense making, was their input valuable, and is it possible
to establish an informal ‘pool’ of experts to be used (and developed) for the system?
Step 3. Characterisation
How well does the characterisation template work?
What resources are needed to gather information for the template?
Should further information be provided on the reliability and plausibility of information
sources?
If external experts are contacted, what has been the value of the information they provided?
Is a more formal expert network required, or is an informal pool of experts appropriate?
Step 4. Validation
Does SCHEER provide an appropriate review of the work?
Would additional areas of high-level expertise might be needed for an effective review?
Step 5. Outputs and communication
What is the best format for the briefings?
How and when should results on emerging risks be disseminated to a wider audience? How
can the work of the framework be best linked to Science for Environmental Policy and other
dissemination tools?
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 31 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Overall questions for the pilot
Did each step provide value for the process?
Are the proposed timeframes for each step realistic? Is an annual cycle useful?
Does each step function as part of an annual process (as part of a longer-term cycle), or is
there a need for greater iteration between steps?
Are there opportunities to streamline the process? Are any additional steps needed?
Based on the pilot, what will be the resource needs for the full framework (see section 3.4
below for preliminary estimates of resource needs)?
3.3.4 Reviewing the pilot and preparing a roadmap
The answers to these questions will be considered in the review of the pilot, which will assess the
process as well as the tools used and consider any modifications for the formal stage of the
framework. On this basis, DG Environment would then prepare a detailed roadmap to put the
framework into practice. The figure below provides an initial overview of activities for the roadmap.
Figure 4: Overview of key set-up activities
It is expected that the main work for the set-up activities will be carried out by the Secretariat, with
input and discussion among the participating EKC members and other key EU institutions. After
agreement at working level, the work plan and budget would be presented to a meeting of the EKC
at DG level for approval.
3.4 Options for the level of activity for the framework
The pilot experience will be used to refine the approach for the full framework, which could take the
form of an EKC project. In developing the full framework, the EKC will need to consider the level of
ambition and resources available. We suggest that three main options be considered for the formal
framework. Table 7 then presents and overview of these implementation options and indicative
resource requirements.
Option 1: A framework mainly using currently available resources at DG Environment and
other EKC partners. Option 1 would provide a minimum level of work on emerging risks,
Governance structures
Agree roles among Task Force partners
Identify secretariat
Prepare ToRs for main bodies: Task Force, secretariat,
SCHEER
System procedures
Agree on scoping criteria
Agree on templates
Agree role of SCHEER
Check availability of EKC contributing
activities
Describe planned outputs
Budget and work plan
Agreement on budget and work
plan
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 32 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
which might result in an annual briefing on one topic to EKC Directors. This would
essentially continue the level of resources used in the pilot. It would not draw on external
expertise.
Option 2: A framework with additional resources provided by DG Environment and other
EKC partners, possibly with some resources provided by other interested EU bodies (e.g.
other DGs). This option would put in place all the elements described in Section 2. Option 2
would provide additional outputs on emerging environmental issues, possibly two annual
briefings to EKC Directors. Under this option, external experts would provide input to the
system, as described in Section 2, including the use of SCHEER for validating issues detected.
Option 3: The third option would involve a higher level of activity on the part of DG
Environment, other EKC partners as well as other EU bodies. Under this option an external
Expert Panel could be established (in addition to SCHEER) to include a range of external
experts and associates who would be invited to participate when needed for additional
expertise. The framework might produce its own public briefings and also contribute
directly to other outputs, such as work by EEA and Eionet FLIS.
Table 7 provides initial indications of the resources and elements for the three options. The pilot will
be valuable in providing more accurate estimates of the resources needed and its results can also be
used to modify or further develop the options for the full framework.
Table 7: Overview of implementation options and resources
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Resources Similar to pilot:
0.5 month FTE at DG
ENV
5+ days FTE each at
other participating EKC
partners, including Task
Force and an internal (to
EKC) expert panel
Resources for horizon
scanning at JRC (and
possibly EEA and Eionet
FLIS)
0.5 - 1.0 FTE at DG ENV
10+ days FTE at other
participating EKC partners
Resources for horizon
scanning at JRC (and EEA
and Eionet FLIS)
5+ days for SCHEER
members
5+ days FTE at other EU
participating EU bodies
SfEP contribution
1.5 – 2.0 FTE at DG ENV
1-2 months FTE at JRC and/or
EEA
Resources for horizon
scanning at JRC (and EEA and
Eionet FLIS)
1 month FTE each at other
EKC partners and other
participating EU bodies
Resources for a dedicated
Expert Panel, plus additional
experts
SfEP contribution
Main actors DG ENV as secretariat
JRC, including for
horizon scanning
Other EKC partners
SCHEER
If possible, link to NRC
FLIS
DG ENV as secretariat
JRC, including for horizon
scanning
Other EKC partners
SCHEER
Other interested EU bodies
Link to NRC FLIS
DG ENV as secretariat
JRC, including for horizon
scanning
Other EKC partners
SCHEER
Other interested EU bodies
NRC FLIS: regular inputs
Process Focus on limited number
of topics, e,g, up to 2 per
year
Broader focus through
open scan drawing on
horizon scanning and text
mining
Broader focus through open
scan
Capacity to address requests
from policy makers
External SCHEER to provide
review
SCHEER to provide review
Involvement of additional
An annual conference would
review emerging issues
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 33 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
expertise external experts on an ad
hoc basis for specific needs
SCHEER working group
meets twice/year
identified by the framework.
Participants would be
identified to provide expertise
for the issues to be discussed.
SCHEER to provide further
review and input
Outputs One briefing per year to
EKC Directors
Two briefings per year to
EKC Directors
Occasional public
information provided via
SfEP
Four+ briefings per year to
EKC Directors
Information via SfEP
At least one DG ENV public
report per year
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 34 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Annex 1: Glossary of terms
Table A.1: Glossary of terms
Terms used Definition Source/s of
definition
Other sources
Brainstorming Brainstorming is a method for collecting ideas
without judgment or filtering. It involves
spontaneous contributions of ideas, encouraging
wild and unconstrained suggestions, and listing the
ideas as they emerge. Brainstorming is typically
used in early stages of futures workshops in order
to explore possible and/or (un)desirable future
trends, events and/or situations
EEA Foresight
Dictionary
JRC FOR-
LEARN; Popper,
2008a; Popper
2008b
Causal Chain
Analysis
A causal chain is an ordered sequence of events
linking the causes of a problem with its effects.
Causal Chain Analysis is the analysis of a chain of
causal links starting with ‘driving forces’ (e.g.
economic sectors, human activities) through
‘pressures’ (e.g. emissions, waste) to ‘states’ (e.g.
physical, chemical and biological) and ‘impacts’ on
e.g. ecosystems, human health and functions,
eventually leading to political ‘responses’ (e.g.
prioritisation, target setting, indicators). As such,
causal chain analysis illustrates how different
variables and components in a system interact to
influence the system’s behaviour. The chain of
causal relation stretches from the occurrence of a
hazard through to its final impact, including an
identification of sources, routes of exposure and
consequences.
GEF IW:LEARN
Adjusted from
Kristensen
(2004) and
OECD (2003)
and Committee
on Foundations
of risk analysis
(2015)
Meadows, 2008
Early Warning(s)
(Also found in
literature as Early-
Warning Signals/
Systems or Rapid
Alerts)
Early Warning is information about a potential
hazard or an issue of potential serious consequence
that is timely and meaningful, so that it can enable
individuals, communities and organisations
threatened by it to prepare and to act appropriately
and in sufficient time to reduce the possibility of
harm or loss.
Adjusted from
UNISDR (2007)
and FAO (2014)
EC, 2016; EEA,
2016a; EEA
Foresight
Dictionary
Emerging Issue An Emerging Issue is an issue that has very recently
been identified and merits further investigation, as
the information collected is preliminary and still too
limited to be able to assess whether it meets the
requirements of an emerging risk.
Note: this definition has been adapted and
expanded in the context of the methodological
framework to represent a definition of emerging
environmental issue (see sub-section 1.4.1).
Adjusted from
EFSA (2012)
EFSA, 2014;
OECD, 2003;
SCENIHR, 2009;
EEA, 2014
Emerging Risk An Emerging Risk is a risk resulting from a newly EFSA (2007) FAO, 2014; EEA,
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 35 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Terms used Definition Source/s of
definition
Other sources
identified hazard to which a significant exposure
may occur or from an unexpected new or increased
significant exposure and/or susceptibility to a
known hazard.
Note: this definition has been adapted and
expanded in the context of the methodological
framework to represent a definition of emerging
environmental risk or opportunity (see sub-section
1.4.1).
2016a; IRGC,
2010; SCENIHR,
2009; Maynard,
2010; Locklear,
2011; Aven and
Vinnem, 2007
Systemic Risk A Systemic Risk is one that can result in total
system collapse, as opposed to breakdown in
individual components of a system. Systemic risks
are characterised by complexity and are often
driven by multiple factors (operating through both
direct and indirect causation and with
interdependencies and amplification across co-
causal factors) which creates uncertainties in our
understanding of causality.
Systemic Risks may emerge from conventional risks
taking on new forms or new major hazards
emerging, and can be characterised by both
extreme uncertainty and a potential for extensive
and perhaps irreversible harm.
The emerging dimension of systemic risks is shaped
by the view to the future.
Adjusted from
EEA (2016a)
and OECD
(2003)
Expert panels /
consultation
Expert panels are a method for soliciting informed
opinions from individuals with particular expertise.
They are used to obtain a rapid assessment of the
state of knowledge about a particular aspect of a
system and its environment. Expert panels are one
of the most common foresight methods that utilises
experts to review or deliberate on the future of a
specific matter.
EEA Foresight
Dictionary and
FAO (2014)
UNFCCC
Secretariat,
2005; Popper,
2008a and
2008b;
Armstrong,
2001
Foresight Foresight is a systematic, participatory, future-
intelligence-gathering and medium-to-long-term
vision-building process aimed at enabling present-
day decisions and mobilising joint actions.
As a forward-looking approach, it aims to help
decision-makers explore, anticipate, prepare for
and influence a range of possible future scenarios.
Adjusted from
JRC FOR-LEARN
and EEA
Foresight
Dictionary
FAO, 2014;
CORDIS, 2010;
EC, 2009;
Slaughter,
1997; Jakil,
2011; Popper,
2008b
Horizon Scanning Horizon scanning involves the systematic collection,
organisation and examination of a wide range of
information on potential challenges, opportunities,
and threats to identify emerging issues that may
have significant impact in the medium to long term
Adjusted from
Defra (2002),
EC (2016), EEA
Foresight
Dictionary and
JRC FOR-
LEARN; Könnölä
et al. 2012;
Sutherland and
Woodroof,
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 36 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Terms used Definition Source/s of
definition
Other sources
future. It is a key foresight method for identifying
possible future drivers of change that are at the
margins of current thinking and acting.
Horizon scanning aims to provide early warning
about important changes and to detect weak
signals that can challenge present assumptions and
provide new perspectives on future threats and
opportunities.
Horizon scanning may explore novel and
unexpected issues as well as persistent problems or
trends.
FAO (2014) 2009; EEA,
2016b
Method
and
Methodology
Method is a path for collecting, analysing,
interpreting and disseminating plausible,
inspirational and robust knowledge and information
about the past and the present to make statements
about the future. The choice and the use of
methods are informed and determined by a
methodology.
Methodology refers to a research logic consisting of
a more or less consistent set of assumptions about
the relevant conditions that need to be fulfilled to
gain plausible, inspirational and robust knowledge
and insights.
EEA Foresight
Dictionary
Jakil, 2011; JRC
FOR-LEARN
Mind-mapping Mind mapping is a method for drawing one or more
diagrams to visually organise knowledge and
information about a topic or concept. A mind map
is often created around a single concept to which
associated representations of ideas such as images,
words and parts of words are added. Major ideas
are connected directly to the central concept, and
other ideas branch out from those.
EEA Foresight
Dictionary
Nesbit and
Adesope, 2006
Participatory
(approach)
A participatory approach offers and encourages the
participation of individuals and groups.
Future-oriented activities can be considered
participatory if:
they involve participants from at least two
different stakeholder groups (e.g. researchers
and business people; experts and policy-
makers; experts and laymen)
they disseminate their preliminary results (e.g.
analyses, tentative conclusions and policy
proposals) among interested 'non-
participants', e.g. face-to-face at workshops,
over the internet with free access for
everyone, or in the form of printed documents,
JRC FOR-LEARN
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 37 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Terms used Definition Source/s of
definition
Other sources
leaflets, newsletters
they seek feedback from this wider circle
(again, either face-to-face or in written form).
Risk Risk is the combination of the probability, or
frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard and
the magnitude of the consequences of the
occurrence.
We consider a future activity [interpreted in a wide
sense to also cover, for example, natural
phenomena], for example the operation of a
system, and define risk in relation to the
consequences (effects, implications) of this activity
with respect to something that humans value.
Royal society
(1992)
ISO Guide
(2009)
UNISDR, 2007;
Committee on
Foundations of
risk analysis,
2015; OECD,
2003; Defra,
2011
Risk assessment Risk assessment is the procedure in which the risks
posed by inherent hazards involved in processes or
situations are estimated either quantitatively or
qualitatively. It involves identifying and evaluating
each step of a trajectory – from the origins of a
hazard to its final consequences for a given system.
As a scientifically based process it consists of the
following steps: (i) hazard identification, (ii) hazard
characterization, (iii) exposure assessment, and (iv)
risk characterization.
Adjusted from
OECD (2003),
EEA (2016b)
and FAO (2014)
UNISDR, 2007;
Defra, 2011;
EEA, 2001
Risk
characterisation
A qualitative and/or quantitative picture of the risk;
i.e., a structured statement of risk usually
containing the elements: risk sources, causes,
events, consequences, uncertainty representations/
measurements and the knowledge that the
judgments are based on.
Committee on
Foundations of
risk analysis
(2015)
EEA, 2001;
Defra, 2011
Sense-making Sense-making is described as the collective activity
of knowledge creation through the collection of
signals and the interpretation of their significance.
Sense-making is built collectively when
observations are evaluated or aggregated into more
encompassing clusters or when their
interrelationships with other notions, such as
trends, are explored.
Könnölä et al.
(2012)
Wild Card
(Also found in
literature as Black
Swan)
A Wild card can be described as an event that has a
very low probability of occurring, but a very high
impact on the system under consideration.
Adjusted from
FAO (2014) and
EEA Foresight
Dictionary
(Weak) Signal Weak signals are early and inaccurate indicators of
an upcoming event or development that may have
Adjusted from
EEA Foresight
FAO, 2014;
Hiltunen, 2010;
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 38 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Terms used Definition Source/s of
definition
Other sources
a significant impact on the system under
consideration. They are generally difficult to
identify and have unclear implications, but can be
helpful in dealing with uncertainties and wild cards.
Dictionary and
FAO (2014)
EFSA, 2015
References used for glossary
Armstrong JS, 2001. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners. Editor.
Kluwer Academic, London, 850 pp
Aven T & Vinnem JE (2007) Risk Management: With Applications from the Offshore Petroleum
Industry. London: Springer.
Committee on Foundations of risk analysis (2015) SRA glossary. Available from:
http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA-glossary-approved22june2015-x.pdf
CORDIS (2010) What is foresight: definition. Available from:
http://cordis.europa.eu/foresight/definition.htm
Defra (2011) Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: Green Leaves III.
Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidelines-for-environmental-risk-
assessment-and-management-green-leaves-iii
Defra (2002) Horizon Scanning & Futures Home. Defra Definition of Horizon Scanning (2002).
Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071022164356/horizonscanning.defra.gov.uk/
EC (2016) Science for Environmental Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Identifying emerging risks for
environmental policies. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/emerging_environmental_ris
ks_early_warnings_FB12_en.pdf
EEA Foresight Dictionary. Available from: https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-
flis/portal_glossary/glossary?lang=en
EEA (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000, Environmental
issue report No 22/2001, EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available from:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22
EEA (2014) Report of the EEA Scientific Committee. Seminar on Environment, Human Health and
Well-Being: Advancing the Knowledge Base. Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-
us/governance/scientific-committee/reports/report-of-the-eea-scientific/view
EEA (2016a) Report of the EEA Scientific Committee Seminar on emerging Systemic Risk. Available
from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/governance/scientific-committee/reports
EEA (2016b) Environmental Risk Assessment: Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources
EFSA (2007) Definition and description of “Emerging Risks” within the EFSA’s mandate (adopted by
the Scientific Committee on 10 July 2007). Available from:
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 39 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/escoemrisk
definition.pdf
EFSA (2012) Towards a methodological framework for emerging risk identification. Available from:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-243
EFSA (2014) TECHNICAL REPORT: Update on EFSA’s activities on Emerging Risks 2012-2013. Available
from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-585
EFSA (2015) Identification of emerging risks: an appraisal of the procedure trialled by EFSA and the
way forward. Available from: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-824
FAO (2014) Horizon Scanning and Foresight: An overview of approaches and possible applications in
Food Safety. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4061e.pdf
GEF IW:LEARN is the Global Environment Facility's (GEF) International Waters Learning Exchange and
Resource Network implemented by the UN Development Programme and the UN Environment
Programme (Division of Early Warning and Assessment). Available from:
http://old.iwlearn.net/manuals/tda-sap-methodology/development-of-the-tda/causal-chain-
analysis/what-is-causal-chain-analysis
Hiltunen, E. 2010. Weak Signals in Organisational Futures. Helsinki.
IRGC (2010) Risk Governance Deficits: Analysis, illustration and recommendations. Available from:
http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_rgd_web_final.pdf
ISO (2009) International Organization for Standardization, Draft ISO Guide 73: Risk Management –
Vocabulary, Geneva, ISO
Jakil, A. 2011. Sustainability Governance Foresight – Towards Bridging the Knowledge Gap between
Policy Analysis and Governance for Sustainable Development. Vienna
JRC FOR-LEARN. Key Terms used in Foresight. Available from:
http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/A1_key-terms/index.htm
Könnölä, T., Salo, A., Cagnin, C., Carabias, V., & Vilkkumaa, E. (2012). Facing the future: Scanning,
synthesizing and sense-making in horizon scanning. Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 222-231.
Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/articles-journals/facing-future-scanning-
synthesizing-and-sense-making-horizon-scanning
Kristensen, P. (2004). The DPSIR Framework. National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.
European Topic Centre. European Environment Agency.
Locklear K (2011) Emerging risk: An integrated framework for managing extreme events. 2011 ERM
Symposium.
Maynard, A.D., Warheit, D.B. and Philbert, M.A. (2010) The new toxicology of sophisticated
materials: Nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicological Sciences 120 (Supplement 1): S109– S129
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea green publishing.
Nesbit, J.C. and Adesope, O.O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps. Review of
Educational Research, 76 (3)
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 40 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
OECD (2003) Emerging Risks in the 21st Century: An Agenda for Action. Available from:
http://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/emergingrisksinthe21stcenturyanagendaforaction.ht
m
Popper, R. (2008a). Foresight methodology. The handbook of technology foresight, 44-88.
Popper, R. (2008b) How are foresight methods selected?, Foresight, Vol. 10 Issue: 6, pp.62-89,
https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810918586
SCENIHR (2009) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Emerging
Issues and the Role of the SCENIHR Position Paper. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_s_01.pdf
Slaughter, R. A. (1997). Developing and applying strategic foresight. ABN Report, 5(10), 13-27.
Sutherland, W. and Woodroof, H. (2009). The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 24(10): 523-527.
The Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. Report of a Royal Society
Study Group. The Royal Society.
UNFCCC Secretariat. 2005. Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and
vulnerability and adaptation to, climate change. Bonn.
UNISDR (2007) United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction Terminology. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-e
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 41 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Annex 2: Review of existing methods and approaches
A desk-based review of methods and approaches was undertaken by the project, together with
interviews with experts from European institutions. The objective of the review was to gain an
understanding of existing best practices (methods, methodologies and tools) in the field of emerging
risks that could contribute to establishing a European system. Particular attention was paid to
practices in use by EKC partners.
A loose hierarchy was used to guide the review: (i) Commission institutions, especially the EKC and
key partners; (ii) other EU bodies, EU research projects; (iii) Member States; (iv) research
institutions, private sector, international organisations. Through the review more than 60
institutions with some activity related to emerging risk detection or assessment were identified, and
examples of more than 50 methods and approaches were reviewed.
The review was completed in the early stages of the process to develop the methodological
framework, and in particular was a source of information in developing the initial draft proposals for
the methodology and as input to the discussions in the brainstorming event held in Brussels in
December 2016.
A summary of the review is presented in Table A.2 below. In many cases limited information is
publically available on the procedural functioning of existing methods and approaches, and where
no information was available this is noted in Table A.2. The review includes a qualitative assessment
of the relevance of each method or approach to the methodological framework for the systematic
identification of emerging risks to the environment. The relevance of each method or approach is
assessed based on the following scoring:
= High relevance: method/approach is a primary source of emerging issue / weak signal detection and can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework and is relevant to at least one environmental impact area (see sub-section 1.5.3); AND/OR method/approach can play a primary role in the implementation of the framework
= Medium relevance: method approach can support (e.g. as a secondary source) emerging issue / weak signal detection, can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework, and is relevant to one or more environmental impact areas; AND/OR method/approach can potentially play a supporting role in the implementation of the framework
= Low relevance: method/approach is either not suitable as a source of emerging issues /
weak signal detection, is not able to provide outputs in a timeframe suitable for the
framework and/or is not relevant to any environmental impact areas; AND/OR
method/approach is not suitable to play a role in the implementation of the framework
Some further key observations from the review, which were presented at the project brainstorming
event, include:
There is a lot of relevant activity related to emerging issues (in particular policy specific early
warning systems, and strategic use of foresight and horizon scanning) within European
institutions, but limited coordination, even within institutions.
Only a few examples were found of a systematic approach to emerging issue detection.
These systematic approaches exist in clearly defined policy or topic areas, such as: food
safety; consumer safety; health and safety at work; chemicals.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 42 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Existing systematic approaches are generally based on a monitoring and alert mechanisms
drawing on established networks and reporting (e.g. related to product safety) and typically
focus on identifying specific incidences of: increased exposure to risk; and new sectoral
hazards rather than emerging issues in a broader sense.
Existing methods and approaches that explicitly address emerging issues and risks typically
combine central coordination, research and synthesis with expert and scientific involvement
through committees, panels and networks.
There is also notable use of foresight methods for strategic issue identification or agenda
setting purposes, such as scenarios and horizon scanning in DG Climate Action, DG Research
and Innovation, the activities of the JRC (often with DGs) and in some Member States.
Although no existing methods and approaches address all relevant issues, they could play a
role in a new systematic approach, such as: Horizon Scanning activity within JRC; the Science
for Environment Policy news alert coordinated by DG Environment; or the European Media
Monitoring and related text mining tools developed by JRC; and scientific committees in DG
Health and Food Safety which consider and provide ‘scientific opinions’ on emerging risks for
consumer safety, public health and the environment37.
Interviews identified other highly relevant approaches, such as: horizon scanning
coordinated by the Eionet FLIS and EEA to scan for signals from member state to EU level;
and the establishment of a horizon scanning system at JRC. Both of these are proposed as
primary information sources for the methodological framework.
The review did not identify any member state level ‘emerging risk’ identification systems or
frameworks, although examples of horizon scanning and foresight relevant to the environment were
seen.
37 DG SANTE do not appear to define ‘environment’ but use the following description for issues considered: ‘pollutants in the environmental media and other biological and physical factors or changing physical conditions which may have a negative impact on health and the environment, for example in relation to air quality, water, waste and soil, as well as on life cycle environmental assessment’.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 43 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Table A.1: Overview and assessment of methods and approaches
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Environmental Knowledge Community
DG Climate Action
Early warning and risk management (working with EEAS)
Various Networking, e.g. through diplomatic relations with the UN, EU and non-EU countries
No information available
Ad-hoc / ongoing Climate change; security
Member State risk profiles
Survey, expert network
A monitoring and reporting tool to construct a risk profile.
Climate change risk
profile for each
member state
No information available
Climate change
European Environment Agency
EEA Scientific Committee
Scientific committee
The scientific committee assists the EEA management board and the Executive Director in providing scientific advice and delivering professional opinion on any scientific matter in the areas of
Opinions/ meeting reports / reports in specific areas
The committee meets at least 2 time per year
All environmental policy areas (not explicitly addressing emerging risk)
38
Scoring based on potential role each method / approach could play in a methodological framework for the identification of emerging risks: = High relevance: method/approach is a primary source of emerging issue / weak signal detection and can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework and is relevant to at least one environmental impact area (see sub-section 1.5.3); AND/OR method/approach can play a primary role in the implementation of the framework = Medium relevance: method approach can support (e.g. as a secondary source) emerging issue / weak signal detection, can produce outputs over timeframes suitable for the framework, and is relevant to one or more environmental impact areas; ; AND/OR method/approach can potentially play a supporting role in the implementation of the framework = Low relevance: method/approach is either not suitable as a source of emerging issues / weak signal detection, is not able to provide outputs in a timeframe suitable for the framework and/or is not relevant to any environmental impact areas; ; AND/OR method/approach is not suitable to play a role in the implementation of the framework
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 44 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
work undertaken by the Agency
Eionet FLIS Horizon Scanning
Scanning Network of member state experts with knowledge / expertise in foresight.
To be confirmed. Intention is FLIS will identify and report on weak signals from member state intelligence
In development, assumed annual once operational
All environmental policy areas
Global Megatrends (GMTs) published as part of SOER
Literature review, expert networks
The EEA SOER GMTs are a flagship report on global megatrends of importance to Europe’s environment and environment policy. The GMT analysis also identifies ‘implications’ for EU environment.
Report SOER is published every 5 years (previous 2015; next 2020)
All environmental policy areas
Late Lessons from Early Warnings
Literature review; expert opinion
Late lessons presents case studies of historic environmental policy decisions made in context of scientific uncertainty and/or where evidence of emerging risks was ignored or downplayed.
Report Two produced so far – 2001 and 2013
Various, including technology, chemicals etc.
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 45 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Scenario studies (e.g. PRELUDE)
Scenarios EEA has developed various scenarios to illustrate environmental challenges and explore possible futures. The example of PRELUDE was a web based interactive scenario tool allowing users to explore different long-term land-use scenarios for Europe.
Various: reports, interactive tools, web-content.
Ad-hoc. Various
DG Environment Science for Environment Policy (SfEP)
Scanning A service providing news alerts and policy briefs based on results from scanning and expert assessment. Since 2017 SfEP has a remit to consider emerging environmental issues.
News alerts; policy briefs / reports
Approx. weekly news alerts; policy briefs ad-hoc
All environmental policy areas; wider issues which could affect the environment
Expert Panel As above
Policy specific early warning and risk management
Various Systematic studies in a range of policy areas using monitoring and other methods to gather knowledge on new environmental risks.
Various: reports; mapping; monitoring and notification systems
Dependent on policy area
Examples include: Chemicals; Noise; Alien species; Air quality; Water / flooding
Tool for Innovation
Text / data mining
A tool enabling search queries into
Dataset; overview analytics; visual
Ad-hoc, can be interrogated as
DG ENV are piloting looking
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 46 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Monitoring (TIM) (developed by JRC)
global database of: scientific papers, patents and EU projects.
summaries (of data) required across all environmental policy topics
Eurostat No specific methods identified
Joint Research Centre (JRC)
Horizon scanning Scanning A pilot programme including horizon scanning for weak signals of change, summarising available information, and sense making sessions to select validated signals of change
Summaries of weak signals; validated weak signals
In development. Likely to be annual.
Pilot study focus on migration and energy. System understood to be adaptable to consider range of topics (including environmental topics)
European Media Monitor (EMM)
Text / data mining
An web-based live media / news search engine with a number of text analysis and information processing modules. Can be searched by region, language, sector (e.g. environment) and free-text searches
NewsBrief - latest news classified according to subject. NewsExplorer - news summaries, analysis.
NewsBrief - updated every 10 minutes, 24 hours per day; NewsExplorer - daily
User selects areas of interest (See also Tool for Innovation Monitoring (TIM); The Medical Information System (MediSys))
DG Research and Innovation
Scientific Advice Mechanism
Scientific Committee
A scientific committee established to provide scientific
Recommendations; advice on specific policy issues
Ad-hoc Meet on various issues, recently including: transport;
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 47 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
advice to the Commission specifically for policy.
cybersecurity; chemicals
RISE Research, Innovation and Science Policy Experts
Expert panel An advisory group to support DG R&I Commissioner and his team in policymaking and agenda-setting process.
Policy Briefs and Policy Papers; Studies; Workshop notes
Ad-hoc Innovation, Science
European Forum on Forward Looking Activities
Expert panel High level advisory group providing forward looking studies and activities on the future of research and innovation.
Policy briefs No longer active Research and innovation policy
Strategic Foresight
Scenarios Foresight activities carried out to specifically support the development of proposals for the Framework Programme and its biannual work programmes.
Reports Ad-hoc Strategic direction for research and innovation
Horizon scanning Scanning An activity to search for early signs of important changes in society, science and technology to provide intelligence for Commissions policy
Reports Ad-hoc Society, science, technology
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 48 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
proposals.
Foresight based policy
Scenarios, expert panels
An activity to explore future policy issues and options through expert groups and specific studies, which develop foresight-based policy lessons and recommendations.
Reports Ad-hoc Research and innovation policy
Other EU institutions and initiatives
Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy
Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP) template
Survey, expert network, evidence collation
A monitoring and reporting tool – available in an Excel file used to construct a city’s risk profile
Completed Excel-based template submitted online
Every 2 years Issues related to: Energy, climate change
DG EPRS - Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel
Scientific Foresight Unit
Literature review; workshops
A scientific unit to consider and raise awareness-of possible impacts of techno-scientific trends and empowering MEPs to work towards facilitating desirable, and avoiding undesirable, future scenarios
Publications (reports, newsletters, opinion papers), blog posts
Ongoing, with annual reporting
Technology, innovation
DG JUST Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Consumer Products (RAPEX)
Monitoring An online data and information sharing platform that enables quick exchange of
Publications, e-mail updates (weekly alerts)
Weekly e-mail alerts
Consumer safety
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 49 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
information between 31 European countries and the Commission about dangerous non-food products posing a risk to health and safety of consumers.
DG SANTE The Medical Information System (MediSys)
Text / data mining
An internet monitoring and analysis system that scans information from the European Media Monitor (EMM) software, to rapidly identify potential threats to public health.
Early warning alerts Updated every 10 minutes. Can be interrogated as required.
Health
Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER)
Scientific committee
On request of Commission services, SCHEER working groups provides scientific Opinions on questions concerning health, environmental and emerging risks.
Opinion papers The Committee rules of procedure also refer to production of memoranda and position statements
On request. The SCHEER working groups meet regularly: approximately monthly on a variety of topics Ad-hoc: the Committee can also, at its own initiative, publish statements on specific topics.
Public Health, Consumer safety, Environment
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 50 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
Monitoring A collaborative web-based portal designed to enable control authorities to report and share information about issues and risks detected in relation to food or feed.
Regular notifications; annual report
‘Round-the-clock’ service
Health
European Parliament
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS)
Literature review, expert network, workshops / panels
An inter-institutional
EU project providing
a framework for
cooperation and
consultation at
administrative level
between EU bodies.
Maintains a
repository of
international
strategic studies
(ORBIS)
Reports on specific
studies; ESPAS
conference;
dialogue events;
ESPAS Young Talent
Network events
Ongoing /
continual update
of knowledge
base (ORBIS);
annual
conference
Future context /
challenges for EU
policy
EU-OSHA European Risk Observatory
Foresight project Literature review; scenarios, workshops
A project producing a set of scenarios to consider the potential impacts that developments ICT and changes in work location may have on workers’ safety and health.
Scenarios One-off output Green jobs; health and safety at work; ICT
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 51 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks
Interviews; surveys
A survey looking at how safety and health risks are managed in European workplaces.
Interactive dashboard; reports; data summaries (of surveys; establishment of a ‘wiki’: OSHWIKI for monitoring new and emerging risks
Ongoing / no specific frequency evident
Safety and health at work
Eurobarometer Thematic studies Interviews; surveys
The Eurobarometer is a regular survey of public opinion on a range of topics relevant to the Commission. First completed in 1974, the survey is undertaken twice per year the surveys investigate motivations, feelings and reactions of selected social groups towards a given subject or concept
Reports; interactive web-portal
Biannual surveys / reports
Various
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Standing Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Emerging Risks (SWG-ER)
Expert panel A working group seeking to support EFSA throughout the emerging risk identification procedure.
Recommendations / meeting reports
Meets regularly: approximately 3 – 4 times per year
Food and feed safety
Stakeholder Consultative
Expert panel A consultative group established to
Reports Annual reporting on meeting
Food and feed safety
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 52 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Group on Emerging Risks (StaCG-ER)
improve the exchange of data and information on methods, as well as to have a dialogue on issues pertaining to emerging risks.
discussions
Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit (SCER)
Scientific committee
A Unit responsible for coordinating EFSA’s activities to establish a capacity for the identification of emerging risks.
Specific outputs not known: plays a coordinating role
Not known: Food and feed safety
Emerging Risk Exchange Network (EREN)
Expert network A network used for exchanging data, methodologies and lessons learnt on emerging risks between EFSA, Member States, EU and international agencies.
Meeting minutes Approximately 4 times per year
Food and feed safety
Member States
The Cabinet Office (UK)
(Blacket Review) Specific study: High impact low probability risks
Expert panel A process for UK government to engage with academia and industry to answer specific scientific and/or technical questions primarily in the security domain.
Report Ad-hoc Various: method can be used in different policy areas
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 53 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Blackett Reviews provide a multi-disciplinary thinking in a specific area. In each review, a panel of 10-12 experts is tasked with answering a well defined question/s of relevance to a challenging technical problem.
Defra (UK) Strategic evidence
Horizon scanning A programme established to improve cross-government horizon scanning work, develop networks to gather and share information and gain new insights and bring emerging issues to a senior-level audience.
Briefing papers; research papers
Not known Various: horizon scanning relevant to environmental policy
Finnish Government
Foresight Network
Workshops Established to bring together Finnish foresight data producers and is a discussion and coordination forum for national foresight actors.
Meetings, Foresight Forum
Monthly meetings; Annual forum
Various (challenges and opportunities facing Finnish society)
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 54 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
International, academic and private sector
Citizen scientists initiative (Greece)
Community based monitoring
Monitoring A community based monitoring approach innitially established to identify alien marine species in Greece.
No information available
No information available
Biodiversity
Ecoveilance Web-mining Scanning A social-media-mining platform established to explore the use of social media in ecological monitoring.
Collation of twitter messages
Ad-hoc Biodiversity
International Biosecurity Intelligence System (IBIS)
Web mining tool Scanning A media monitoring tool built to detect Emerging Disease Risks impacting on food security and the environment.
Scans; Information summaries from the detected article (the title, text, author, language and locations).
Daily scans Biodiversity
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO)
The IOSCO Committee on Emerging Risks (CER)
Scientific committee
A committee established to foster an active and open dialogue on risk among CER members.
No information available
No information available
Finance
IOSCO Consultation
Surveys Interviews
A survey enquiring IOSCO members and experts from the market, academic and regulatory community about emerging risks.
Outlook reports Annual survey Finance
IOSCO Risk Indicators An automated Indicators; Dashboard Finance
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 55 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
Dashboard dashboard monitoring a sizable time series of data allowing for the identification of changes in patterns and trends.
Publications of an annual series of Outlooks
updated and shared before every IOSCO Board Meeting
Observatory for Technological Industrial Foresight (Spain)
Foresight DELPHI questionnaires; Scenarios; Roadmapping; SWOT
A foundation to create a knowledge base on the most relevant technology trends for future economic and social development.
Foresight study reports
Ad-hoc Technology
OECD - International Futures Programme
Foresight Scenarios; Expert panels; Horizon scanning
A programme providing strategic, long-term thinking and horizon scanning, working in two specific sectoral areas: the space sector and the future of the ocean economy
Foresight study reports
Ad-hoc Various
Swiss RE SONAR (systematic observation of notions associated with risk) Framework
Internal expert survey / opinions, expert panel
A framework designed to manage and communicate emerging risks allowing to identify, assess and report these risks in a timely manner using an
In-house intelligence reports; Published reports
Ad-hoc Various
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 56 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
interactive intranet platform.
UNEP Global Environment Outlook (GEO)
Scenarios; analysis of drivers (DPSIR); Integrated environmental assessment
A report providing an integrated analysis (e.g. social, economic, environmental) of major trends that have shaped the environment using the integrated environmental assessment (IEA) methodology.
Report Five GEO reports produced since 1997. GEO5 was published in 2012. GEO6 is expected to be published in 2017
All environmental policy areas
Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS)
Scanning A mechanism for identifying, selecting and communicating early warning information on emerging issues to decision makers on a regular basis across UNEP's focus areas.
Alerts No information available
All environmental policy areas
University of Cambridge
Cambridge Conservation Initiative
Horizon scanning A horizon scan established to identify issues that could have substantial effects on global biological diversity in the future, but are not currently widely well-known or understood
Workshops; Publications
Annual scanning and annual publications
Biodiversity
June 2017
Methodological Framework for the systematic 57 Collingwood Environmental Planning identification of emerging issues for the environment
Institution / initiative
Title of method / approach
Type Description Deliverables / outputs
Timeliness / frequency
Policy areas / topics considered
Relevance to the proposed methodological framework
38
within the conservation community.
Verisk Maplecroft Global Alerts Dashboard
Monitoring; mapping
A commercial tool providing world-wide monitoring and alerts covering key operational and supply chain disruptions via a subnational mapping and data platform.
Alerts – can be tailored as a web-based dashboard to user needs
On demand: a commercial product / dashboard providing ‘real-time global analytics’
Terrorism incidents, corporate security, environmental risks, and legal and regulatory issues
Global Risks Forecast
Forecasting A service providing analysis and forecasting by the company’s senior analysts on key geopolitical developments, country risks, and emerging issues impacting the world of global business and finance.
Assessments; regular analysis; webinars; briefing reports; interactive online web-tool
On demand: a commercial product available through subscription
Politics, economics, society and environment
World Economic Forum
Global Risk Report
Expert network, survey
A report featuring perspectives from experts on the perceived impact and likelihood of global risks over a 10-year timeframe.
Report; interactive online web-tool
Annual report Various
top related