15 pages., via online journal., This paper presents selected highlights from the ‘Engaging with society’ session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food and Society’ (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.
10 pages., Via online journal., Forest ownership is changing in Europe. Reasons include recent institutional changes in Eastern Europe, changing lifestyles of non-agricultural owners and afforestation. At present, there is little comparative analysis across Europe, and the implications that these changes have for forest management and for the fulfilment and redefinition of policy objectives have not been addressed systematically. This paper has been developed in the framework of a European research network on forest ownership change, based on conceptual work, literature reviews and empirical evidence from 28 European countries. It aims to provide an overview of the state of knowledge, to discuss relevant issues and provide conceptual and practical foundations for future research, forest management approaches, and policy making. In particular, it discusses possible approaches for classifying forest ownership types and understandings of “new” forest ownership. One important insight is that the division into public and private forests is not as clear as often assumed and that an additional category of semi-public (or semi-private) forms of forest ownership would be desirable. Another recommendation is that the concepts of “new forest owners” vs. “new forest owner types” should be differentiated more consciously. We observe that, in research and policy practice, the mutual relations between forest ownership structure and policies are often neglected, for instance, how policies may directly and indirectly influence ownership development, and what different ownership categories mean for the fulfilment of policy goals. Finally, we propose that better support should be provided for the development of new, adapted forest management approaches for emerging forest owner types. Forest ownership deserves greater attention in studies dealing with forest policy or forest management.
