Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie Crédit photo : Arnaud Bouissou/MEDDE FLIS annual meeting Copenhagen November , 2013 Halvard Hervieu CGDD Mission prospective Forward looking and strategy How to write recommendations

2 There seems to be two ways for considering the links and limits of forward looking studies and strategies. For some who are keen on doctrine and deontology, the prospectivist stops his work on the verge of strategy writing and handles his work to the policy-maker. For other, more pragmatic, the forward looking study encompasses naturally a part of strategy that gives it a larger interest. The worst case, that could justify this club discussion is when there is no identified customer or command, wen the subject is large (unfocused) as often in environmental matters and the study ins near closing ( running short of time and funding), Background and Issue

3 Key questions From the example of the French AQUA 2030:  Are you legitimate? If the « direction de l’eau » in the Ministry is not a member of the prospective group or of the steering committee of the study, you can be border-line.  Are you competent ? There are always topics for which you don’t have the specialists on board. Il could be technical matters but you can also need sociology, jurists and tax experts.  Are you operational ? The main actors can be in the private sector as farmers or dam-operators. If they are not participants of the study and involved, it will be difficult to reach them.

4  In many forward looking studies, dealing with the environment, scenarios are used and crossed with typical territories and landscapes to analyze the impacts and the way to alleviate the most negative consequences.  You don’t have a vision that can work as a target for the choice of actions, nor a reference or preferred scenario.  If you have enough time, you work on recommendations for every case (scenario x territory), the result is a long list and a blurred overall picture.  A practical solution is to look at the “no-regret” recommendations that are useful in any scenario. They can sound relevant, but may be lacking originality. Technical difficulties

5 Critical choice  The question is: - you decide to produce the best document and you go on with your work, with great details and you don’t know who will use it - you want consensus and your final part is made off common-sense recommendations that could be thought off before the start of the study  Some examples: - « mobilizing the resources for massive investments in knowledge » Global Europe « use new corn varieties in the Landes departement » Agriculture, forêt, climat, vers des stratégies d’adaptation CEP Ministère de l’Agriculture juillet 2012 Présentation aux Présidents, Directeurs généraux et Directeurs du RST

6 Some tips and warnings  The relative importance of the recommendations to policy makers as part of the study should be addressed at the start of the program.  There should be enough time or meetings devoted to this final part of the study.  The sectorial governmental authority should be at least well- informed of the work or involved in some way.  You can need other experts or new competences for this stage.  Even if you come out with broad recommendations, try to give concrete examples. 5 juillet 2012 Présentation aux Présidents, Directeurs généraux et Directeurs du RST

Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie Thanks for your attention