2021 marks the start of the UN Decade on Ocean Science – a chance to move away from past mistakes where EU decisions were not always made based on the best available science or even went against scientific advice, writes Antonia Leroy.
Dr Antonia Leroy is the head of ocean policy at the WWF European Policy Office.
Scientific understanding of the world around us is essential. It allows us to grasp the impacts of human activities, to inform our decisions about how to best preserve our natural world and its ecosystems – of which, we are a part.
We know how crucial scientific advice and evidence are for informing our relationships with our seas.
Which chemicals are toxic to wildlife and must be kept out of the water? How many turtles, dolphins and whales are accidentally caught in fishing nets every year, and how is this affecting their populations? What will the environmental impact of constructing a new port facility be? How many tonnes of fish can we catch within sustainable limits that allow stocks to recover?
The bigger picture
Globally, our ocean and the marine resources that hundreds of millions of people depend on are in trouble. Overfishing, pollution, shipping and coastal development are just some of the pressures which are having measurable impacts on the entirety of our ocean, from shallow waters to the deep sea.
Climate change will increasingly interact with these stressors – sea levels are already rising and waters are becoming warmer, more acidic and losing oxygen.
It is therefore incredibly disappointing to see the EU say one thing in response to this kind of evidence and then do another. For example, in blatant violation of the Common Fisheries Policy’s legally-binding objective to end overfishing by 2020, about a third of the quotas for annual seafood catches set by EU Fisheries Ministers in December were higher than scientifically advised.
Commissioner Sinkevičius has himself expressed disappointment that “the ministers were not ready to fully take into account the scientific advice and agree on more ambitious effort reductions that would have allowed us to restore the fish stocks to sustainable levels”.
Beyond fishing, European seas are poised to become increasingly busy places for maritime transport, increasing the risks to marine habitats and species of collisions, as well as damage from anchors and pollution.
This is out of step with the need to tackle the decline of marine biodiversity. Less than three months remain for member states to submit their national plans for the sustainable use of their seas (marine spatial plans) to the European Commission, but the likelihood is that many countries will miss the deadline.
Looking ahead
Over the next 10 years, which the UN has named its ‘Decade on Ocean Science’, the EU will strive to deliver on its commitment to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – one goal of which, Goal 14, is dedicated to our ocean.
Over the same time period, the EU will be implementing its 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, which aims at effectively protecting at least 30% of the EU sea space, including 10% under strict protection, while introducing a Nature Restoration Plan that will deliver healthier marine ecosystems.
As the EU works to fulfil these commitments, it must pay heed to the Decade’s initiative and strive to improve its scientific understanding of the place on Earth that is responsible for every second breath we take and provides each EU citizen with nearly 27 kilograms of the food they eat every year. It’s worth remembering that we still know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our ocean.
As our seas open up to new economic prospects like offshore wind and farming of sea flora, robust scientific exploration of these activities is essential to gain a fuller understanding of the short- and long-term environmental effects of such maritime industries, and thus mitigate the impact they have.
Nevertheless, there are currently few instances where the cause of oceanic decline and potential solutions remain uncertain. Investments (political, financial and societal) should be urgently directed towards proven solutions and existing technologies, compliance with data collection systems, and effective policies to help mitigate the climate crisis and restore biodiversity.
Where there is insufficient data, policy decisions must not be delayed; rather, decision makers must adopt a precautionary approach to ensure that human activities do not harm the marine life and resources on which we all depend.
The evidence is already in: the repercussions of such decisions have rippling effects across all sectors of life, industries and human generations. Conversely, scientific research must better reflect that humans are part of ecosystems and work to break down silos, fully embracing the socio-economic dimensions of ocean management decisions.
At a time when we must meet objectives set on both climate and biodiversity issues, science is needed more than ever to help us agree effective and ambitious policies, tools and practices that help secure a health balance between people and planet.
GRRIP this week hosted a side-event at the Triple Helix Summit (November 24 – 26), alongside Fit4RRI and GRACE, on “Institutional change in European Research Funding and Performing Organisations – the power of RRI”.
The three sister projects each presented their vision for how the implementation of RRI practices can help drive and enhance institutional change, with a specific focus on the individual frameworks developed within each.
All three projects are funded under the H2020 Science with and for Society (SWAF) under the call “Grounding RRI practices in research and innovation funding and performing organisations”. The goal is to increase the involvement of a range of societal stakeholders in the R&I process, particularly in relation to:
Citizens’ and citizens’ associations engagement in science;
Formal and informal science education;
Gender equality in science;
Research ethics and integrity;
Open access to research results.
The workshop was followed by a lively Q&A session where the discussion focused on how best to achieve change in RFPOs through RRI-related initiatives.
The Triple Helix Summit, which was due to be held in Bologna but was moved online due to COVID-19 restrictions, brought together leading figures from science, industry and politics under the motto “Designing globally connected regional innovation ecosystems”. The event focused on the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic and other pressing grand challenges and how to address them via digital and sustainable innovation.
The presentations from the side-event are linked below:
Female scientists have weathered bias, lack of support, and unsafe work environments since the dawn of oceanography.
In 1872, the British Challenger expedition sailed around the globe on a voyage to study and sample the world’s oceans. The expedition is thought to be the first scientific oceanographic cruise.
Of the 243 people on board the Challenger, not one was a woman. Women weren’t allowed on ships, research or otherwise.
The rate of women’s professional involvement in oceanography is sometimes referred to as a “leaky pipeline.” Initially, the flow of young women into the profession is strong but dwindles as they choose to leave for numerous reasons.
But nearly a century before the Challenger, a woman by the name of Jeanne Baret sailed around the world on a scientific expedition of her own. Baret disguised herself as a male assistant on a 1766 voyage led by the French admiral and explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville to document plants and ecosystems in distant countries. Baret is the first woman on record to have circumnavigated the globe.
Science, especially science on ships, has a long history of excluding women. And since the beginning, women like Baret have undermined and pushed back against the rules. Women finally secured the ability to participate in scientific cruises in the United States in 1959 and now lead expeditions, research institutions, and federal agencies.
For the 2019 World Oceans Day theme of “Gender and the Ocean,” the United Nations writes that the empowerment of women and girls is “still needed” in all aspects of ocean-related sectors, including marine scientific research.
Women and men enroll in undergraduate and graduate programs in oceanography in equal numbers, according to a 2014 study in Oceanography. (Numbers for gender-nonconforming individuals were not reported.) But only 15% of full or senior faculty positions across 26 U.S. institutions were held by women in 2014. The authors found that women “continue to drop out as they progress along the tenure track,” which they note is similar to other disciplines in science.
LuAnne Thompson, a physical oceanography professor at the University of Washington, said that the field has been trying to fix the leaky pipeline for decades.
“People recognized it was a problem, but they thought of quick fixes,” Thompson said. Initiatives pushed the hiring of more female faculty in the 1990s, she said, but gave little thought to the cultural change needed to support them.
Global warming is driving an unprecedented rise in sea temperatures including in the Mediterranean, according to a major new report published by the peer-reviewed Journal of Operational Oceanography.
Data from the European Union’s (EU) Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) will increase concerns about the threat to the world’s seas and oceans from climate change.
The Ocean State Report reveals an overall trend globally of surface warming based on evidence from 1993 to 2018, with the largest rise in the Arctic Ocean.
European seas experienced record high temperatures in 2018, a phenomenon which the researchers attribute to extreme weather conditions — a marine heat wave lasting several months.
In the same year, a large mass of warm water occurred in the northeast Pacific Ocean, according to the report. This was similar to a marine heatwave — dubbed ‘the Blob’ — which was first detected in 2013 and had devastating effects on marine life.
Now the study authors are calling for improved monitoring to provide better data and knowledge. They argue this will help countries progress towards sustainable use of seas and oceans which are an essential source of food, energy and other resources.
Findings from the report confirm record rises in sea temperatures
“Changes to the ocean have impacted on these (ocean) ecosystem services and stretched them to unsustainable limits,” says Karina von Schuckmann and Pierre-Yves Le Traon, the report’s editors.
“More than ever a long term, comprehensive and systematic monitoring, assessment and reporting of the ocean is required. This is to ensure a sustainable science-based management of the ocean for societal benefit.”
The Ocean State Report identifies other major strains on the world’s seas and oceans from climate change including acidification caused by carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, sea level rise, loss of oxygen and sea ice retreat.
Long-term evidence of global warming outlined in the report includes a decrease over 30 years of up to two days in the period of Baltic Sea ice cover and an acceleration in the global mean sea level rise.
The report highlights that the message from recent EU and global assessments of the state of seas and oceans is ‘we are not doing well’. The authors add: “Human society has always been dependent on the seas. Failure to reach good environmental status for our seas and oceans is not an option.”
At the core of Inclusive Innovation is the rule that individuals from networks that have been underestimated those frequently expected as recipients of advancements yet normally left out of the plan and improvement lead, partake in, and advantage from the development.
Most importantly, at that point, we mean the examination inserted in the Inclusive Innovation model to serve the networks’ endeavours in characterizing a need challenge and planning arrangements moulded by what is getting known as setting ability. Setting skill is perceived as close information, picked up by lived insight, of a considerable test and the elements that make answers for the test locally serviceable.
While we anticipate that these endeavours should be educated by surviving examination and arrangements as of now in the commercial center, tenacious instructive disparities show the insufficiencies of most current approaches and developments to serve minimized networks. Most current methodologies are not serving those they mean to, particularly those from underestimated networks, and we should investigate new and refined cycles, for example, Inclusive Innovation that places supremacy on setting aptitude.
A more critical gander at value-driven exploration
This origination of exploration sounds misleadingly basic on a superficial level, yet that straightforwardness disguises the multifaceted nature just beneath.
Numerous specialists driven by worries about the pertinence, appropriateness, and utility of their exploration in instructive practice are participating in long haul associations with locale frameworks and expert groups. Organized improvement networks, for example, the Carnegie Math Pathways NIC and the Building a Teaching Effectiveness Network, and exploration practice organizations, for example, those in the National Network for Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERPP), the Research Alliance for NYC Schools, and the UChicago Consortium on School Research, are only a few notable models.
Endeavors at beginning with networks’ communicated objectives, viewpoints on foundational training difficulties, and wanted results move past applying exploration to rehearse—which is fundamental and needs profundity of contextualized encounters past the region framework—to genuinely serve the requirements of a network’s students.
Additionally as of late observed more assets and thought pieces shared that evaluate how conventional exploration approaches maintain white predominant standards. While value driven researchers, backers, and activists have for quite some time been calling for change, their voices are beginning to be heard and regarded a smidgen all the more extensively. The charge to scientists to cure run of the mill research approaches incorporates:
detailing research inquiries to zero in on framework disappointments—not understudies—as the issue
rethinking the racial accomplishment hole as a hole in circumstance and access and to consider the “instruction obligation”
decolonizing information and exploration strategies
what’s more, questioning information representations that utilize shortage outlining and bigoted suppositions
Reexamining research under Inclusive Innovation
Examination work under the recently dispatched Center for Inclusive Innovation, went past exercises from training disapproved of exploration and set up research exercises that uproot white-predominant standards that are destructive to generally minimized networks. Taking a learning position, we are wrestling with some key inquiries and contemplations emerging from the model of Inclusive Innovation, for instance:
How would we as scientists acquire trust with network individuals as accomplices and co-pioneers in research, and accommodate customary ways to deal with information assortment and examination with the damage they have dispensed on minimized networks before?
How would we reexamine being a scientist as network individuals co-lead and completely partake in each period of examination?
How do those with lived experience challenge us to contemplate the information that is gathered?
How would we utilize new information assortment techniques that place network needs and network benefits at the middle in a climate that generally organizes effectiveness, consistency, and unwavering quality across settings, above distinction, investigation, and comprehension of unpredictability?
How would we widen the meaning of information to incorporate types of realizing that depend on oral conventions, are lavishly contextualized by associations among network individuals, and influence network resources? Also, what does it resemble to utilize this information in research?
What kinds of results will networks we serve to organize, and how would we measure those results? As Ken Shelton as of late commented in a feature address to the League of Innovative Schools, the main inquiry we ought to present is, “And how are the youngsters?” Comprehensive and cheap information probably are not promptly accessible for the most significant result of kids’ prosperity.
What sorts of progress pointers will uphold networks’ plan, advancement, and execution of arrangements tending to the need difficulties they distinguish? Interval and yearly accomplishment tests in perusing and math, which are promptly accessible, are likely excessively removed from numerous arrangements that networks co-plan and execute, and would not really cover with the results wanted by the network. This issue isn’t new in useful exploration, however one which should be tended to head-on.
So, we are rethinking questions each examination venture must answer: Who has the ability? What considers information and proof? Who chooses? Who characterizes the results, gathers the information, and investigates and gives it significance, and how do these cycles intensify the voices of those with setting skill?
As we leave on these endeavors, we welcome joint effort and thought organization with networks and with individual analysts endeavoring to establish comprehensive and impartial practices drove by networks and driven by their necessities. Most importantly, we are appreciative for the occasion to work and co-plan with networks to assemble this new instruction research field.
Marine and maritime research organisations should be responsible while doing their research and innovation. What does this exactly mean? Here are 6 KEY recommendations for responsible research and innovation.
ETHICS is an integral part of the whole research process. By getting the ethics right, research excellence can be achieved.
GENDER EQUALITY: Research organizations should work against the under-representation of women in science and gender inequalities within organizations and in performing research.
OPEN ACCESS & DATA: Research results and data should be available for free to the public and other researchers so that they can be re-used, reviewed and replicated.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: Research organisations should more collaborate with societal actors during the research process to align science to society’s values, needs
SCIENCE EDUCATION: Efforts must be made to educate citizens and equip them with scientific knowledge so that they can participate in the debate on research and innovation.
GOVERNANCE: Governance affects all other key dimensions of responsible research and innovation (RRI), especially how knowledge is created and shared.
During the 2000s, significant work has been done on the concept of responsible research and innovation supported by EU projects. However, most of the projects related to the institutional change of research organizations (RPOs) and research funding organizations (RFOs) focused on one of these key dimensions individually. But what about the other five? We developed the GRRIP Project with an integrated approach. We are working on creating a sustainable, growing and proactive marine and maritime RRI community.
Our practical RRI framework will help these research organisations to implement institutional and cultural change. Because Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) can fundamentally improve research in the Blue Economy.
RRI IN MARINE RESEARCH: We incorporate responsible research and innovation into the governance framework of five maritime and maritime institutions.
ENGAGEMENT OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: We engage the quadruple helix in all aspects of Responsible Research & Innovation governance: Academia, industry, policy, and society.
FUNDING POLICIES: We examine how funding bodies can encourage academia towards Responsible Research & Innovation via its funding policies and interaction.
4 research performing organisations (RPO) and 1 dual-function RPO and research funding organisation (RPO/RFO) in the marine and maritime sector are selected to work on their action plans (total 5 RPO&RFO) to achieve institutional and cultural change.
Its efforts in implementing RRI in marine research organizations GRRIP wants to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and thus assist in ending poverty, contribute to marine food security and sustainability, promote science education, improve research fundamentally about renewable energies, climate change, or sustainable use of the ocean and much more.
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in the understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred to as the interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by the development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining a competitive advantage through the acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.
Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.
Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process
Step 1: Identify, plan and understand
The first step to effectively engage with stakeholders is to identify who they are (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). The identification of stakeholders includes several activities. Firstly, you need to develop a list of stakeholders, categorise them according to mutuality (how important is the stakeholder to the project) and what they expect. You need to document each stakeholder’s influence and relationship to the organisation (Bourne, 2010).
In order to establish meaningful relationships with stakeholders, you need to identify basic objectives that you as an organisation want to achieve, issues you want to address and stakeholders that you want to engage. In order to understand your stakeholders, you have to “dig deeper” to understand their decision-making process, their expectations from you, what objectives are they seeking and how did they influence you previously (Jeffery, 2009).
As a first step toward QH stakeholder engagement, you need to define your stakeholders within all QH categories, the mapping of QH should be based on current and ideal collaborations. (Figure 1.)
During the mapping of stakeholders for the QH platform, all four stakeholder groups should be included. The stakeholders will engage in defining future stakeholder engagement strategy and action plan creation for RRI “interventions” within the site. Table 1 gives an overview of the perceived contribution of different QH categories in the engagement with demo sites. Throughout the consultation process why and how QH contributes can be refined remaining fluidity of the engagement process.
Step 2: Internal preparation and alignment
The next stage of engagement includes internal alignment with stakeholders, recognition of commonalities between you and stakeholders. The success of engagement with stakeholders is much dependent on the ability to align the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders. This does not mean that your objectives and interests must be identical. For a coordinated approach, some good practices indicate the involvement of the internal stakeholder management team to support coordination with stakeholder platform, regular communication and feedback and to connect the stakeholder engagement process to processes within the company (Jeffery, 2009). At least one person from case study demo sites should be included in the coordination/support of QH stakeholder engagement in order to maintain regular communication and collect feedback from QH. Coordinator/stakeholder management team would serve as a broker/mediator bringing across expectations/reflections of stakeholders/societal needs back to site and vice versa.
When you identify who are your key players and who you want to engage with, it is important to motivate your stakeholder to participate. The motivation of QH can be achieved firstly through training, providing necessary information regarding RRI as a concept and making RRI terminology understandable and familiar to different QH categories. It is noted by the survey and indicated in 4.2.3. document that over 50% of respondents to the survey that they have low familiarity with RRI. Having this in mind each demo site should consider if the adaptation of the terminology to the local context/language is necessary as indicated in T4.2.3. QH stakeholder perspective document.
One of the barriers identified by the SoA (3.2. and 4.2.1.) is lack of time and resources, by motivating your stakeholder you are emphasising that benefits from the engagement will be worth “sacrificed” time and resources.
Industry
Most common barriers to RRI industrial uptake that can be extrapolated to the resistance of industry in engaging with GRRIP sites in RRI-embedding processes. These include lack of RRI expertise, limited resources, the challenges of fulfilling all RRI functions (pillars) within the company and the project partners and value chain actors, the unclear added value of RRI approaches and the lack of long-term vision among others.
Examples from other projects suggest some lessons learned in overcoming these barriers
Link RRI with ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000
RRI provides a complementary approach compared to existing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, adding a specific focus on the R&I process and based on three key actions:
Integrate analysis of ethical, legal and social impacts from the early stages of product development (reflection and anticipation)
Perform stakeholder engagement to inform all phases of product development (inclusiveness)
Integrate monitoring, learning and adaptive mechanisms to address public and social values and normative principles in product development (responsiveness)
There is a need to provide specific industry tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation
Use good practices and case study dissemination to raise RRI awareness in the industry
Develop systems and processes to protect key intellectual property rights, data and personnel
Assess the obstacles that result in academia working at a slower pace than industry.
All these lessons learned should be considered while aligning the interests and objectives of your organisation with industry stakeholders. Aligning interests with SDGs could also be a useful way to bridge conversation across many sectors
Academia
Type of stakeholder can be very bureaucratic and opposing general resistance to change, RRI aspects shall be of direct interest to its researchers: mutual learning, access to know-how on tools (i.e. JERRI self-assessment toolkit on ethical aspects), processes (interdisciplinary by nature) and the imperative requirement to adapt for a better and more responsible way of doing science as to better serve societal needs.
In engaging with academia, GRRIP sites are generally advised to use the most attractive specific RRI keys for researchers: ethics, Open access, gender and diversity to open a more holistic discussion on how to strengthen RPOs social role in the site territory of action. Ethics and Open Access is something that most researchers are very familiar with. By including these pillars when engaging with academia, discussions will be more easily facilitated due to the researcher’s familiarity with specific RRI pillar. Even such an approach has its benefits, we need to consider the benefits of a more holistic approach to embedding RRI. By sticking to specific “more familiar” RRI keys we are retaining the “status quo” with no chance of growth, by including other RRI keys through a more holistic approach we are offering a way QH to grow. Considering other, not so “attractive”, RRI keys we offer openness and inclusiveness and a way to facilitate dialogue between different QH categories rather than choosing exclusively one RRI key that could be interesting to one QH category.
Reflection workshops with focus groups can be organised to reflect on joint challenges/lessons/processes and create a trust for sustained alliances with other RPOs, university and multi-spheres institutions. Identify regional and national champions to be brought forward and benchmarking on science quality as gender equality, transdisciplinary, or open access. GRRIP sites can propose to join forces among themselves as i.e establish a new role (i.e. Ethics adviser) co-founded and serving a network of institutions or organise joint training courses
Policy makers
The close involvement of policymakers at different levels in the site RRI process can help in identifying explicit (i.e. migration policies, work permits, statistics laws, etc.) and implicit policy instruments (i.e. funding programs, tax incentives, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc.) that need to be strengthened or redefine to support the sites- use as pilots – for RRI structural change.
The involvement of policymakers at the national level is important and sites can attract their participation by justifying their need of data and experiences/expertise to support the monitoring of the UNESCO RS/SR recommendation on a 4-year basis, and in particular, the gender equality issues that has a special organisational structure and priority in many European Member states. The promotion of success stories, at the national and local levels, can also inspire change in other stakeholders and shall be done in cooperation with policy-makers covering the different territorial levels. Policymakers can participate in special focus groups discussion or/and be part of the Advisory board for the project/sites.
Civil society
QH platforms can facilitate engagement and openness to QH. Case study demo sites should identify value areas and actions that might be of mutual benefit; consider:
How an institution supports the community in the area of innovation;
Be careful of hidden stakeholders (e.g. fishermen and their wives; wives doing a lot of administration for fishermen);
Finding opportunities for inclusion of QH around community and innovation.
GRRIP institutions cannot be expected to produce stakeholder engagement solely through their specific efforts, but depend also on the existence of a broader engagement ecosystem that reduces transaction costs and stabilises expectations across categories of stakeholders.
Step 3: Build trust
The third step of stakeholder engagement is the trust-building process as a fundamental part of this process. In order to build trust, you need to consider different aspects of QH platform such as inequity of the relationship, differential power of different stakeholders, language and cultural barriers (in QH platforms that include international stakeholders), ways of operating etc. To build trust, information must be shared both ways followed by the willingness of both parties to understand others’ viewpoints (Jeffery, 2009).
The crucial part of trust-building is good alignment of the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders that you intend to engage in. For the trust-building process, you need to consider common obstacles (consult the previous step), identify the ones that you anticipate to encounter when engaging with your QH stakeholders and work on gaining trust of stakeholders by addressing the identified obstacles/issues
Step 4: Co-creation
Communication with your stakeholder is the first level of engagement aiming to raise awareness by allowing participating stakeholders to explore, transform and build their opinions and perspective (Fung, 2006; Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Process of consultation with stakeholders should be (Jeffery, 2009):
Representative – QH list of stakeholders comprised of a full range of stakeholders affected by organisation. Do not think only of big, vocal and sympathetic stakeholders, consider also small stakeholders, they can be a valuable asset in stakeholder engagement. Pay attention to inclusive representation: When choosing stakeholders, it is important to include all four types of stakeholders in the cohort.
Responsive – by doing work in the preparation phase you should be able to present information, proposals, ideas to stakeholders that correspond to their expectations and interests. Previous steps should provide inputs for responsive consultations.
Context focused – stakeholders need to get a detailed and complete picture of organisations motivation. It is important to keep QH interested and motivated work within step two should provide information on how to keep motivated different QH for the QH engagement process and RRI.
Complete: appropriate background information, provided by the internal knowledge management system (stakeholder management group) will allow stakeholders to form conclusions. For engagement to be complete in preparatory work in step 2 will provide you with QH specific data to tailor approaches for each QH category.
Realistic – in consultation with stakeholders there is an expected percentage of the trade-off of expectations, needs and objectives, which can be positive and strengthening the process of trust-building. It is very important to accurately present your intentions and expectations.
Organisation needs to know the expectations of QH stakeholders and communication with QH is the key. A structured approach built upon your understanding about the importance and expectations of your stakeholders will result in effective communication (Bourne, 2010). Several techniques can be used in process of consultation with stakeholders (Jeffery, 2009):
Personal interviews
Workshops
Focus groups
Public or “town hall” meetings
Surveys
Participatory tools
Stakeholder panels
Online tools
Prior to consultation organisation must decide which stakeholder to consult and the appropriate mechanism that will be utilised having in mind local conditions and characteristics of the stakeholder. This could mean that different techniques will be used for different stakeholders. SoA 3.2. and T4.2.1. addressed best practices and lessons learned from other projects, based on their findings presented guidelines suggest possible tailoring of different engagement techniques to different types of stakeholders. GRRIP chose to trail workshops as a method of engagement, but due to COVID-19 online tools are also a valid option for the engagement. Further, we will discuss how different stakeholders can be engaged using workshops and how can online tools be used for inclusive interactive engagement of all QH types.
Considering current feedback, during Planning for Change workshop in June (2020), from the case study demo sites, physical meetings supplemented with online tools are the preferred way of engagement.
Workshops
Industry stakeholders can require the development of industry-specific tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation as stated in T4.2.1. Also as SoA D3.2. the indicated industry is oriented toward their commercial objectives and can be difficult to engage them without establishing a sort of „paid relationship“. For GRRIP industry stakeholders could be engaged through workshops.
Workshops are the main envisioned engagement tool for QH stakeholder engagement. For the industry to be meaningfully engaged it is necessary to develop a workshop theme in correspondence with industry goals and objectives. As stated in T4.2.1. one way of making RRI exciting for industry stakeholders is connecting specific RRI keys to ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000 (trust-building). When designing the workshop time could be one of the crucial determining factors whether QH stakeholders will engage, bear in mind the availability of the stakeholder, and deliver clear timelines for the workshop. Short agenda with a clear indication of expected contribution will facilitate the trust-building. The facilitator will be the main moving force of the workshop, make sure that they are well trained and have the skills to initiate fruitful discussion
For the policymakers, key aspect of meaningful engagement within GRRIP project can be aligning demo site RRI processes with policy instruments as indicated in T4.2.1. One way to do this is to choose RRI keys that can align with their interest, e.g. concerning funding policies, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc. Similarly, in interaction with Academia by selecting RRI researcher-specific pillars (Ethics, Open Access, gender) you can ensure their participation.
Best practices from other projects analysed in SoA 4.2.1. indicated that having a Citizen’s office: a series of citizens’ meeting in which social needs can be put forth to science, can be useful for engagement with this stakeholder. The second tool was a public debate with actors from academia and civil society on a topic of high public attention. The citizen´s office and debates were considered as very effective by the project officer
If we are organising a workshop for all stakeholders together, specific interests but also a common interest should be identified and interactive engagement should be facilitated. Since COVID-19 enforced virtual meetings inclusion of interactive tools (e.g. mentimeter) that could be used in physical, virtual and even hybrid types of meetings (physical and virtual) should be considered.
Online tools
Recent events with Covid-19 have proved that society is very adaptable and there is a huge increase in online interaction driven by “virtual by necessity”. Online stakeholder engagement can now be seen as a crucial mechanism for long-term dynamic stakeholder relationships. The most important lesson learned from the past few months is that web can overcome limitations of time and distance and it can be a good tool in allowing anonymity to encourage greater stakeholder involvement (Jeffery, 2009).
By switching to online, organisation is no longer restricted to mass communication campaigns, presented information if organised well in easily searchable format can be appealing to a large number of individual stakeholders in different times. Online communities can serve for members to share information and a way of engaging with external stakeholders (Barrett et al., 2016; Wilkin et al., 2018).
Organisations can have multi-stakeholder dialog using online tools such as engagement hubs or portals. A recent example is the Waveney Pathfinder project, led by Waveney District Council in partnership with Suffolk County Council and the Suffolk Coastal Futures project, focusing on coastal frontages at Corton and Easton Bavents. The Coastal Change Hub is an important tool used in the project to engage with local communities in managing the effects of coastal erosion. The hub works as a focal point for the provision of information such as fact sheets, video clips and technical reports, communication from the project team and feedback from local communities through forums and online surveys. The outputs of the project will be the production of reports identifying short- to long-term options for how coastal change can be managed. While offline stakeholder engagement in such a project is important, online communication tools enhance the effectiveness of offline two-way dialogue with multiple stakeholders.
Social media can provide new opportunities for societal actors to be informed, they can easily use such platforms to identify common interests and express their opinions and in this way the internet can be a powerful tool in stakeholder engagement (Lutz and Hoffmann, 2013).
Using online tools organisation can engage a much wider group of stakeholders with no limitations of geographic location, travel options, time and resource-consuming issues associated with offline engagement. Online toolkits can be effective in minimisation of risks associated with consumer rejection, help building trust in an organisation and improve the quality of decision-making process.
Step 5: Respond and implement
The fifth step of meaningful stakeholder engagement is to respond and implement. After the organisation is completed the consultation with stakeholders, analysis of the obtained data should be completed. What suggestions were presented, any concerns raised and what are the priorities that need to be addressed. In order to manage identified issues, you should follow simple steps:
Initial outline of measures to manage issue
Assess measures to manage issue: time; cost; capacity; effectiveness
Consult with stakeholders and organisation department re-measures
Monitor and evaluate progress and adjust necessary
Step 6: Monitor, evaluate and document
The final stage of stakeholder engagement is monitoring, evaluation and documentation. There are various international standards available to be used as a reference point (Appendix 1), this should be done by case study working group (broker), some of possible steps are represented in Box 2. Lessons learned will drive future engagement and are a critical aspect of stakeholder engagement process.
Box 2: Possible steps of monitoring and evaluation
Are project outputs, outcomes and impacts in the process of stakeholder engagement identified, verified and understood by the organisation?
Are there any baseline data about attitude and stakeholder actions prior to the engagement in order to compare with post-engagement data?
Are stakeholders going to participate in the monitoring and evaluation? How?
Is there any measurement and reporting systems to permit track changes in stakeholder dialog?
Possible steps of monitoring and evaluation
1. Are project outputs, outcomes and impacts in the process of stakeholder engagement identified, verified and understood by the organisation?
2. Are there any baseline data about attitude and stakeholder actions prior to the engagement in order to compare with post-engagement data?
3. Are stakeholders going to participate in the monitoring and evaluation? How?
4. Is there any measurement and reporting systems to permit track changes in stakeholder dialog?
This process of evaluation and feedback by stakeholders will be used for the adaptation of action plans developed (WP6) by site and also to tailor the RRI interventions.
Monitoring and evaluation is an ongoing process, and documenting, reporting and clear record keeping will enable the strengthening of stakeholder relationships with the organisation. Appropriate feedback to stakeholders is necessary in order to keep interested into organisation and also to ensure the fair relationships with stakeholders. The quality of relationships with stakeholders can vary over time and it is important to regularly review the state of relationships and level of their satisfaction. There should be at list a yearly survey by an independent party including baseline data and standard questions to allow benchmarking. Through the survey, organisation can evaluate the satisfaction level of engaged stakeholders and adjust their engagement process if necessary.
Participatory engagement including representatives from each sector of the research and innovation process in each phase of the project is essential for creating results from which all involved stakeholders can benefit. We establish a related engagement platform and appropriate guidelines to ensure effective participation.
Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholders affected by the decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.
The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open, and active dialog, which identifies the current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement continues. The process of stakeholder engagement is a multi-faceted process including (APGA Guideline for stakeholder engagement, 2015):
Providing information;
Capacity building to equip communities and stakeholders to effectively engage;
Listening and responding to community and stakeholder concerns;
Including communities and stakeholders in the relevant decision-making processes;
Developing goodwill and an understanding of objectives and priorities which will lead to confidence in decisions;
Establishing a realistic understanding of potential outcomes;
Building an understanding of the decision-making process.
For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017).
Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).
The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in the understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011).
Quadruple Helix
The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by the development of collaborative networks are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining a competitive advantage through the acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships. Engagement of stakeholders could be summarised as a six-step process (an adaptation of Jeffery, 2009; Figure 1.1.)
Stakeholder engagement – the role of QH in GRRIP
Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with a function of reflecting societal needs.
They are expected to participate in the development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH.
Through mutual learning and interaction, QH will support demo sites in the development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement. The role of QH in GRRIP project is to include several points. Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective of societal needs throughout the process.
Over the past couple of weeks, we have been publishing the 6 steps which were related to the topic on “How to engage with QH” and we tried to answer the questions that were most frequently asked on how to approach and deal with your stakeholders on the right way. To download the brochure which includes all of the previous steps click on the link below
GRRIP is working on embedding sustainable Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI practices) in 4 research performing organisations (RPO) and 1 dual-function RPO and research funding organisation (RPO/RFO) (total 5 RPO&RFO) in the marine and maritime sectors to achieve institutional and cultural change.
Why we do this?
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT: Government boards of marine and maritime research organisations do not currently involve the public and all relevant stakeholders at the early stages of research strategies.
OPEN ACCESS: Marine and maritime research organisations are reluctant to release their research data due to its high costs and IP concerns.
GENDER EQUALITY: The marine and maritime research sector has a high proportion of engineers, a traditionally male career path, and with low gender equality improvement to date.
Why the institutional and cultural change?
During the 2000s, much work has been done on the concept of responsible research and innovation supported by EU projects. However, most of the projects related to the institutional change of research organizations (RPOs) and research funding organizations (RFOs) focused on one of the five keys individually. Relatively few of them focused on establishing responsible research and innovation practices in these organisations, as part of an integrated approach.
5 RPO & RFO involved in the institutional and cultural change
PLOCAN is a multipurpose technical-scientific service infrastructure that provides support for research, technological development, and innovation in the marine and maritime sectors.
MaREI conducts fundamental research relating to marine and renewable energy applications and constructs world-class marine technology demonstration systems.
WaVEC works on marine renewable energies, offshore aquaculture, and ocean engineering solutions, working together with the business sector.
Swansea University has a long history of working with business and industry, conducting world-class and internationally recognized research.
ECN researches renewable energy solutions that help to create a sustainable future.
How we help them?
The sustainable expansion in Europe’s maritime economy has the potential to meet pressing needs for energy, food and economic growth. The GRRIP projects aim to implement Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) to fundamentally improve research in the Blue Economy in the following ways:
RRI IN MARINE RESEARCH: We are embedding Responsible Research & Innovation into the governance framework of five marine and maritime institutions.
ENGAGEMENT OF ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS: We are engaging the quadruple helix in all aspects of Responsible Research & Innovation governance. Academia, industry, policy, and society.
FUNDING POLICIES: We examine how funding bodies can positively influence and encourage academia towards Responsible Research & Innovation via its funding policies and interaction.
The report highlights that the European Green Deal and the European Strategy for data will necessitate reliable, accurate and centralised data for its initiatives.
The third edition of the report also includes new elements, which have an impact on the Blue Economy, including challenges like climate change, new sectors such as Submarine cables), enablers such as Maritime Spatial Planning, new areas of analysis such as Ecosystem Services or potential solutions like Multipurpose platforms.
Moreover, the report consists of:
Marine-based activities: include the activities undertaken in the ocean, sea and coastal areas, such as Marine living resources (capture fisheries and aquaculture), Marine minerals, Marine renewable energy, Desalination, Maritime transport and Coastal tourism.
Marine-related activities: activities which use products and/ or produce products and services from the ocean or marinebased activities like seafood processing, biotechnology, Shipbuilding and repair, Port activities, technology and equipment, digital services, and other.
However, the ocean has an economic value which is hard to quantify in terms of provision of resources, habitat for marine life, carbon sequestration, coastal protection, waste recycling and storing, and processes that influence climate change and biodiversity. To the extent possible, the Report covers most of these issues too.
Following the implementation of the European Green deal, the report analyzes the impact of human factor on the marine environment, and especially on the ocean.
The human impact includes the greenhouse gases (GHGs) which are the main contributor to global warming and climate change. Climate change is expected to result in more frequently heat waves, forest fires and droughts in Southern and Central Europe. While, Northern Europe will become significantly wetter, and winter floods could become common.
In the meantime, the report outlines some challenging issues, such as the general economic and political context, providing a background to the Blue Economy, including the sources of financing available for the Blue Economy projects.
This article was taken from the MarineTeck website. Please click on the link below to get to the original source of the article.
