EMR: The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife (flora and fauna)

Basic Information:
Long Title/Main question: The impacts of artificial Electromagnetic Radiation on wildlife (flora and fauna).
KCB Focal Point: Lise Goudeseune
Secretariat Focal Point: Jorge Ventocilla
Reference Code (e.g. CfR2/2017/2): 1/2016/4

Major Timelines:
Date of receiving the request: 28 Oct. 2016
Date of selection by KCB: 1 Jan. 2017
Date of finalizing DOW: latest version: august 2017 (although still noted as 'draft')
Release date of Call for Knowledge: 1 Mar. 2017
Release date of Call for Experts: n/a.  There was no Call for Experts for this request because it was initially intended to be answered through a consultation/foresight activity (the web conference). However, at some point, we contacted experts to help us produce a background document which, in the end, became the main outcome of the request.
Date of expert selection: March to July 2017
Date of first EWG meeting: 4 Jul. 2017
Publication date meth. protocol (after review process): n/a
Publication date final report/product (after review process): 27 Apr. 2018

Information Request & Requester:
Requester(s) (names/institution): Matt Shardlow, Buglife
Type of requester: 
  • Association
Aim of the request process (categorizing the intention of the requester) [describe or cite DoW]: The request submitted by Buglife on the impacts of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation on invertebrates was selected to initiate a process of identifying key (1) knowledge gaps and (2) research needs, as well as to formulate (3) recommendations. 
Aim of the request process (categorizing the intention of the requester):
  • gain an overview of a topical area that is new to the requester
  • provide a framework with arguments for developing new policies
Type of request (categorizing the procedure):
  • Horizon scanning (identify research needs)
Information on EWG:
No. of applications: n/a
No. of experts selected: 6
No. of experts without formal selection procedure: 6
No. of resignations during the term: 2
Fields of expertise :
Scientists:
  • Natural Sciences: 4
  • Engineering: 2
  • Total No. of Scientists: 6
Practitioners:
  • Admin/public sector
  • environmental services
  • business representatives
  • communication
  • other (specify):
  • Total No. of Practitioners:
Other experts:
  • Fields of expertise of those other experts:
  • Total No. of other experts:

Feedback loops with requesters to EWG : 4 online meetings between EKLIPSE, the request, and the experts


Specifics of the Procedure:
specialties of the scoping phase:
  • stakeholder workshop
  • substantial reframing of the main question
  • merging with other requests
  • other (specify):
special support of EWG:
  • other formats than an EWG (specify):
  • support of experts with an assistant
  • other support means (specify):
methods applied:
  • other (specify):  literature review/analyse of existing literature + foresight activity: webconference

Final Products and Disseminations:
type of final products:
  • Report
  • Conference/conference session
  • Policy Brief
dissemination activities: 
  • News item on EKLIPSE website
  • Twitter 
  • Facebook
  • Press release: see list

Feedback & Responses:
No. Of citations in scientific publications:
No. of inquires for presentations, poster etc. addressed to the secretariat (on spec. requests and/or the EKLIPSE Mechanism):
No. of presentations, posters etc. on this spec. request:

Overall impression:
What went particularily well within this request process?:

  • the work of the experts' group (interdisciplinarity, literature review, method used);
  • media coverage and interest from the public;

What went wrong during facilitating the request? :

  • not wrong, but less well: the webconference (not as much participants as expected; outcomes (content-wise) not as good/relevant as we were hoping;...);
  • the incentives for the experts to contribute are not clear (e.g. two experts dropped out at the end) - they should be paid or their work rewarded/compensated in some way.