WWF is a global environmental science-based organisation with over 5,000 staff active in over 100 countries and over 4 million supporters worldwide. WWF‟s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet‟s natural environment and to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature. WWF has developed extensive experience of natural resource management and addressing the drivers of environmental degradation as a result of nearly fifty years of field and advocacy activities. We work in partnership with research organisations, universities, local communities, other civil society organisations, governments, intergovernmental agencies and the private sector on issues relevant to sustainable development including freshwater, biodiversity, climate change, energy, forests, marine and fisheries management, pollution, sustainable consumption and commodities.

2

WWF decided to submit a written response to this consultation in order to cover aspects of Research and

Innovation funds that were not tackled by the questions listed in the Green Paper. Therefore, the first

part of this paper (“the need for a more consistent EU approach for Research and Innovation”) is

dedicated to WWF‟s specific recommendations for the future of Research and Innovation funds. WWF is

in particular asking for a strong commitment from the EC to mainstream environment and ensure smart

investments for Research and Innovation. The second part of this paper is dedicated to WWF‟s response

to the specific questions of the Green Paper, based on WWF‟s experience with Research and Innovation

funds.

I. The need for a more consistent EU approach for Research and Innovation Mainstreaming environment in research and innovation funding

Ensure appropriate environmental requirements in financial regulation and in the Common

Strategic Framework

Set environmental targets and performance indicators

Reward best environmental performance with financial incentives

Ensure eco-conditionality in research and innovation projects based on best practice

Investment priorities in research and innovation

Increase funding for environmental research by 50%

50% of energy research funding for renewable energies and energy efficiency

Cap EU support for ITER

Focus transport research on decarbonisation, efficiency and mitigation

II. WWF response to specific questions

Question 1 Green Paper: make EU research and innovation funding more attractive

Tackle the structural inconsistencies

Flexibility, less bureaucratic engagement processes

Two stage evaluation process

Capacity building for CSOs

Co-financing rate

Inception phase included in the projects

Harmonisation of vocabulary and structure

Small partnerships welcomed

Greater recognition is needed of the true costs associated with project management focused on

creating change

Make the reporting more frequent for short projects aiming at delivering changes

Question 7 Green Paper: performance indicators of EU research and innovation projects

Set mandatory targets consistent with 2020 targets

3

Use of environmental performance indicators

Use sophisticated Measurement and Evaluation tools

Integrate lessons learnt in performance indicators

Changing the reporting systems for applied research projects

Question 9 and 11 Green Paper: innovations need to be oriented towards environmental and social goals Question 10 Green Paper: encourage bottom-up activities Question 13 Green Paper: involvement of Civil Society Question 14 Green Paper: Going beyond technological innovation

Question 26 Green Paper International cooperation

4

WWF is concerned that the current EU research approach is not very consistent with EU environmental

policies and targets by 2020 and 2050. We believe that mainstreaming the environment throughout all

research and innovation funds and getting stronger priorities for key environmental issues are two

crucial issues that the Commission should integrate in the next EU funding framework for research and

innovation.

1

Strategic coherence should be provided by a smart alignment of research fund regulation and the

Common Strategic Framework with the targets of the EU 2020 Strategy. Hence the proposed Common

Strategic Framework should also require environmental mainstreaming.

Research and innovation do not automatically lead to low carbon emissions, energy savings or increased

resource efficiency throughout the life-cycle of products. Therefore, WWF identified four success factors

needed to maximise synergies between innovation and sustainability (eco-innovation) and which can

simultaneously contribute to the smarter and more sustainable Europe the EU 2020 is looking for.

Importantly, these tools should also help to improve synergy between the EU research funds and

Cohesion Policy„s support for innovation.

WWF Asks:

1. to ensure appropriate environmental requirements in financial regulation and in the

Common Strategic Framework

2. to set environmental targets and performance indicators

3. to reward best environmental performance with financial incentives

4. to ensure eco-conditionality in research and innovation projects based on best practice

1. Ensure appropriate environmental requirements in financial regulation and in the Common Strategic Framework

Driving environmental mainstreaming

Improvements in research funds‟ regulation are needed to require clear environmental mainstreaming

in all funded activities and notably for climate mitigation (low carbon emissions) and adaptation

(resilience), energy savings, biodiversity protection and resource efficiency (e.g. water and land use). In

addition, thematic priorities should be defined that support the environmentally relevant lead markets

and the technologies of the future, including inter alia, renewable energy technologies and

infrastructures, sustainable mobility technologies and energy and material efficiency2.

1 This part is extracted from the WWF report “unlocking the potential of the EU budget, Volume one, smarter spending” http://www.wwf.eu/eu_budget/?199867/Unlocking-the-Potential-of-the-Eu-Budget 2 For more information, see WWF (2010), Smarter ideas for a better environment – ERDF funding and ecoinnovation in Germany, Executive Summary. The report analysis how Germany spends its EU Cohesion Policy funding in innovation and formulates recommendations, that also apply to EU research and innovation funds.

5

A framework for mandatory green public procurement, boosting eco-innovation and

saving costs

The Flagship Initiative “Innovation Union” and the Commission‟s Green paper on research funding

both call for the unleashing of the public sector‟s purchasing power to spur innovation through public

procurement, including pre-commercial procurement. In the EU it is an opportunity that is largely

unexploited. To improve this situation, WWF believes that procurement rules should foster eco-

innovation as a priority. Requirement for Green Public Procurement (GPP) should be

stipulated in the Common Strategic Framework and made compulsory in the

implementation of EU-funded projects, so as to stimulate public authorities and project promoters

to opt for more environmentally-friendly products and services.

2. Set environmental targets and performance indicators

Cf. p.10 response to the question 7 of the green paper

3. Reward best environmental performance with financial incentives

The Commission‟s communication on the EU Budget Review is rightly focused on improving the

effectiveness and delivery of the EU budget, based on a result-oriented and more focused approach. In

addition to defining specific targets on which disbursement of the funds would depend, it proposes two

other approaches: “setting aside an EU-wide reserve in most programmes, or modulating co-financing

rates to performance.” Given that the EU 2020 Strategy targets include environment, it is imperative

that results are not measured in economic terms only, but also in environmental and social terms.

Environmental performance of EU-funded activities must therefore be taken into account, and funding

should logically benefit activities having the best environmental results or contributing the most to

achieving EU environmental targets by 2020. The following two approaches can be used.

Modulate EU co-financing rates, taking into account EU environmental targets

Modulating co-financing is already current practice in several EU funds. The objective is to make them

more attractive and accessible in some areas or for some beneficiaries. These incentives should be

developed on the basis of their environmental contribution, and must be consistent with 2020

environmental targets in all cases. Co-financing requires the use of state-of-the-art methodologies with a

hierarchy of measures, to ensure that the target is achieved in the most cost-effective and

environmentally-friendly way and that only truly necessary investments are made.

Create a 10 % performance reserve, rewarding the best environmental approaches

According to the Commission‟s communication on the EU Budget Review, setting aside a limited share

of a given EU-fund in a performance reserve open to all eligible Member States would “introduce some

form of qualitative competition”. It would be “allocated on the basis of progress made by national and

regional programmes towards Europe 2020 objectives”, including environmental ones.

WWF believes that it would also foster best practices. Therefore, it is recommended that a performance

reserve of 10% of the funds is kept at the EU level to reward best approaches, based on the ex post

assessment of their environmental performance and the achievement of their environmental targets.

Rewarding the best environmental performance should apply, at least, to the ten key sectors

underpinning a green economy, as mentioned by the 2011 UNEP report: agriculture, buildings, energy

supply, fisheries, forestry, industry (including energy efficiency), tourism, transport waste management

and water.

4. Ensure eco-conditionality in research and innovation projects based on best practice

There are two main ways to foster ecoconditionality in projects:

• improve the integration of environmental aspects in project calls and documents.

6

• identify and mainstream the best standards: to save time and effort and to improve

effectiveness, it is important to identify best practices and standards in Europe and to apply them to all

similar projects. Existing EU standards and labels should be used, and standardisation of high

environmental quality standards (e.g. energy and resource efficiency) should be accelerated. A company

putting an innovative product on the market should provide a life-cycle analysis to demonstrate that the

product is beneficial for the environment.

3

Given the strategic importance of research and innovation in building a fully sustainable economy, and

the strong emphasis that the EU 2020 Strategy puts on the need to foster research and innovation, WWF

recommends that the EU funds for research and innovation be increased by 33%, from €58.2 billion in

the current period4 to €77.4 billion in the period 2014-2020 (6.7% of the EU budget).

WWF Asks:

1. That funds for environmental research are increased by 50%, from €1.9 billion today to €2.8

billion in the next budget;

2. That at least 50% of all energy research funding is devoted to renewable energies and energy

efficiency, moving from €1.2 billion to €5 billion in the next EU budget;

3. That there be a cap on the amount of funding for ITER

4. That transport research funding is shifted to decarbonised, highly efficient transport

solutions.

5. Increase funding for environmental research by 50%

In the current period, only €1.89 billion goes to “environment research including climate change”. Not

only is the amount extremely small given the huge environmental challenges that Europe has to tackle, it

is also focused on basic scientific research while funds are lacking for applied research, especially for

ecology and climate adaptation.

The TEEB5 study underlined both the enormous services provided by ecosystems, and the huge cost of

destroying them. But it also highlighted the limited knowledge about this issue and the urgent need to

foster additional research. At the European level, the current cost/benefit analysis of Natura 2000 is still

very uncertain and also requires additional research.

WWF would ask, therefore, that the amount in increased by 50%, to €2.8 billion during the period 2014-

2020. This increased funding should notably fill research gaps in areas such as ecosystems services, land

use, special planning in relation to biodiversity protection (including green infrastructure) and

sustainable agriculture in the new Member States6. Furthermore, this fund should help to cover the

research needs identified by Member States within their Prioritized Action Frameworks for financing

Natura 2000 –in accordance to article 8 of the Habitats Directive–.

Furthermore, more attention should be deserved to issues already tackled by other policy means, such as

CAP and CFP. Both of them require a lot of innovation to become sustainable and research means are

required. Some good items are found in FP7 connected with CAP‟s issues, but more should be done.

3 This part is extracted from the WWF report “unlocking the potential of the EU budget, Volume two, intelligent investments” http://www.wwf.eu/eu_budget/?199867/Unlocking-the-Potential-of-the-Eu-Budget 4 It includes the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) 5 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity http://www.teebweb.org/ 6 e.g. half the scientific papers on farmland birds are from the United Kingdom and most are from Western Europe

7

6. 50% of energy research funding for renewable energies and energy efficiency

In the current EU budget, only 16% of energy research funds are for energy efficiency and renewable

energies, while 69% goes to nuclear energy. . Indeed, in the period 2007-2013, the EU energy research

funds are as follows:

- fund for nuclear energy: Euratom €2.75 billion 7 for the period 2007-2011 and an additional

€2.5 billion for 2012-2013 8, or a total of €5.25 billion for 2007-2013; and

- “energy research” in FP7: €2.35 billion, of which 51% was spent on renewable energy, energy

efficiency and smart grids during 2007-2010 9.

According to the Commission‟s communication on the EU Budget Review, “future research and

innovation funding must contribute directly to the achievement of Europe 2020.” The communication

adds that: “the EU should contribute to remedy decades of shortfall in energy research, which has left

Europe lagging behind in terms of developing domestic energy supplies and tackling the challenge of

reduced emissions.” The EU 2020 strategy has set climate and energy targets for 2020: 20-30%

emissions reduction, 20% energy efficiency improvement and 20% renewable energy production.

Accordingly, EU energy research funds should focus on these three priorities.

In addition, the European Parliament has called the Commission “to make energy efficiency one of the

key priorities of the 8th Framework Research Programme”, and asked for “a significant increase in the

EU‟s future budget, particularly for renewable energy, smart grids and energy efficiency, by 2020

compared with the current level10

.

Accordingly, the current imbalance in the support for energy efficiency and renewable energy and other

energies should be corrected. WWF demands that at least 50% of all EU funds for energy

research focus on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Assuming that such funds

are increased by 33% to €10.1 billion, €5 billion of it should be devoted to energy

efficiency and renewable energies.

7. Cap EU support for ITER

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is a fundamental research project in the

nuclear sector. ITER‟s aim is not to produce electricity from nuclear fusion but to produce stabilised

plasma for 400 seconds (a bit less than 7 minutes): this issue of one of several that need to be solved to

eventually allow energy to be produced from nuclear fusion. According to the scientist Jacques Treiner11,

if all these issues are successfully solved, the production of electricity from nuclear fusion could

be envisaged, at the soonest, in 2080-2100. This cannot be justified from a climate

perspective at it will be too late for even the long-term 2050 target12

.

ITER was initially expected to cost €5 billion, but its budget has more than tripled to €16 billion. Given

that its construction is scheduled for 2014 and that it is only scheduled to be finalised in 2038, other cost

overruns would seem unavoidable. As part of an international consortium, the EU has committed to

finance 45% of the cost (80% by the Commission and 20% by France). Therefore, given the initial

massive overruns, the cost for the EU budget has skyrocketed from €2.7 to €7.2 billion. The Commission

had to look for an additional €1.3 billion just for the years 2012 and 2013 13

, and it recognises in the

communication on the EU Budget Review that ITER (and other large scale projects) are “subject to

significant cost overruns and their governance is not well-suited to the direct management of the EU

institutions”.

7 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/budget_en.html 8 European commission, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/256&type=HTML 9 FP7 Energy budget distribution so far (2007-2010) 10 European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2010 on Revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan 11

Jacques Treiner, Presentation on ITER in the European Parliament, 8 December 2010 12 See also IEA (2008), Energy Policies Review – The European Union 13 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/165

8

The ITER programme was developed prior to the global financial and economic crisis and the resultant

massive public deficits and austerity measures that have become commonplace. In this new context, and

also given the loss of control over ITER costs and governance, the level of priority given to ITER

should be reassessed by the EU institutions, following full scrutiny of the project by an

independent third party. Meanwhile there are many low-carbon energy programmes which

can deliver results by 2020 and which remain are unfunded, notably concerning energy

savings.

In addition, ITER overruns that have to be paid from the EU budget do not lead to an increase in

funding, due to the legal ceiling on the size of the EU budget: instead they are managed through cuts in

other EU-funded activities, jeopardising the strategic planning and consistency of the EU budget. WWF

therefore demands that, at a minimum, the EU budget support for ITER in the period

2014-2020 be capped from the outset.

8. Focus transport research on decarbonisation, efficiency and mitigation

The current FP7 devotes €4.16 billion to “transport research including aeronautics”. The Commission‟s

communication on the EU Budget Review advocates a “European core network shifting freight and

passenger flows towards more sustainable transport modes”. EU transport research should thus follow

the same priorities and the funds should concentrate on:

• decarbonisation of transport as a high priority;

• high energy efficiency of transport; and

• mitigation of other negative impacts, like ecosystem fragmentation and air pollution.

Research funding (FP7) is still perceived like a complicated fund not favourable the CSO access. WWF

developed a few recommendations for the EC from its experience with FP7 projects.

WWF Asks:

1. To tackle the structural inconsistencies on Euratom and Research Fund for Coal and Steel

2. Flexibility and less bureaucratic engagement processes

3. Two-stage evaluation process

4. Capacity building for CSOs

5. Harmonisation of vocabulary and structure in the European Commission funding

opportunities

6. Greater recognition of the true costs associated with project management focused on

creating change

Tackle the structural inconsistencies

A “common strategic framework” should by definition be both common and strategic.

The Euratom Framework Programme remains separate legislation in which Parliament is excluded

as co-legislator. Euratom allocates the majority of its resources to a large-scale non-strategic fusion

experiment that will in the foreseeable future not provide any useful energy. Euratom spending lines

9

should be discontinued at the end of the current programme (2007-2011) and, from 2012 onwards,

research spending on energy, environmental and health protection should be organised

under framework programmes that are agreed under the ordinary legislative procedure

(ex co-decision).

The Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFSC) is a significant EU spending programme that is excluded

entirely from the proposed “common strategic framework”. The RFSC should be dissolved and its

resources added to the Union budget in the first available year.

Flexibility, less bureaucratic engagement processes

EU funded research and innovation activities are crucial to undertake the research and develop those

niches of innovation that would otherwise be ignored by private funders and actors but are fundamental

to solve the most pressing environmental and social problems and achieve sustainability. However in

order to become more attractive for actors from civil society (civil society organisations), funding should

be flexible and adapt to the need for a broader socio-technical transition to a sustainable society.

There is great potential for the EU funding to support innovations that can directly bring benefit to

citizens. The EU needs to provide more free space and run less bureaucratic engagement processes.

Citizen initiatives that like to carry out experiments of sustainable living should easily be finding and

getting access to funding opportunities. For this, currently existing initiatives (such as Transition Towns,

Slow Cities, Bioregionalism, Urban Villages) might be mapped and further encouraged.

Due to the delay between the preparation of the proposal and the actual start of the work, partners

should be able to amend/ revise the deliverables, their number and their content. This would allow the

consortium to stay on top of things and the state of the art. Maintain flexibility in budget management

would also be welcome.

Two stage evaluation process

A two-stage evaluation process is welcome. This would mean less work to prepare the first stage of the

application and would also mean a shorter evaluation process for the second phase.

Capacity building for CSOs

Some funding allocated to capacity building for civil society organisations (CSOs) to do research but also

and particularly to better understand the administrative and financial constraints typically related to

FP7 projects would make the research and innovation funding more attractive to civil society

participants.

Co-financing rate

100% funding allowance for CSOs to undertake R&D would be welcome.

Inception phase included in the projects

For potential partners from the civil society sector it is important to prepare the application together,

and to organise face to face meetings. However, as potential participants do not always have the means

and the willingness to take part in such meetings, this initiation phase could be part of the ordinary

structure of funding.

Harmonisation of vocabulary and structure

An harmonisation of the vocabulary and the structure between the different funding lines managed by

the EC would be welcome. For example, in FP7 the objectives and priorities to be funded are gathered in

a “Work Programme”, while in external action funding they are in a “guidelines document”. These

changes in vocabulary can be confusing. With FP7, the organisations have to be registered in the Unique

Registration Facility (UFR) whereas for external action funding they have to be registered in PADOR. A

rationalisation with harmonisation of the vocabulary and the application processes would facilitate the

understanding of the funding requirements.

Small partnerships welcomed

FP7 encourages large partnerships. However too large partnerships can slow down the achievement of

the project objectives. Smaller partnerships should be welcomed and seen as a possibility to increase

effectiveness.

10

Greater recognition is needed of the true costs associated with project management

focused on creating change

Unlike managing a research project, generating change is about engineering a process that will have a

life outside of and beyond the project. This requires a high degree of strategic management and external

communication.

There are two distinct roles:

- Delivering change involves: identifying who to influence, developing relationships with

stakeholders, re-evaluating, adapting project‟s outputs or approach based on the feedback from

stakeholders, managing external communications and advocacy processes, such as providing

regular news and progress updates to stakeholders, attending and hosting public events, face-to-

face meetings with key stakeholders.

- Project Management involves managing the delivery of work by the various partners towards the

overall objective, internal communications, resolution of day to day issues, identifying risks,

reporting and the administration to support project management activities

The funding given to management tasks is currently insufficient to cover both the ‘change

process’ and the day-to-day project management work

Make the reporting more frequent for short projects aiming at delivering changes

For projects aiming at delivering change, a short a time frame as 2-3 years presents a challenge.The 18

month report is the first formal update on progress required by the EC. We feel this is set too late within

the timeline of a 24/36 month project. Tracking progress on a more regular basis is conducive to

success, because it encourages regular communication and collaboration, focuses partners‟ minds on

results and asks them to review how their work is contributing to the overall process of change.

WWF Asks:

1. To set mandatory environmental targets consistent with 2020 targets

2. To use environmental performance indicators

3. To use sophisticated Measurement and Evaluation tools

4. To integrate the lessons learnt in the performance indicators

5. To change the reporting system for applied research projects

Set mandatory targets consistent with 2020 targets

Mandatory targets should be agreed to ensure the best possible delivery of results. These targets must be

consistent with and strongly contribute to achieving the EU‟s 2020 environmental targets:

- 20-30% emissions reduction

- 20% energy efficiency improvement

- 20% renewable energy production

- halting biodiversity loss.

Environmental targets should be required at least in the key sectors underpinning a green economy as

identified by UNEP: buildings, energy supply, industry, tourism, transport, waste management and

water.

Use of environmental performance indicators

To measure progress realised by research and innovation projects, environmental indicators are

necessary. They should notably relate to the key areas of climate and energy (e.g. carbon footprint,

renewable energy production, energy consumption), biodiversity and ecosystems and resource efficiency

(e.g. land consumption, water consumption).

11

Use sophisticated Measurement and Evaluation tools

Solving global problems like climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty will require deep and systemic

innovation of our social and political systems. This type of innovation will require that Measurement &

Evaluation (M&E) tools need to evolve and become more sophisticated in order to acknowledge that

innovation needs to be much broader and involves that technologies, lifestyles, market systems and

governance systems need to fundamentally transform. These innovation processes will be inherently

uncertain and long-term. M&E systems need to adapt to these characteristics in order to be a useful

contribution to the success of these processes.

Integrate lessons learnt in performance indicators

What should become a much more important part of the performance evaluation is the performance of

the project partners of incorporating the learning from the project work into the ongoing project as well

as integrate the lessons-learned from past experiences. This would mean that performance indicators

need to evaluate how quickly and how well the project M&E manages the cycle of monitoring, evaluating

and adjusting.

Innovation is a process of trial and error. Failure is part of the game and should actually not be regarded

as only failure but as an inherent part of a learning process. Dissemination and knowledge

exchange even when something fails should be encouraged.

Changing the reporting systems for applied research projects

For projects aiming at delivering changes in society different criteria and reporting systems should be set

up. The focus should be on marking progress in „applying evidence to create change‟ rather than solely

academic criteria, looking at the provision of evidence or creation of reports. Eg numbers of ideas and

actions generated by stakeholders and an assessment of the impact the project has on the real world. E.g.

Letters of commitment from key organisations to use the project outputs, etc.

Innovation is a process, not an end in itself and does not necessarily lead to more sustainable systems.

So sustainable development requires that all innovation contributes to environmental and social

sustainability, better understanding of interplay of societal challenges. Although the very nature of

evolution and its multi-actor innovation processes is at odds with the notion that they can be steered, the

conditions of innovations can be influenced.

Due to their systemic nature, societal challenges cannott be adequately addressed without

understanding the complex feedback loops in the wider system of which they are a part. Indeed climate

change, energy security, resource efficiency, poverty are all interconnected challenges, which share

common heritages. These interrelated issues make up complex and unified systems. The whole system

cannot be fully understood by only analyzing its parts and displays dynamics that are surprising and

non-linear. Climate change is such an example. Higher temperatures lead to increased evaporation,

which in turn contributes to increased vapour concentration in the atmosphere. More water vapour

enhances the greenhouse gas effect causing temperatures to get even higher, and the cycle is closed.

WWF Asks:

1. To develop calls for proposals reckoning inter-linkages between societal challenges

2. To Organize calls for proposals under thematic areas reflecting systemic thinking.

3. To deliberately encourage projects to better understand the inter-linkages in systems.

4. To Issue calls for projects/programmes that help to build systems thinking skills.

12

There should be more room for bottom-up activities. Transition theory and evolutionary economics

focus on the importance of niches of innovation at the micro-level in the process of change in large-scale

socio-technical systems such as food, energy and buildings. Giving free space to innovative approaches

at the local level, creative solutions directly relevant for communities can be generated.

Due to the proximity to the citizen, in comparison to top-down innovation processes many more co-

benefits can stem from bottom-up activities. Links between various issues can be established. For

example, strong action against climate change at the local level can have co-benefits in making cities for

liveable through regained public space, noise and pollution reduction, social inclusion (from reduced

traffic), improved health (from walking and cycling) and local resilience (from reduced energy use).

Both government funds and civil society organizations can offer more support and encouragement to

community leadership and creative processes for finding solutions to societal challenges.

WWF Asks:

- To encourage bottom-up activities thanks to specific topics and funding schemes targeting the

involvement of local communities

- Civil Society Organisations should be recognised as a main actor in bottom-up activities

Strengthen role of CSO in Common Strategic Framework and facilitate cooperation of

different stakeholders

While R&D is clearly important, in recognition of the fact that many options to improve environment

already exist but are insufficiently diffused, Civil Society Organisations can help to enhance

dissemination of the research results and create change in society. CSOs are agents of change and

facilitate societal acceptance. CSOs bring skills of policy relevance, campaigns, communications, project

management, strategic view of evidence to enable a project to go beyond academic research and actually

make research relevant, and for it to create real change. CSOs go beyond producing research and engage

with stakeholders via a dialogue process. Collaboration between researchers and civil society can be

strengthened to provide the citizens with the latest evidence on societal challenges. Similarly, evidence

can be gathered from grassroots experimentation and aggregated into compelling messages to decision-

makers as well as the general public. The more new initiatives become visible, the more they will be seen

as valid (mainstream) options for new lifestyles.

This involves a new kind of collaboration which researchers may be unfamiliar with.

Funds should be set up to enable different stakeholders to work together, to overcome the burdens of

coming from different professional culture, and to stimulate synergies with sharing respective skills.

WWF Asks:

- To recognise the role of Civil Society Organisations in being agent of change for tackling major

societal challenges

- To recognise CSO’s key role in disseminating and communicating the research’s results

- To set up specific funding scheme for the involvement of CSOs

- To encourage multistakeholder approaches in research and innovation such as public/private

partnership

- To encourage funding scheme with specific targets such as CSO, SMEs, women, etc.

13

(Response to question 14 of the Green paper)

EU innovation policy is overwhelmingly concerned with technology and pays relatively little attention to

non-technological innovations. The Innovation Union flagship suggests that this picture could soften in

the future.Ecological modernisation will not be sufficient and structural solutions will be indispensable;

eco-innovations will need to be supported by transition management (or ecological structural policy) in

order to secure long term sustainability.

The broad nature of innovation can be tackled under a new scientific discipline called „transformative

research‟ as recently proposed by the German Advisory Council for on Global Change14. The discipline

explores transitory processes in order to come to conclusions on the factors and causal relations of

transformation processes. EU funding can facilitate creation of multi-disciplinary networks of social,

natural and engineering sciences in order to understand the interaction between society, nature and

technological development. Research should draw conclusions for the transformation to sustainability

based on an understanding of the decisive dynamics of such processes, their conditions and

interdependencies.

Internationally, the EU should forge stronger research alliances with research centres in emerging

economies. So research should be consolidated both at the EU level and internationally as no country or

region alone can develop integrated solutions for transforming production, consumption patterns and

lifestyles.

WWF Asks:

- That in the next Multiannual Financial Framework the research and innovation funds are still

open to international cooperation, because research and innovation is about tackling global

issues.

14 World in Transition – A Social Contract for sustainability

For further information: Emilie van der Henst EC Funding and project

development

E-mail:

evanderhenst@wwf.eu

Mobile +32 485 332 759

© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF - World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)

® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark.