To answer the question above, analyses were conducted on the functioning of SPS at the EU level (policy formulation) and at the case study levels (policy implementation). Based on the results of these analyses, good practices were identified, but also some “needs” to be addressed to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of reinforced SPSI in informing the process of evidence-based policy making.
The full list of 22 needs classified per main Building Block is available below.
Data and knowledge should be timely available and accessible across policies, through standardized data sharing protocols, including clear guidelines on data granularity, accessibility, and confidentiality.
For decision and policy making processes to be transparent, inclusive and effective, knowledge gaps and uncertainties also need to be considered explicitly and adaptively, while accounting for the source of information and the specifics of it.
Highlighting and considering interlinkages across sectors, across societal actors, across disciplines, and among different geographical levels is a factor of success in environmental sciences and a booster for policy coherence.
Assessments should be transparent, relevant, legitimate, credible and made available.
Assessments should recognize a wide array of contributors as knowledge providers, to be identified through a dedicated process.
The assessments should include and integrate all the relevant different sectors, discipline and elements that should be considered depending on the specifities of the policy process. This regards in particular economic and social conditions affecting and depending on policy-making.
Closer link between assessments and policy and management processes, also taking into consideration their impacts on larger spatial domains, including transboundary impacts.
When relevant, assessments should include and analyse foresight/future scenarios, including climate change and socio-economic aspects, as a support to decision-making.
The models of scientific policy advice and knowledge transfer mechanisms should be based on collaboration and communication among actors involved (despite when linear models are more suitable). Respecting case-by-case settings and constraints, clearly move towards fully collaborative models.
The models of scientific policy advice and knowledge transfer mechanisms should impact positively the relevance, legitimacy and credibility of research to support policy making. But this should be made evident and possibly objective (e.g. use the 15 indicators proposed by Wagner et al., 2022).
Improving SPS governance. Principles: institutional design needs to consider and manage “biases” and disagreement on both scientists’ and policymakers’ sides, as well as uncertainty in the science of complex problems (i.e. using a post-normal science approach: “normal science may have little to offer when facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent” (Funtowics & Ravetz, 1993)).
Implementing SPS governance. Operational: clear rules and procedures should be established to apply the models of scientific policy advice and knowledge transfer mechanisms. Rules and procedures are in place, but sometimes they fail or remain too policy-specific.
Promote (or reinforce where already available) SPSI platforms that play a role in contributing to knowledge transfer in a continous and inclusive way. In particular promoting interlinkages across sectors, across societal actors, across disciplines, and among different geographical levels and ensuring their impact.
Where relevant, setting up and reinforcing of boundary organisations in knowledge translation and cross-sectoral collaboration. We refer to boundary organization as formal institutions that operate at the interface between science and policy, facilitating collaboration and knowledge exchange. They aim to bridge the gap between researchers and decision-makers, enhancing the impact of scientific research on environmental policy and practice (Cvitanovic et al., 2018, Gluckman et al., 2021, Oliver et al., 2021, Wagner et al., 2022).
Individual competences for SPS. Competences of actors (e.g. subject-specific knowledge, skills, attitudes) should be adequate, targeting in particular inter- and trans-disciplinarity.
Capacity-building activities focused on SPS should be available, inclusive and aimed at increasing overall and systemic expertise or can be tailored to particular knowledge needs.
Research policies and recognition to scientists for SPS work. More direct interest of Knowledge Generator actors in SPS processes and outputs, becoming also Evidence Pumps and / or being able to play an active role in collaborative SPS models. A research policy that promotes connections between policymaking and scientific communities.
Type of funding. A mixed set of drivers (e.g. demand driven, supply driven, or proceeding from competitive funding schemes) and type of funding (e.g. from national to EU/international, from public to private) is advisable.
Lack of funding. The amount, continuity, allocation (e.g., human resources, infrastructures, services, communication) of resources should be adequate.
Creation and maintenance of a “Repository of SPSI Best Practices and science-for-policy ecosystems”, with an inter-institutional focus too (e.g. how the work of different organisations is related to various policies and therefore other organsations). See JRC Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP).
Continuously adopt a self-evaluation of SPSI processes in policy formulation and implementation and science-for-policy ecosystems. It should become a routine and should be possibly follow shared guidelines (possibly coming from or endorsed by the EC). Using a set of indicators, a list of questions (e.g. Strand, 2022) or a step-wise analysis of evidence-informed policy processes (EC, 2023. Better regulation toolbox).
The listed needs, alongside recommended actions, are outlined in more detailed in the Blueprint below.
This Blueprint focuses on strengthening SPSIs — the mechanisms through which scientific knowledge, policy priorities, and societal perspectives come together — to enable more effective, coherent, and adaptable policy making in the face of complex marine and climate challenges.
It provides a conceptual structure and a set of recommended actions to help policy makers, stakeholders, and practitioners integrate the best available knowledge into marine policy decisions.
It proposes two sets of recommended actions—one targeting EGD-related marine policies broadly, and the other focused on specific sectors and policy areas—illustrated with practical examples and lessons learned from the project.
Evidence-informed policy making is key to addressing the growing pressures on marine environments and securing a sustainable future. The Blueprint aims to enhance policy coherence, foster collaboration, and empower stakeholders to use knowledge effectively. By strengthening SPSIs, we can implement policies that are more robust, more adaptable, and better able to respond to climate change, ecosystem degradation, and competing policy goals — all while strengthening public trust and effective policy implementation.