Events

Seizing opportunities and identifying challenges

The first day began with an intensive discussion of the opportunities and challenges of science-policy dialogue. Constructive science-policy dialogue creates mutual added value: scientific expertise provides political decision-makers with a sound basis for evidence-based decisions and enables them to better understand complex interrelationships. In return, researchers gain a better understanding of political decision-making processes and current issues, and identified research gaps enable a more targeted focus on future questions. Overall, active engagement in science-policy dialogue enables researchers to increase the relevance and impact of their work.

At the same time, it became clear that science-policy dialogue is not yet sufficiently integrated into career paths, funding mechanisms and evaluation systems. Another challenge is the time commitment required for the continuous communication and networking that is necessary for science-policy dialogue.

The role of scientists in policy dialogue

In the subsequent reflection, the tension between scientific objectivity and political positioning was discussed. There is no blanket answer to the question of how far scientists should express themselves politically. The decisive factors are institutional framework conditions, personal attitudes and individual understanding of roles. Using various models (based on Pielke, R.A. Jr 2007¹), different self-perceptions were discussed, although these cannot be clearly distinguished from one another:

• Pure scientist: provides scientific findings without getting involved in political decision-making processes
• Arbiter: offers processed, targeted information
• Issue advocate: clearly advocates certain courses of action
• Honest broker: presents different options and supports differentiated decision-making processes

Insight into the practice of science communication

In the programme item ‘Discussion of practical examples’, Dr Nike Fuchs (Research Associate, Communication and Transfer, MARUM, University of Bremen) and Roland Koch (Head of Communication and Media, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research) provided insights into their daily work in the fields of science communication and transfer.

Both speakers used concrete examples to show how scientific results can be incorporated into political processes, whether through targeted communication formats such as delegation trips (e.g. to Spitsbergen), the selection of suitable channels (e.g. press conferences or social media) or the tailored addressing of relevant target groups, such as experts in ministries. The long-term development of relationships with political actors was also discussed: it is not the selective dissemination of information, but rather continuous dialogue that creates trust and effectiveness.

Communication formats and practical exercises for political dialogue

In addition to dialogue-oriented formats such as parliamentary events, examples of which were presented in the workshop by Helmholtz SynCom and the DAM, policy briefs were also among the formats discussed in the workshop. In a group exercise, participants analysed various examples of science-based information formats, including policy briefs and fact sheets, discussing their comprehensibility, structure and informative value. The exercise clearly demonstrated how important clear language, recognisable core messages and the presentation of research results in a way that is tailored to the target audience are for effective exchange with policymakers.

The participants then reflected on the social, economic and political relevance of their own research topics and developed key messages and initial ideas for possible courses of action.

Knowledge exchange with representatives from politics

On the morning of the second day of the workshop, the group had a discussion with Tanja Hickel (former office manager in the Bundestag), Stefan Hübner (Head of the Department of ‘Fisheries Structure and Market Policy, Marine Environment Protection, Responsible Authority EMFF/EMFAF'² at the BMLEH³) and Dr Stefan Olbermann (Head of the Department ‘Financial Issues of International Organisations; Financial Issues of International Climate Policy and Environmental Protection’ at the BMF⁴). The first topic was the integration of scientific information into everyday politics. This is strongly driven by day-to-day business: "There is little time to read long newsletters." If scientific expertise is to reach politicians, it is crucial to keep abreast of current events and then choose the right moment for exchange. Personal contacts in politics and with other actors, such as representatives of environmental associations, are indispensable for obtaining information about legislative projects at an early stage, for example. The coalition agreement also offers insights into upcoming topics. It is also worthwhile to stay in touch and attend events in Berlin: "I think events are unbeatable" because they provide opportunities for conversation. Policy briefs are read by the speakers primarily when time permits and the topic is on the political agenda. Online media are also used, with linked, freely accessible studies being particularly helpful – a plea for open access.

When it comes to evaluating and obtaining information, departmental research plays a particularly important role for ministries within the research landscape. In general, the imprint is checked and filtered according to which persons and organisations are already known. "Everyone knows the AWI; everyone knows Helmholtz". Even though it can be challenging for researchers to formulate concrete recommendations for action, these play an important role for political representatives. The combination of facts and recommendations for action is ideal and makes the work easier. In this context, the panel also emphasised that scientific recommendations for action are not automatically implemented. Political decisions are based on numerous factors; scientific findings form an important basis, but are only part of the overall picture. Scientists should be aware of these connections and not let them discourage them. Their expertise is not called into question. It is important to remain visible, actively seek dialogue with political actors and maintain personal networks. "Be confident when presenting your research to the public" was the final piece of advice for the participants of the science-policy workshop.

Transfer into practice and outlook

To promote the practical implementation of the workshop content, participants developed a short keynote speech or a one-page policy brief on their research topic. In a follow-up online meeting, they presented their results and received mutual feedback. The feedback collected was then summarised in a practical handout.

The participants gained comprehensive insight into the field of political communication in the science-policy workshop, which was jointly organised by DAM and Helmholtz SynCom and led by Tome Sandevski. It can be concluded that for a successful exchange with politicians, it is helpful to clarify one's own understanding of one's role, define a concrete goal, understand the political context, and communicate scientific content in clear, understandable language with concise key messages and, depending on the goal, also with options for action. In feedback from one researcher, key aspects of the workshop were summarised as follows: "Above all, I found the exchange with experts from science communication and political practice very interesting, and this provided good approaches on how to implement this in scientific work in order to expand and improve dialogue with politics and administration".

¹Pielke, R.A. Jr: The Honest Broker. Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007)

²European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)

³Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (BMLEH)

⁴Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF)

Conception and Organisation: Tome Sandevski (Goethe University Frankfurt), Paulina Conrad (DAM) and Dr Katharina Sielemann (Helmholtz SynCom).

On June 30 and July 1, 2025, the HydroExtremes Synthesis Workshop took place in Karlsruhe, coordinated by Peter Knippertz and Harald Kunstmann as part of the Helmholtz SynCom Project. About 40 researchers from six Helmholtz Centres came together to compile numerical and AI/hybrid modeling approaches as well as available datasets related to hydro-meteorological extremes within the Helmholtz community. This inventory was aligned along the entire process chain of hydro-meteorological events. A highlight was the contribution from the Erftverband, offering practical insights into water risk management. In the discussions, research gaps, potential for cooperation, and strategies for stakeholder engagement were addressed.

The following Helmholtz Centres participated:

• Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)
• Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ)
• GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences (incl. Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS))
• Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon (incl. Climate Service Center Germany – GERICS)
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
• Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)

The workshop will result in a joint synthesis report, highlighting the strengths of Helmholtz water research in the field of hydrometeorological extreme events and identifying new pathways for future collaboration.

On 29 April, the EGU25 Science-Policy Splinter Meeting, hosted by Marie Heidenreich, the Head of SynCom, set the scene for sharing ideas and networking to find out how research not only enriches, but also guides policy-making. Equipped with participatory tools to enable collective thinking, the session established an interactive momentum towards closer collaboration between Earth system science and political decision-making.

The session on ‘Strengthening Policy Through Science: Insights from the Interface’ opened on 2 May with a keynote address by Denis Naughten, former Irish Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment (2016-2018). Co-convened by Marie Heidenreich, with the prime objective of analyzing and strengthening ‘science-society-policy dialogues’, the session highlighted case studies developed by scientists, policy researchers, science communicators as well as regulators. Presentations spanned across various topics such as collaborations for methane abatement to reduced underwater noise with improved technology and regulations. Complemented by posters, both on-site, and virtual (held on 30 April), the session played a vital role in emphasizing how an ‘interface’ is necessary to bridge science and policy for a sustainable future.   

With about 25 participants across the European Parliament, the European Commission, industry, NGOs, and academia, and 15 scienists from different Helmholtz centres, the workshop helped identify practical agreements on regulatory requirements and industry needs on chemical risk assessments.

The workshop opened with introductory remarks from Dr. Andreas Krell (Helmholtz Brussels) and Henry Hempel (UFZ) who framed the context for the subsequent deliberations. This was followed by three impulse lectures by Helmholtz scientists, where,

Dr. Pia-Johanna Schweizer (RIFS/GFZ) offered insights on how the ModHaz project is refining assessment indicators to strike a balance between chemical pollution management and industrial competitiveness;

Prof. Dr. Beate Escher (UFZ) presented the concept of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) and how EU Chemicals Policy could be informed by CTE/PTE;

and Henry Hempel (UFZ) shed light on on-going debates and future pathways from the viewpoint of stakeholders.

Further, deeper exchanges focused on stakeholder perspectives took place in a World Café format on the following:

• Priorities and Trade-Offs of the REACH Revision: Key priorities in European chemical regulation; areas of practical compromises, and non-negotiable boundaries
• NAMs and the CTE/PTE Concept: Exploring the scope of integrating NAMs (including CTE/PTE) into CLP or REACH; endpoints or processes that should be considered for future practices
• Actors of EU Chemicals Policy: Stakeholder’s role in shaping the REACH revision; mapping of actors who have experienced a shift in their influence in EU Chemicals Policy

The workshop closed with a networking lunch allowing further dialogue on aligning the agreements, considerations and the NAMs in the revised legislation. Participants of the workshop appreciated the opportunity to interact, “understand other sector’s perspectives” and acknowledged the need for “rethinking of ways to bridge collaboration”. It was also emphasized that the workshop helped in “highlighting major issues” and initiate a “paradigm shift” in chemicals regulation. Participants also valued the “inter-disciplinary approach” of the workshop, and look forward to an informed EU Chemicals policy landscape.

The event began with a warm welcome from Lukas Daubner of the Zentrum Liberale Moderne. This was followed by an introduction to Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods by Prof. Dr Helmuth Thomas from the Helmholtz Centre Hereon. Stefanie Gerhart (ecoLocked) and Carla Glassl (Ucaneo) then shared fascinating insights into the business models of CDR companies. The session concluded with a panel discussion with Andreas Jung, MdB (CDU) and Dr. Anton Hofreiter, MdB (BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN).

In the subsequent lively discussion, the focus was on the ongoing coalition negotiations, CO2 transport, the inclusion or exclusion of gas-fired power plants for CCS, and natural carbon sinks such as peatland rewetting, reforestation, and seagrass meadows. Participants from politics, business, research, and government agencies expressed great appreciation for the opportunity to address the topic of negative emissions and CO2 removal, quite literally at the top level, in the Bundestag at such a crucial moment in the coalition talks.

The highly engaging and constructive exchange was organized by the Deutscher Verband für negative Emissionen e.V. (DVNE), the Zentrum Liberale Moderne, and the Helmholtz SynCom Coordination Office.

The Helmholtz delegation brought expertise from:

• Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) – on Arctic Sea ice and extreme weather links
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) – on troposphere research and severe convective storms
• GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel – on seismic risks and deep ocean and climate interactions
• Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research (UFZ) – on computational hydrosystems and climate adaptation strategies
• German Aerospace Center (DLR) – on AI-powered forecasting and remote sensing
• Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) – on supercomputing and high-resolution flood modeling
• Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences (GFZ) – on flood risk and climate adaptation
• Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon/GERICS – on climate services and risk assessment

With invitation from Hildegard Bentele, MEP, of the European People's Party (EPP) and member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), our program included several other meetings and activities such as meetings with European Research Council (ERC) members, the delegate for the research field Earth and Environment at Helmholtz Brussels Office, European Space Agency (ESA) representatives, Dr Juha-Pekka Japola from the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO), MEP Jutta Paulus (Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance), the Interim Executive Director from the Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP), and an interactive science communication activity with Dr. Samuel Gregson (particle physicist). In the following subsections, we summarize key highlights of our successful trip to Brussels.

Our delegation trip was kicked off with an ice-breaker session in the Hotel lobby to get to know each-other and share different responsibilities for the entire excursion. For further networking among the Helmholtz Center representatives, we headed to Place de Jourdan, Maison d’Antoine, for a classic Belgian evening with Belgian french fries and beers.

The Helmholtz Earth & Environment research delegation was being hosted by Hildegard Bentele, MEP. During the exchange, MEP Bentele offered insights as a rapporteur on key topics such as water resilience, biotechnology, and critical raw materials.

For the meetings with the stakeholders in Brussels, the Helmholtz researchers of the delegation presented compelling pitches on record-shattering weather extremes, setting the stage for a dynamic discussion on

• operationalizing flash flood impact-based predictions
• strengthening the recovery-preparedness nexus in extreme weather risk
• financing climate protection initiatives

As the lead of the European Parliament's intergroup on water, MEP Bentele highlighted the broader yet practical aspects of climate actions such the division of responsibilities across local, state, national, and European levels, and the evolving political landscape and its impact on environmental policies. She greatly valued the researchers' expertise, proposed actions, and recommendations – reinforcing the critical role of science in shaping policy.

Next, the delegation was offered a tour of the European Parliament by Gregor Nägeli (Accredited Parliamentary Assistant). As a special highlight, the delegation was invited to attend an EU Parliament committee meeting, where Barry Andrews, MEP (Fianna Fáil, Renew Europe), Chair of the Development Committee (DEVE), welcomed us with a powerful statement:

“We are very grateful for what you do. We need research to inform policies”

In addition to the formal meetings, it was fascinating to see the MEP mailboxes, the cutting-edge media broadcasting stations, and important political meetings going on in the cafeteria.

Our 3rd day in Brussels started with insightful discussions with ERC members at the Helmholtz Brussels Office. Noélie Auvergne (Policy Analyst) informed us about the science to policy activities, especially, in the context of ERC projects informing policy. Julie Oppenheimer (Project Advisor) gave a presentation on ERC funding opportunities for early- and mid-career researchers. In each year, the most funded topic has changed depending on the current demand for the research field. This discussion motivated many of us for thinking/applying for next ERC calls in the future.

After the ERC meeting, we had a great discussion with Dr Andreas Krell (Delegate for the Research Field Earth and Environment) about Helmholtz’s activities in the Research Field related to the European context: The Helmholtz Brussels Office provides access to and information on research funding, strategic alliances, more visibility, and political dialogue.

Next, we headed to the European Space Agency (ESA). After a warm welcome, Mathilde Reumaux (EU Programme Coordinator) gave us a detailed overview of ESA’s work. Among 23 member states of ESA, main budget contributions for ESA are from Germany and France and the highest portion of budget allocation is for earth observation. Further, Stefanie Lumnitz (Policy Officer) added more detail on the EC-ESA Earth System Science initiative of the Research and Innovation Directorate of the European Commission (DG-RTD) and the European Space Agency. Dr Karim Douch (Research Fellow) gave insights on hydrology and weather extremes projects and initiatives at the ESA Science Hub. He highlighted that it is required to make the most of earth observation data to advance earth science in order to improve operational activities.

After the insightful meeting with ESA, we had a great exchange with the EU Commission DG ECHO on natural hazards and extreme weather events. This visit was further enriched by gaining more insights into the EU Civil Protection Mechanism/the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and its role in disaster response.

Particularly, in 2024, 40-50% of disaster responses were related to climate. It is clear that more actions are required for climate resilient development. Furthermore, Dr Juha-Pekka highlighted the need for collaborative projects with strong practice partners and showed possibilities to work together with the ERCC.

In the late afternoon, we headed back to the European Parliament for an exchange with Jutta Paulus, MEP. We discussed current EU water regulations, emphasizing the missing regulation for wastewater. Furthermore, Jutta Paulus mentioned the requirement for improving water efficiency in urban areas and water reuse. She highlighted the benefits of nature-based solutions for water resilient strategies.

Our day ended with a fascinating science-communication talk by Dr. Samuel Gregson on particle physics. We had a relaxing time discovering the Higgs Boson through engaging digital games.

On the last day of our trip to Brussels, we learned how independent think-tanks, such as the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) work to nudge stakeholders towards science-based policy making and how this environmental lobbying relies heavily on philanthropist’s donations. Along with this introduction, the IEEP Interim Executive Director Antoine Oger gave a summary of how policy making has changed, now that the focus of the European Parliament has shifted from environmental protection towards European competitiveness. In this context, we discussed options for science-policy engagement on national and local level and were encouraged to become active on this regional scale, which is especially relevant for climate adaptation measures.

‘EE Meets EP’ Summary

During the SynCom initiative ‘EE meets EP 2025’, we got first insights into the fast-paced environment of Brussels, a city seemingly laced with buildings associated with the European Union. On our race from one meeting to another, we were introduced to a range of different subjects, spanning from how voting lists are built in the European Parliament to how European aid supplies are distributed by the Emergency Response Coordination Centre - the common denominator of those very different meetings usually being that we found the last meeting even more interesting than the previous.

Multiple things stood out to us. Just as in science, time and trust appear to be the two dominant currencies in politics. For instance, if a third-party such as think-tanks or companies want to reach the European Commission to influence budgeting or current policy papers, individual networks and thus established trust is crucial. Part of the trust’s importance is undoubtedly directly related to the scarcity and thus value of time. Since, due to the range and sheer amount of policy files, both parliamentarians and commissioners rely on reports and the objectivity of those compiling them.

When Johann Goethe said “Every second is of infinite value” he must have had a premonition of what an EU parliamentarian’s schedule will look like. We believe we didn’t see a single person walking the halls of the parliament who wasn’t power-walking, reading something on their phones or both. This general restlessness was also apparent in both our meetings with MEPs, which while both genuinely interested, were continually focused on what information could relate back to current strategy papers they were involved in.

That presentations have to be tailored to the addressed target group is a concept so established, that you are already tired of hearing it as an Early Career Researcher. This EE meets EP initiative has further reinforced the importance of this statement for many of us — not because its truth wasn’t already apparent enough, but because it demonstrated just how strongly political agendas are shaped by issues that receive strong representation in mainstream media.

The goal of the workshop was to convey the basics of political communication and to highlight communication approaches and instruments for the science-policy dialogue. The 30 participants from more than 15 different organizations also benefited from an intensive exchange of experiences.

Key Aspects and Challenges in the Science-Policy Dialogue

Workshop lead Tome Sandevski (Goethe University Frankfurt) gave broad insights into the topic of science communication, focusing on the exchange with politics and administration. In addition to the presentation of political processes, the role of scientific expertise in political decision-making processes was discussed. Participants were also given an overview of various science-policy formats and knowledge exchange structures between research and politics/administration. Helmholtz SynCom brought along some examples in the form of fact sheets and policy briefs synthesizing Earth system research from the Helmholtz Research Field Earth & Environment. These products were emphasized on the second workshop day in personal discussions with representatives from politics as positive examples of the clear presentation of evidence-based options for action for environmental and climate policy. In an interactive exercise, the researchers identified characteristics of a good science-policy publication. According to these discussions, such publications should i) contain a summary of the key messages, ii) be as concise as possible in order to take account for the lack of time in politics, iii) integrate infographics/visual representations and iv) contain the main statements in the headlines wherever possible.

The second day focused on the exchange of experiences in the science-policy area. The researchers were given insights into successful science communication by Dr Torsten Fischer (Head of Communications and Media, Helmholtz Centre Hereon), both through personal experiences and examples from the Helmholtz Centre Hereon with its approximately 1000 employees.

In an interactive session with three representatives from politics and administration - Tyark Reddig (research assistant in the German Bundestag), Dr. Manuela Krakau (BMUV officer) and Dr. Heike Kaupp (Head of Department at the Berlin Senate Department for Mobility, Transport, Climate Protection and the Environment) - insights into their respective areas of responsibility were provided and the role of scientific expertise was highlighted. Together, they discussed, which approaches to dialogue between science and practice and the provision of knowledge for decision-makers work particularly well, and where optimization is needed. The dialogue showed, among other things, that it is not about presenting a desired ‘ideal solution’, but about highlighting various options for action and possible solutions that can be taken into account in a framework for action. It is also helpful to point out ‘red lines’, i.e., clear boundaries and indispensable conditions. In addition, it was emphasized that options for action from science gain in importance if they are developed jointly and across institutions. In this context, the German Marine Research Alliance was emphasized by guests as a positive example. It also strengthens the dialogue between science and politics, industry, and civil society by bringing together different stakeholders. Through its interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary formats (e.g., parliamentary evenings), it enables researchers to contribute their findings to the political process in a targeted manner and to support decision-makers.

What Really Matters

The following key points for communication in the political arena can be derived from the content inputs, the personal exchange of experiences, and the discussions with the representatives from the political arena:

• Needs-based communication: Scientific findings should be communicated in an understandable and solution-orientated way (e.g., by presenting scenarios) so that they can be taken into account in political decision-making processes. At the same time, it is important to choose the right time to present scientific findings. Suitable opportunities are, for example, coalition negotiations or the preparation of draft legislation (so-called draft bills), as scientific principles can be introduced most effectively in these decisive phases.
• (Interaction) Formats: There are various ways for researchers to promote exchange (e.g., parliamentary events, policy briefs and fact sheets, personal speeches, participation in committees). The selection should be based on the research institution's objectives and communication strategy, but should also take into account personal strengths and preferences. Representatives of politics and administration often come into contact with science on the fringes of events such as parliamentary evenings, scientific conferences or stakeholder platforms.
• Researchers as ‚Honest Brokers’: The role of science is to provide scientific facts and knowledge – presented in an understandable and practical way, always taking into account the respective target audience. In dialogue with political actors, it is crucial to address socially relevant issues and present them in a context that can be used in practice. Awareness of the different working methods of science and politics - particularly with regard to time logic (long-term research processes vs. the need to react quickly and pragmatically to current events or social needs), priorities, and approaches - is crucial in order to set realistic expectations and shape the dialogue between science and politics constructively. Transparent communication about the state of research, uncertainties, and possible impacts on society, the environment, and the economy strengthens trust in the quality of scientific support for political decision-making. It is important to clearly separate this objective from science policy goals (e.g., funding certain areas of research).

Particularly in politically challenging times, there is a risk of scientific findings being deliberately instrumentalized or distorted or that they will not even be included in decisive discourses. At the same time, disinformation and deliberate polarization make public debate more difficult and pose new challenges for scientific institutions as a whole. In order to both preserve the integrity of scientific findings and promote public discourse, it is crucial to facilitate a constructive exchange.

Overall, the participating researchers gained a valuable basis for communication at a political level. They received tools for communicating their research findings in a generally understandable way and were sensitized to the requirements of communicating with political actors.

Conception and organization: Tome Sandevski (Goethe University Frankfurt), Paulina Conrad (DAM) and Dr. Katharina Sielemann (Helmholtz SynCom).

More than 20 researchers across the Helmholtz Earth & Environment Centres UFZ, FJZ, RIFS/GFZ, Hereon, AWI, and KIT, as well as from the HZDR and HZB participated and collaborated with project leaders Nick Wierckx (FZJ), Paul Einhäupl (RIFS), and Anran Luo (UFZ) to identify key stakeholders, discuss project objectives, and lay the working framework for SPHERE. The kick-off was designed to enable online participation, which saw a strong presence and contribution from several Helmholtz scientists.

The workshop opened with an introductory presentation by the project leads, sharing their motivation for focus on end-of-life plastics degradation and the proposed activities of the project. During the workshop, group dialogues enabled project participants to correlate their individual research with the plastics management cycle.

The afternoon session comprised a deeper dive into three major focus areas identified for SPHERE: i) Scientific Synthesis ii) Policy Areas, and iii) Stakeholders. In a World Café format, Helmholtz scientists analyzed priorities for plastics research, plastics management, and concurrent policies, and identified key stakeholders from science, industry, and politics for meaningful outreach and inclusion into the SPHERE project.   

The workshop concluded with a discussion of major insights from the sessions. Participants expressed interest in exploring various specific themes, some of them being plastics degradation and weathering, marine governance, standardized regulations for microplastics management, technology readiness, and stakeholder interactions, among others.

The kick-off wrapped up on an enthusiastic note of contribution from all attendees. The project leads and SynCom team anticipate steady progress of SPHERE in the upcoming months and look forward to the next workshop for more such dynamic science-policy syntheses.

The World Café was organized by Paulina Conrad from the German Marine Research Alliance, Meike Lohkamp, Science-Policy-Fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability RIFS, Hai Ha Tran from the German Research Foundation as well as Katharina Sielemann and Marie Heidenreich from Helmholtz SynCom (see list of participating institutions below).

Impulse: From Evidence to Decision

Marie Heidenreich's impulse made it clear that, despite their different working logics, science and politics are dependent on each other in order to tackle complex global challenges such as the climate crisis and implement effective environmental policy. However, many of the existing systems for science-based policy advice are incomplete or are not used systematically enough. According to Heidenreich's observations from parliamentary formats, the political and scientific systems follow different logics: politicians often want clear recommendations for action that can be implemented in the short term, especially during acute crises, while researchers tend to outline various options for action, make uncertainties transparent and remain aware of their scientific limitations.

The close exchange between politics and science can help to clarify the specific information needs of politics at an early stage, form transdisciplinary research teams, translate scientific findings into clear, target group-oriented key messages and offer targeted dialogue events. Cooperation between several research institutions strengthens scientific credibility and improves the transfer of research findings into concrete political decisions.

If this interaction is implemented well, science can not only identify politically relevant options, but also provide evidence-based impulses for long-term environmental and climate protection strategies. This creates a continuous, trust-based exchange in which both sides receive the information they need to jointly develop effective solutions.

The participants discussed the specified questions relating to science policy dialogs at four themed tables. After around twelve minutes of discussion, the participants moved to the next table; at the end, all the results were summarized.

Table A: Which Science Policy Formats Can Effectively Support and Complement the Political Debate?

Host: Meike Lohkamp, RIFS

The participants explored a variety of formats with which science can contribute its expertise to political processes. The formats mentioned included hearings in parliament, parliamentary breakfasts and evenings in the Bundestag and state parliaments, round tables, 1:1 discussions, visits to research institutions and corresponding guided tours for members of parliament, conferences with integrated policy sessions as well as policy briefs and one-pagers. In addition, events specifically for office managers and employees, newsletters for political actors and cooperative approaches between city administrations, academia and civil society (e.g. at festivals) were mentioned.

The participants emphasized that objectives and target groups determine the selection of the appropriate format. More personal meetings such as 1:1 discussions and round tables are suitable for an in-depth exchange of expertise, while larger events often reach more people and promote networking. The importance of follow-up was also emphasized so that contacts are maintained and the discussion does not end after a one-time event.

On the occasion of the session, Meike Lohkamp published the new guide “Parliamentary Events - A Guide for Science Organizations and Communicators”, which she wrote as a Science Policy Fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability RIFS:

https://publications.rifs-potsdam.de/rest/items/item_6003769_2/component/file_6003856/content

The guide provides practical advice on format selection, legal framework conditions, invitation management and evaluation methods. Several participants particularly praised the structured tips on patronage, scheduling and feedback mechanisms.

Table B: How Can the Scientific Quality of the Science-Policy Dialog Be Ensured, and How Can We Prepare Scientists for the Dialog With Policymakers?

Host: Paulina Conrad, DAM

At this thematic table, the focus was on the fact that researchers often have to meet different expectations when they engage in political discourse. Several participants emphasized that there is not just “politics”, but that political actors act differently at various levels - from local to international politics. It should also be taken into account that ministries and administrations are characterized by hierarchies and responsibilities and that functions can sometimes be influenced by party politics, while the speaker level, for example, can offer an important platform for professional exchange. This is precisely where target group-oriented communication comes in: Researchers should know the roles, motivations and decision-making processes of their addressees in order to convey complex content concisely.

The presentation of options for action turned out to be an area of tension: on the one hand, many members of parliament want concrete, action-oriented options; on the other hand, researchers attach importance to making uncertainties transparent and not making hasty recommendations. Through workshops for early career researchers, communication training, and guidance from professional mediators (science policy brokers), researchers could learn to master this balancing act.

Another point was reflecting on one’s own role: transparency, when speaking as a scientist and when speaking as a private individual, creates credibility. In conclusion, there was agreement that a recursive transfer can occur when new impulses and needs from politics flow back into research and help shape the scientific agenda.

Table C: How Can We Evaluate the Effectiveness of Science Policy Dialogs?

Host: Katharina Sielemann, Helmholtz SynCom

The participants agreed that evaluation should be integrated into the planning of such dialogs at an early stage. It is important to define realistic goals: Scientific interventions are more likely to result in agenda setting or consideration than in an immediate change in the law. Unanticipated effects – such as spontaneous follow-up activities or additional expert discussions – are just as relevant as the response on site and the mood during the event.

The participants also discussed possible methods, ranging from qualitative follow-up surveys and systematic observation (e.g. mention in committee debates) to quantitative indicators such as participant numbers or social media reach. Confidentiality was mentioned several times as a challenging factor: Particularly in bilateral discussions, the influence on political positions is hardly visible to the public. Despite these hurdles, a good evaluation design can provide valuable insights into effectiveness and potential areas for improvement.

Table D: How Do We Reach Political Actors (e.g., Ministries vs. MPs)?

Host: Hai Ha Tran, DFG

The participants observed that different institutions and levels (ministries, state parliaments, federal parliament, local authorities) require different approaches. Ministries often deal with specialist topics on a long-term basis and appreciate detailed information. Members of parliament, on the other hand, often need quickly usable input and short, concise key messages. Constituency-specific approaches or local cooperation can also make access easier.

Networking was highlighted as a key factor for successful dialog: Existing contacts, for example via fellows, committee memberships or patronage, make a significant contribution to invitations being accepted in the first place. At the same time, the discussants saw events in the close distance of parliamentary locations and in convenient time slots as factors promoting a higher participation rate.

As part of a public affairs and science policy strategy, the participants rated the profiling of researchers as publicly visible personalities as particularly worthwhile. Social media channels such as LinkedIn, for example, allow presidents of scientific organizations to comment directly on legislative initiatives and engage with politicians. In this way, science-based arguments can be fed into decision-making processes in an unfiltered manner and interest in specialist expertise can be increased in a targeted manner.

Conclusion and Outlook

In the final round, the participants were impressed by the intensive professional exchange that took place in just 90 minutes. It became clear that target group-specific formats, careful preparation and consistent follow-up are crucial for the success of science policy dialogues. A recurring keyword was the desire for a permanent exchange among science managers who promote the science policy dialog in Germany - for example in a network or forum in which experiences could be shared, new ideas tested and joint strategies developed.

The session ended with a joint summary: science can enrich political processes with well-founded expertise, provided that politics and science engage in an early and ongoing exchange, the formats are well thought out and there is active follow-up of individual events. In this way, an effective dialog between science and politics can succeed - in line with the forum's overarching theme of “Science communication for a strong democracy and open society”.

Participating Institutions

• acatech/Energiesysteme der Zukunft (ESYS)
• Alfred Toepfer Stiftung F.V.S.
• Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie
• ConflictA, Universität Bielefeld
• Deutsches Primatenzentrum (DPZ)
• DLR Projektträger
• DLR-PT Kompetenzzentrum Wissenschaftskommunikation
• DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH
• Forschungsinstitut Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt am SOCIUM
• Forscherstation gGmbH
• GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel
• Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker e.V.
• Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg - Institute for Advanced Study (HWK)
• Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
• Helmholtz Klima
• Hochschule Mittweida
• iDiv – Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung
• Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik (IFSH)
• Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (KU)
• Klaus Tschira Stiftung gGmbH
• Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
• Leopoldina
• Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
• Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
• Nationales Institut für Wissenschaftskommunikation (NaWik) gGmbH
• ProLOEWE
• RIFS Potsdam - Research Institute for Sustainability
• RHET AI Center, Universität Tübingen
• Rhein-Main-Universitäten
• sDiv – das Synthesezentrum am iDiv
• Stifterverband
• SynCom Helmholtz Erde und Umwelt
• Technische Universität Dresden
• Universität Duisburg-Essen
• Universität Kassel
• Universität Konstanz, EXC The Politics of Inequality
• Universität Münster
• VolkswagenStiftung
• Weizenbaum-Institut
• Wissenschaft im Dialog gGmbH
• Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)
• WissensWorte
• Zentrum für Marine Umweltwissenschaften (MARUM)
• Zeitverlag

Despite the political turbulences caused by the government coalition’s breakup just the day before, it was decided not to cancel the event. Both Harald Ebner and Helmholtz SynCom agreed: Even in times of crisis, dialogue must continue, and we must work together on solutions and innovations that balance ecological and economic needs. This decision was welcomed by the members of parliament, parliamentary staff, scientists, regulatory authorities, industry representatives, and NGOs who engaged into the lively discussion.

Following Harald Ebner’s opening remarks, three presentations by Helmholtz researchers Dr. Pia-Johanna Schweizer, Prof. Dr. Beate Escher, and Prof. Dr. Sina Leipold were held. The central message of the evening was that current methods for chemical assessment are inadequate to keep up with the increasing pace and complexity of new substances. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) or In Vitro Assays, were highlighted as crucial tools to more efficiently and rapidly identify hazardous chemicals.

Dr. Pia-Johanna Schweizer from the Research Institute for Sustainability – Helmholtz Centre Potsdam (RIFS) gave an overview on the environmental chemicals issue. She presented findings from the ModHaz project, explaining how a co-creative process was used to align the interests of industry, NGOs, scientists, and regulatory authorities to develop practical solutions for chemical assessment. Schweizer emphasized that dialogue among diverse stakeholders is vital for overcoming regulatory barriers and paving the way for innovative approaches like NAMs.

Prof. Dr. Beate Escher from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) stressed the need for modern, efficient chemical assessment methods due to the growing complexity and number of substances. She demonstrated how broader use of NAMs could replace animal testing with faster and more resource-efficient alternatives, thus addressing critical gaps in current regulations. Escher focused particularly on the concepts of 'Cumulative Toxicity Equivalents' (CTE) and 'Persistent Toxicity Equivalents' (PTE). The combination of these concepts allows for the evaluation of chemical persistence and toxicity characteristics and is applicable to individual substances, mixtures, and substances that are difficult to analyze. She illustrated how NAMs can prevent 'regrettable substitutions', where one harmful substance is replaced by another equally hazardous one, using examples such as PFAS and Bisphenol-A alternatives. She also pointed out that regulatory acceptance of NAMs is often hindered by limited resources and conservative structures within agencies – a concern echoed by attendees in the later discussion.

Prof. Dr. Sina Leipold from the UFZ explored how Germany could take a leading role in European chemical regulation and promote NAMs. She emphasized the economic and political influence of the German chemical sector in Europe. Germany could contribute more actively to expert groups at the EU level (such as CARACAL) to modernize the REACH regulation and integrate NAMs systematically. Faster incorporation of NAMs into REACH could reduce the risks posed by hazardous chemicals, especially from mixture effects. Leipold discussed strategic approaches identified in stakeholder workshops, such as "chemical simplification," which involves reducing the number and diversity of chemicals used in products to lower exposure to harmful substances. Alternatively, there is the strategy of enhancing chemical diversity to support Germany and Europe’s competitiveness and to provide the material basis for sustainable technological innovations. She highlighted the importance of considering mixture effects in regulation and noted that science is already able to offer knowledge and methodologies for safer chemical governance.

Key points were further discussed:

• Mechanisms of NAMs: How to investigate the specific characteristics of substances and the variations between different compounds.
• Ways to introduce NAMs into regulation: Their potential role in relation to Classification, Labeling, and Packaging regulations. Should new labels and limits be introduced, or should NAMs serve as preliminary tests for further evaluation steps?
• Validation and Regulatory Hesitancy: Steps necessary to accelerate regulatory acceptance of NAMs.
• Industry Implementation: How to support companies in integrating NAMs into their processes without jeopardizing competitiveness.

The attendees expressed the evening’s enriching contribution. The scientific presentations, the discussions, and the involvement of diverse sectors – science, industry, regulatory authorities, and politics – were particularly appreciated. There were also suggestions to make the demands more concrete, especially tailored towards decision-makers at the EU level.

The evening concluded with informal conversations that further deepened the exchange between science, politics, and industry. The event showed the importance of interdisciplinary and cross-institutional dialogue to sustainably address pressing challenges like chemical regulation.

Lisa Badum, Chairwoman of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen for the Committee on Climate Action and Energy and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Climate and Energy Policy, opened the breakfast and pointed out that the reduction of methane emissions is currently a very relevant topic for the Bundestag. She emphasised the importance of methane as a powerful greenhouse gas that represents an important lever in climate protection.

Leopoldina Vice President Prof. Robert Schlögl and Helmholtz Vice President Prof. Dr. Susan-ne Buiter then welcomed the guests. Prof. Buiter emphasised: “Precise satellite measurements show for the first time the full extent of methane emissions in Germany - and how urgently we need to act. In view of the high short-term climate impact of methane, it is of the utmost importance that we consistently implement the EU Methane Regulation at national level and immediately reduce emissions in the energy and agricultural sectors”.

Prof. Dr. Robert Schlögl emphasised the need to minimise technical emissions in energy production: “Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, but it will remain relevant as a natural gas for energy production in the foreseeable future. This makes it all the more important to avoid technically induced methane emissions during production and transport”.

During the event, leading scientists provided exciting insights into current research and discussed necessary political measures. Prof. Dr. Susanne Liebner from the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam - GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences provided an overview of methane concentrations in the atmosphere and pointed out the current rapid increase. She emphasised the importance of peatlands and thawing permafrost as significant sources of biogenic methane emissions: “With the Global Methane Pledge, Germany has also made a commitment to reduce its methane emissions by 30 % by 2030 compared to 2020. In light of new studies, we need to restore confidence in what has already been achieved and improve the reporting of methane emissions overall”.

PD Dr. Ralf Sussmann from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) focused on the energy sector in his presentation and emphasised the role of new technologies in the detection and reduction of emissions: “In addition to reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, our strongest lever for reducing emissions is the elimination of large sources that can be detected by new satellite technologies”.

Prof. Dr. Markus Reichstein from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry made it clear that agriculture, as the largest emitter of methane in Germany, requires special attention: “When regulating methane emissions, agriculture must be brought into focus. It is the largest emitter nationwide, and these methane emissions have barely decreased in recent years”.

In the subsequent discussion with members of the Bundestag, the following topics in particular were discussed in depth:

• Transformation of agriculture towards an animal-free diet: A switch to plant-based diets offers co-benefits such as lower greenhouse gas emissions, more efficient use of resources, a positive effect on biodiversity, improvements in health and animal welfare.
• Upstream chain emissions: Imported LNG fracking gas causes significantly higher methane emissions than conventional pipeline gas, which makes a targeted selection of low-emission suppliers necessary.
• Regulation and incentives to reduce emissions: The extent to which stronger regulations and bans are needed in addition to existing incentives in order to achieve the necessary changes in behaviour and reductions in emissions was discussed. Scientific recommendations could serve as the basis for a targeted policy.
• Future challenges: Leakage from hydrogen networks: When switching to hydrogen as an energy carrier, leakages could become a problem that needs to be addressed proactively.

In the final evaluation (see also Diagram), the participants particularly praised the “clearly summarised facts” and the “reference to the short-term opportunities for success”. It was also positively emphasised that the presentations were "short, clear, understandable” and included “concrete possible solutions”.

In addition to the committed contributions from patron Lisa Badum, other members of the Bundestag from various parliamentary groups also actively contributed to the discussion. The event made it clear that rapid, decisive and scientifically sound implementation of the EU Methane Regulation and national measures is required to achieve the climate targets. The breakfast impressively demonstrated how science and politics can work together to pave the way for effective climate protection.

During the first part of the event, we launched our CDR expertise mapping website (available at hereon.de/cdr-expertise), which showcases a diverse range of projects related to various aspects of CDR. Over 50 projects, involving numerous organizations, were compiled in the CDR expertise mapping. This network, which makes science more visual and more accessible, supports CDR researchers in identifying projects relevant to their expertise. In addition to helping scientists find suitable collaboration partners, the CDR expertise mapping establishes a foundation for deeper dialogue between science and industry, as well as potential future collaborations.

For the Networking Dinner, we gathered outstanding experts to discuss relevant questions related to CDR with invited stakeholders:

• What is the perception of CDR in the German society?; Expert: Dr. Rodrigo Valencia (GERICS/Hereon)
• How can politics contribute to a responsible and effective application of carbon dioxide removal methods? And how can the ramp-up of technologies be achieved in a timely manner given the required quantities?; Expert: Dr. Miranda Boettcher (SWP)
• Why do we need Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) and what could be possible strategies to implement MRV systems? Experts: Dr. Allanah Paul (Bellona), Dr. Klas Ove Möller (Hereon)
• What should be improved in collaboration with science and how can we connect start-ups with bigger players/larger companies for technology development? Experts: Carla Glassl (Ucaneo), Dr. Dhana Wolf (DACStorE)
• What is our current state of research on CDR methods? Experts: Prof. Dr. Daniela Thrän (UFZ), Lukas Fehr (LMU München, CDRterra), Dr. Michael Sswat (CDRmare/GEOMAR)

This ‘Dialogue and Dinner’ format provided a unique opportunity to engage with experts in the field and explore critical topics that will impact our future.

Additionally, we engaged in discussions about the future of the project consortium and the collaborative network of scientists involved in the SynCom Project over the past year.

On the evening of the first workshop day, we launched the CDR expertise mapping (available at https://hereon.de/cdr-expertise), coordinated by Dr. Rodrigo Valencia (GERICS/Hereon) and Dr. Katharina Sielemann (Helmholtz SynCom). Together with invited stakeholders from industry, politics, and other research organizations, we addressed five relevant CDR-related questions in our ‘Dialogue and Dinner’ format.

After lunch of the second day, we visited NeoCarbon and talked to Co-Founder and CTO Silvain Toromanoff to learn about their Direct Air Capture technology.

Moderator Marie Heidenreich, head of the SynCom office in the Helmholtz Research Field Earth & Environment, opened the breakfast at 7:30 a.m. in the Jakob-Kaiser-Haus in the German Bundestag. In addition to the massive reduction in CO₂ emissions, negative emissions are necessary to achieve the German climate goal of climate neutrality in 2045: ‘Today, we would like to talk about the 'net' in 'net zero 2045', she welcomed the guests.

In her welcoming speech, Dr. Nina Scheer said that the priority in climate policy must be on avoiding CO₂ emissions. She underlined the challenge of dealing with the amounts of CO₂ and warned against ruling out individual measures to avoid and adapt to climate change.

Prof. Dr. Julia Pongratz (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München and spokesperson for the BMBF research program CDRterra) introduced the topic of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), and gave an overview of the different CO₂ removal methods. She emphasized that ‘in order to spread risks and increase acceptance (…) we needed a broad portfolio of CDR measures’. She presented the advantages and disadvantages of the different CDR methods in terms of storage permanence, storage potential, costs, and side effects. In addition, she raised concerns that the potentially long time scales for upscaling had to be taken into account when developing the CDR portfolio. Therefore, incentive mechanisms must be put in place now to ensure planning security.

After the introductory lecture, the speakers discussed two selected methods for carbon dioxide removal: BECCS and DACCS.

First, Prof. Dr. Daniela Thrän from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ in Leipzig talked about bioenergy with CO₂ capture and storage (English: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, BECCS). Thrän pointed out that BECCS can be integrated into the existing bioenergy infrastructure and immediately contribute to CO₂ removal. Politically necessary are ‘a framework for action for both, the sustainable provision of biomass and for carbon capture and storage,’ a funding program for BECCS demonstrators and the ‘integration of the land use sector into CO₂ emissions certificate trading.’

Afterwards, Prof. Dr. Roland Dittmeyer from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) presented another CDR method: Direct Air Capture - the removal of CO₂ from the air with subsequent storage (DACCS). The leading DAC approach uses solid absorbers and regeneration at around 100°C. Dittmeyer sees potential for the integration of direct air capture technology in ventilation systems of large industrial plants and office complexes and emphasizes the need for research and development: ‘New DAC technologies need to be developed that require less energy and can utilize waste heat, with components that can be manufactured inexpensively on an industrial scale.’ Despite many studies, there are so far few reference systems, which makes the costs difficult to estimate. However, a price that is significantly higher than the $100 per tonne of CO₂ mentioned by investors can be expected. Dittmeyer pointed to Climeworks' DAC plant in Iceland, which opened the week before and is the largest in the world with an expected annual CO₂ capture capacity of 36,000 tonnes.

Prof. Dr. Klaus Wallmann from GEOMAR – Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel emphasized the need for CO₂ storage for BECCS, DACCS and industries with emissions that cannot be avoided or are difficult to avoid, such as the cement industry. Billions of tons of CO₂ could be stored beneath the seabed. Wallmann showed which areas in the North Sea are particularly suitable for CCS: marine areas without old drilling, which are also not ‘occupied’ by fishing, wind power, tourism, nature conservation and other competing uses. In summary, he emphasized: ‘The most important thing is that we are now really making progress and the laws and strategies are being passed,’ the key points of the carbon management strategy and the long-term negative emissions strategy are already present. ‘An updated legal framework for the storage and transport of CO₂ in Germany and export to neighboring countries must be created promptly. Since the CCS costs are still significantly higher than the CO₂ prices in European emissions trading, suitable incentive systems must be created to enable the first CCS projects in Germany.’

Following the lectures, there was a lively exchange between members of the Bundestag and ministry representatives with the speakers. The topics covered in the discussion included i) removal of stored CO₂ and the associated infrastructure, ii) industrial reuse of captured carbon, iii) number of DAC systems required and the height from which they suck in the air, iv) possible certification systems and v) acceptance of peatland rewetting. Finally, both, MPs (including a state secretary) and a rapporteur from a government group on the topic of CCS, emphasized the relevance and urgency of CO₂ saving and removal.

The parliamentary breakfast ended after an hour and a half at 9 a.m. before the plenary session of the Bundestag. Many guests stayed longer to delve deeper into the topics in smaller groups. All participants and anyone who is interested is invited to contact the experts on CDR. Key messages and contact details of our experts can be found on our fact sheet.

In May, 2024, in our 2^nd SynCom Hour, we gave insights into the science-policy work of SynCom and gave a short overview of the SynCom Project Call and SynCom Flex Call. Afterwards, the 28 participants of the event had the opportunity to ask their questions on science-policy dialogues and SynCom activities.

In the future, we are planning to organize a SynCom hour every 3-4 months to report on current SynCom developments, to exchange information on current and planned projects, and to answer open questions.

On the first day of the Writing Retreat, the structure of the review and the synthesis section was further developed. Additionally, there was enough time to discuss open questions about different CDR methods. One time slot was specifically used to develop a chapter around permanence and a chapter on land-based CDR opportunities and issues. In the afternoon, the writing group decided to continue a session outside, while walking through sunny Berlin around the Berliner Dom and the Museumsinsel.

The main topics for the second day, which ended with a joint lunch and a discussion about next steps, were biodiversity, soil carbon, and the development of figures for the synthesis paper.

After a short welcome from the project leads, the first day started with an outline of the political landscape of CDR by Jörg Rüger (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK)), emphasizing the necessity of negative emissions and Germany's strategy for net-negative emissions by 2050. The following talk by Prof. Dr. Sabine Fuss (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)) focused on the scientific framework, compared CDR approaches, and discussed the critical role of CDR in projections for achieving Paris Agreement goals, while stressing rigorous assessment and policy prioritization.

The following part of the first workshop day focused on three activities: a synthesis paper on biological CDR methods, an expertise mapping, and a parliamentary event on climate neutrality, BECCS, and DACCS. A breakout session discussed possible COP topics, including CDR financing and market inclusion under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, emphasizing a coordinated Helmholtz presence.

The second day of the workshop focused on the exchange between science and industry. Nine representatives from eight companies shared insights on CDR methods, discussing challenges like scalability, MRV, and the need for collaboration with scientists. They emphasized standardized methodologies, clearer regulations, and faster collaboration timelines.

In summary, the insights into the current scientific and political framework, the discussions on specific project activities between the involved scientists, and the exchange between science and industry are very valuable to advance the knowledge on CDR and the SynCom Project itself.

SynCom took part in the European Geoscience Union (EGU) General Assembly 2024 organizing and contributing to two engaging sessions aimed at fostering collaboration and dialogue at the science-policy interface.

The first session was a so-called splinter meeting i.e. a networking session, which was hosted by Marie Heidenreich. The session served as a platform to exchange ideas and experience between scientists and other actors who work within the science-policy interface. After an icebreaker activity the attendees were divided into three groups, each focusing on different aspects of the science-policy interface. The discussions were lively and constructive, covering the topics i) science-policy experiences, ii) challenges of science-policy interactions and how to overcome them, and iii) big science-policy questions that so far have not been answered.

Further, SynCom organized a PICO session titled ‘Science Policy Interface: Shaping Debates and Building Bridges.’ In this format, each speaker briefly showcased their science-policy project in a two-minute presentation. Afterwards, the audience could directly engage with the speakers and their respective projects during a ‘virtual poster session’. Overall, the session served as a catalyst for dialogue and knowledge exchange, highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing complex societal challenges.

Thirty participants from all seven Helmholtz Earth and Environment Centres came together in Garmisch-Partenkirchen to learn about research statements (workshop by Dr. Viola Gerlach, RIFS), writing a policy brief (workshop by Matthias Tang, RIFS), audio storytelling (workshop by Marie Heidenreich and Dr. Katharina Sielemann, SynCom) as well as stakeholder dialogues and career opportunities in science communication. The participants positively emphasized both, the concept and the networking aspect, of the successful event ‘Bridging Spheres Pop-up Campus’.

The SynCom project group 'ModHaz', consisting of scientific representatives from the participating Helmholtz Centres UFZ, RIFS/GFZ, and Hereon, organized a stakeholder synthesis workshop with the support of SynCom on March 12th and 13th, 2024 in the Magnushaus of the German Physical Society (DPG) in Berlin. 37 stakeholders from companies, business associations and industry, research, NGOs as well as legislation and regulation discussed various aspects of new methodological approaches in chemical assessment, so-called NAMs (New Approach Methodologies).

The synthesis workshop marked the conclusion of a series of four stakeholder-specific workshops in which the participants discussed their common, but also sometimes contradictory, assessments of the current EU chemicals policy and expectations for shaping the future of European chemicals regulation.

The discussion of the synthesis workshop took place in the plenary session and within World Café working groups. It was structured along the following two narratives that the project group for this workshop had developed from the previous online workshops:

i) Rapidly growing production of chemicals, associated pollution of the environment, and its impact on human health, calls for appropriate measures within the framework of a scientifically based method under the premise of the precautionary principle.

ii) Strong focus in legislation on hazard assessment, risk of bans on safe applications, greater consideration of risk assessment, and the preservation of the diversity of substances to ensure competitiveness.

During the course of the event, differences and similarities between the two narratives were discussed. The results will contribute to several scientific publications, the further development of a policy brief and a roadmap for chemical assessment, which will be presented to representatives of the German Bundestag during a parliamentary evening in November 2024.

Interested researchers from all seven Centres of the Research Field Earth and Environment came together on February 16, 2024 for the 1st SynCom Hour. At this online event, the anchor persons first introduced themselves, followed by a presentation from the SynCom coordination office. Afterwards, Beate Escher (UFZ), Pia-Johanna Schweizer (RIFS), and Sina Leipold (UFZ) presented the ongoing SynCom project “A science-society dialogue for modernizing chemical hazard assessment (ModHaz)”. The subsequent discussion highlighted the added value of working in SynCom projects and gave suggestions for future SynCom work. “SynCom is a great opportunity and support,” says Pia-Johanna Schweizer about the ModHaz SynCom project.

Download report (PDF)

A report written by Dr. Marylou Athanase, Dr. Alison Beamish, Dr. Séverine Furst, David Mengen and further delegation members

From December 4th to December 7th, 2023 Helmholtz SynCom traveled to Brussels alongside a delegation comprising selected scientists from the seven Helmholtz Earth and Environment Centres. The purpose was to engage in an exchange of ideas with the European Parliament and various stakeholders. This excursion was extended upon the invitation of Niklas Nienaß, Member of the European Parliament. The program included, amongst other things, meetings with Jutta Paulus, MEP, representatives from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG Climate Action), and the European Space Agency (ESA). In the subsequent text, we share insights into our successful trip!

Day 1: Icebreaker and dinner at Maison Antoine

Despite some train cancellations and snowy conditions, everyone arrived safely in Brussels! Our icebreaker kicked off in the hotel lobby with engaging games aimed at getting to know each other. Roles were assigned, with team members designated for navigation, documentation, and community management. Following this, we headed to Maison Antoine to enjoy the renowned Belgian fries.

Day 2: European Parliament, DG DEFIS, and Institute of Natural Sciences

1. Meeting MEP Jutta Paulus

For each of the stakeholder exchanges, the seven researchers from the seven centers had prepared seven short presentations, providing insights into current research findings. During the discussion with Jutta Paulus, we presented these for the first time, and Ms. Paulus expressed keen interest in the current topics of environmental and climate research.

Amidst insightful discussions on methane and PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ legislation, MEP Jutta Paulus emphasized the imperative of the grouping approach aiming to restrict thousands of chemicals at once, stating that tackling the PFAS issue is fundamentally a “public health concern”. She aptly highlighted the challenge of industry critique, underscoring the necessity to shift focus from the irreplaceable 1% to the replaceable 99%. Additionally, the risk of revising regulations was underscored, acknowledging the potential for weakening rather than consolidating existing measures. Paulus advocated that regulation acts as a catalyst for innovation and emphasized the role of scientists in societal communication, underlining the need for public pressure over traditional lobbying efforts. She highlighted the impactful influence of initiatives like Fridays for Future on politicians. 

“We need public pressure to overcome the lobbies.” (Léonie Bühler, Office of Jutta Paulus)

Paulus deplored that “we are 25 years behind science”, attributing this lag to the inherent delay between scientific discoveries and legislative updates.

2. Tour of the European Parliament

During our tour, we explored the Hemicycle plenary room, assorted meeting rooms and diverse facilities, each playing a pivotal role in the Parliaments functions. Among them was the bustling main hall, a hub for journalistic activities and information dissemination. Additionally, we walked across the half-moon closed bridge, spanning the Esplanade Solidarnosc 1980.

3. Meeting MEP Niklas Nienaß

Efficient policymaking hinges on evidence-based strategies, prompting discussions on how to better communicate our findings to MEPs. As a potential solution, MEP Niklas Nienaß proposed establishing a dedicated channel for disseminating our results more effectively. Suggestions included hosting regular high-impact informational seminars offering comprehensive overviews of the latest scientific advancements. However, challenges arise as existing user-oriented platforms, although rich in valuable data, remain relatively obscure to MEPs. Nienaß expressed caution, citing the necessity for active participation, deeming it an excessive demand. These platforms, perceived as more suitable for one-time use, face barriers in uptake. Alternatively, a more pragmatic approach involves showcasing practical examples and referencing the data sources, advocating for informing MEPs through direct references to the platform, thereby simplifying their accessibility and utilization.

4. Meeting Hugo Zunker, European Commission DG DEFIS

In order to support evidence- and science-based policy decisions, the European Commission implements ambitious Earth observation programs. Hugo Zunker, policy officer in the Copernicus unit of the Directorate-General for Defense Industry and Space (DG DEFIS), presented the landscape of ongoing and future EU space programs addressing crucial gaps and specific needs across various domains.

These programs encompass a wide array of missions, ranging from expanding capabilities to monitor CO2 emissions, crucial for climate action, to specialized missions like sub-daily monitoring of Sea Ice Concentration (SIC) in the Arctic using Passive Microwave Radiometer technology, pivotal for supporting safe ship navigation in challenging conditions. Additionally, the programs focus on monitoring Sea Ice Thickness (SIT), snow depth, and land-ice elevation, pivotal for understanding and responding to environmental changes. Furthermore, they also focus on monitoring forest cover, ground deformation, crop-water use, and agricultural management, providing comprehensive insights crucial for land management and food security. Conjointly with Earth observations, the European Commission additionally fosters modeling efforts, such as the Destination Earth initiative to build digital twins of the Earth in a changing climate.

“We have high expectations for the Destination Earth project.” (Hugo Zunker)

Collectively, these programs underscore the EU's commitment to harnessing space technologies for societal and environmental benefits, emphasizing innovation and sustainability at their core.

5. Meeting the Institute for Natural Sciences 

At the Institute for Natural Sciences, our Belgian peers shared their experience in bridging academic research and environmental policy making. After a concise overview of past and ongoing collaborations with Helmholtz Centres presented by Dr. Serge Scory, discussions turned towards the approach of the Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences regarding involvement in policy advice.

The institute operates within a dynamic two-way process between academic research and stakeholders, fostering the active participation of scientists in negotiations on international treaties like the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR). Two crucial levels of engagement were outlined: political and technical negotiations, emphasizing the need to define focal aspects before presenting to decision-makers. Dr. Hendrik Segers highlighted the cyclical nature of the process: identifying policy questions, collecting and analyzing data, and providing information relevant to policy making. He stressed the importance of scientific projects being tailored not only to scientific inquiries but also to address pertinent policy questions, thus establishing a stronger connection between science and policy making. This science-policy interface emerged as a distinct research theme, underlining the importance of translating scientific inquiry into actionable policy decisions.

Day 3: DG Climate Action, Helmholtz Office Brussels, ESA, and Science Communication

1. Meeting Dušan Chrenek, European Commission DG Climate Action

Day 3 started at the Helmholtz Office Brussels where we were met with the most wonderful hospitality (an extra special thanks again to Alexandra Lawson). Our first meeting was with Dušan Chrenek, Principal Advisor of the European Commission Directorate-General Climate Action, to discuss the importance of Earth observation products to support policy implementation.

Mr. Chrenek expressed his interest in the research we are doing and highlighted the recent cooperation with ESA and DG Climate Action to support better policy making through the availability of better data and applications. The focus of the cooperation is, among other things, on supporting science and related innovations, which can be used directly for political decision-making. Themes of particular relevance included land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), carbon removal certification and greenhouse gas (methane) emission measurements and monitoring. Mr. Chrenek also talked about the current focus on AI as a tool to reduce emissions while also pointing out the importance of decreasing emissions from digital activities. In total, he expected the potential of GHG reduction due to digital transformation between 15% to 20%. With the future extension of emission trading to maritime as well as the building and transport sector, the goal of net zero EU countries as a whole in 2050 can be achieved, aiming at an intermediate step of a reduction of 45% already in 2030. To foster this development, part of the emission trading will be used for financing a 40 Billion Euro innovation fund.

Moreover, Mr. Chrenek shared his perspectives on more contentious climate interventions, including cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection. This sparked specific inquiries regarding the safety and feasibility of approaches like solar radiation management.

2. Meeting Dr. Andreas Krell from the Helmholtz Office Brussels

For the remainder of the morning we had an interesting discussion with Dr. Andreas Krell about Helmholtz’s strategic and technical activities in the Research Field Earth and Environment in Brussels. The Helmholtz Office Brussels represents the research policy interests of the Helmholtz Centres. The focus is on both strategic and technical support, so that corresponding innovations from the six Research Fields i) Energy, ii) Earth and Environment, iii) Health, iv) Information, v) Aeronautics, Space and Transport, and vi) Matter receive more attention at the European level. The statement on Open Science by the G6 Taskforce, consisting of the i) Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), ii) Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), iii) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), iv) Helmholtz Association, v) Max Planck Society, and vi) Leibniz Association, was cited as an example. In addition, a key part of the work done in Brussels is centered around communication with the Centres about European funding opportunities, for example within the Horizon Europe programme, including ERC grants. For many of us, this was the first time we became aware of the Helmholtz Office Brussels and its activities. We realized that there are many professional benefits of having this important connection to Andreas and the Helmholtz Office Brussels. Krell also stressed the importance of aligning Helmholtz activities to the European Parliament's Framework Programs for strategic success. Then we had what was arguably the most delicious food of the trip – a casual and delicious catered vegan lunch at the Helmholtz Office.

3. Meeting the European Space Agency (ESA)

After lunch we made our way over to the European Space Agency in Brussels to meet with Jean-Christophe Gros and Mathilde Reumaux who, along with their colleagues, gave a very thorough overview of ESA as an organization as well as its missions and training activities.

We began with a fascinating presentation by EUCLID mission leader Giuseppe Racca who introduced ESA's latest mission and its goals to explore the dark universe. This was followed by a presentation about ESA’s training and educational programs. Especially the new ESA science hub, located in Esrin, Italy, was of particular interest, being a place to network with excellent scientists and discuss research ideas. Having access to the latest advantages in open data science, cloud computing, and HPC capabilities provides the opportunity to convert research into innovative solutions. The infrastructure of the ESA science hub can be accessed either by being a post-doctoral research fellow, having an ESA living planet fellowship as well as applying for visiting scientist opportunities. A further highlight was the new PUMAS initiative between ESA and CONAE, giving access to the L-band SAOCOM recordings.

4. Afternoon in Brussels and Science Communication Evening with Dr. Sam Gregson

After our trip to ESA we had a free late afternoon to explore Brussels. Many visited the Christmas Markets in the city Centre. Our day ended back at the Helmholtz Office Brussels with an entertaining evening with particle physicist Dr. Sam Gregson. We had a lot of fun learning a bit about particle physics and working as a team on fun interactive games!

Day 4: Committee meetings and lunch debate in the European Parliament

1. European Parliament committee meetings ITRE and AGRI

Our final day in Brussels brought us back to the European Parliament where we were able to listen to committee meetings of the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research, Telecoms & Energy (ITRE) and the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). Though we were not able to be present for the entire meeting we were able to see some real debate and differences of opinion on common agricultural policy which was exciting.

2. Lunch debate “Copernicus Data at the Service of the EU Arctic Policy”

The main event of the final day was the lunch debate Copernicus Data at the Service of the EU Arctic Policy. This even highlighted an effort by ESA to create a hub for remote sensing data related to the Arctic. This initiative is recognized as a key step in improving the accessibility and application of Copernicus data to address urgent questions of current and future climate change as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies. Much of the conversation centered around the importance of providing data and value-added data products to create actionable change. It is not enough to generate the data and say we are doing something for the protection of the Arctic, data needs to get into the hands of the people living there.

“EE Meets EP” Summary

The Helmholtz Earth and Environment trip provided valuable insights and facilitated informative discussions with stakeholders from the European Parliament and various organizations in Brussels. It was evident that there is significant interest among different parties in engaging with scientific endeavors. We were able to establish various personal contacts with European institutions that we aim to leverage and sustain in the future. Determining the most effective means of communicating our scientific findings to stakeholders remains important. Research proposals should consider not only the scientific inquiry but also the science-policy aspect and efforts should be made to disseminate scientific knowledge in the most accessible manner possible. Finally, the connections we were able to establish among the seven Helmholtz Earth & Environment Centres are of special significance and will undoubtedly accompany us throughout our professional lives.

The SynCom project group "ModHaz" organized four workshops in November and December 2023 with stakeholders from companies, trade associations, science, NGOs, civil society, legislation and regulation. In these workshops, the participants discussed their assessment of the current EU chemicals policy and communicated the strengths and weaknesses of the current hazard assessment methods. In addition, the ModHaz team presented a new method for chemical assessment that can be used to speed up the process and make it animal-free and high-throughput. The participants from various interest groups were then asked to share their demands and needs for the further development of the new method.

Von Spitzbergen, über den pazifischen Ozean bis hin zur Antarktis – Wissenschaftler:innen sind weltweit tätig. Im Format “Meet the Scientist” konnten Besuchende der Berlin Science Week erleben, wie Daten über die Atmosphäre und das Klima auf der Erde erhoben werden. Während einer Live-Schalte auf die Helmholtz Forschungsstationen konnten Fragen zum Leben der Forschenden auf den Außenstationen gestellt und diskutiert werden. Die Veranstaltung, die am 04. November im Naturkundemuseum stattfand, wurde von Rosmarie Wirth vom Deutschen Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY und der Universität Hamburg sowie Matthew Slater vom Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) moderiert und gemeinsam von der Helmholtz-Klima-Initiative und Helmholtz SynCom organisiert.

Fieke Rader, Stationsleiterin AWIPEV auf Spitzbergen, arbeitet und lebt in einem kleinen Forschungsdorf weit nördlich des Polarkreises. Im Dorf leben fast ausschließlich Forschende unterschiedlichster Nationen, wie Frankreich, Deutschland, Norwegen, China, USA und Großbritannien. Ein Restaurant gibt es nicht, ein kleiner Supermarkt, der zweimal wöchentlich für eine Stunde geöffnet hat sowie eine Bar werden von den Bewohner:innen des Dorfes selbst betrieben. Und bald beginnt die Polarnacht, die zwei Monate andauern wird. „In einer Woche wird es gar nicht mehr hell“, sagt Fieke. Doch die Übergangsphase sei am Härtesten. Doch ein klarer Tagesrhythmus, die Polarlichter und der Sternenhimmel helfen mit der Dunkelheit umzugehen: „Ich finde, dass die Nacht viele schöne Aspekte hat“, meint die Stationsleiterin auf Spitzbergen. Und auch im Winter weiß man sich zu beschäftigen. Es gibt eine Sporthalle, in der u.a. zweimal wöchentlich Indoor Hockey gespielt wird und „am Donnerstag wird zusammen gestrickt“.

Vom Palau Atmosphären-Observatorium berichtete die Masterstudentin Lisa Rüther über ihre Erfahrungen. Unter normalen Bedingungen ist die Luft auf Palau sehr sauber und dadurch, dass der Ozean so warm ist, gibt es viel Wolkenbildung. Auch weil ein aktiver Austausch zwischen Tropo- und Stratosphäre stattfindet, ist der Standort für atmosphärische Untersuchungen gut geeignet. Im Gegensatz zu den anderen Außenstationen, wo außer den Forschenden niemand ist, leben die Menschen auf Palau vom Tourismus. Wenn Lisa eine Pizza essen möchte, muss sie nur ein paar Straßen weiter ins Restaurant – ganz anders als bei Fieke.

Nellie Wullenweber (Luftchemisches Observatorium) und Lukas Muser (Meteorologisches Observatorium) schalteten sich von Dach der Neumayer-Station III in der antarktischen Kälte zu. Nellie und Lukas sind Teil des diesjährigen Überwinterungsteams, bestehend aus fünf Forschenden, drei technischen Mitarbeitenden, einer Köchin und einem Arzt, und haben die letzten Monate zu zehnt auf der Station verbracht. „Langweilig wurde es eigentlich nie“, erzählt Lukas. Man habe viel Sport gemacht und Spiele gespielt. Trotzdem sei der begrenzte Kontakt zu Familien und Freunden schwierig - bei Geburtstagen und Hochzeiten sei man eben nicht dabei.

Wie auch von der Arktisstation in Spitzbergen, wird vom Dach der Neumayer-Station III in der Antarktis jeden Tag um 12 Uhr ein Wetterballon gestartet. Während der Veranstaltung konnten die Anwesenden in Berlin live beim Start eines solchen Wetterballons zusehen. Am mit Helium gefüllten Latexballon hängt eine kleine Box, die u.a. Druck, Temperatur und Feuchte misst. Der Ballon steigt 30 Kilometer in die Höhe und sendet bei seinem Flug die gemessenen Daten direkt über Funk an die Station. So werden über Tage, Monate und Jahre hinweg wichtige Messdaten erhoben, die es erlauben, die Veränderung der Atmosphäre über einen längeren Zeitraum hinweg zu erfassen.

Die Forschenden auf den Außenstationen erleben nicht nur vieles, was anders ist als in der Heimat, sondern sehen auch, wie sich die Welt und das Klima wandeln. Man wisse wie es in den 1990er Jahren aussah und es gebe Gletscher, die seitdem um mehrere Kilometer geschmolzen sind. „Man sieht die Unterschiede ganz klar – die Erwärmung ganz klar“, erklärt Fieke. Auch am Palau Atmosphären-Observatorium ist das Thema präsent. Lisa weist darauf hin, dass Palau zu Mikronesien gehöre, also zu Inselgruppen, „die v.a. den Meeresspiegel bemerken“. Es gebe einige Staaten, die Prognosen haben, ab wann ihr Land im Meer verschwinden werde und damit die Region unbewohnbar ist. Obwohl Nellie und Lukas erst seit Kurzem auf der Neumayer sind und an der Station selbst die Aufzeichnungen soweit stabil sind, bilde sich extrem viel weniger Meereis in der Antarktis als sonst. Auch größere Schneemassen deuten darauf hin, dass die Luft wärmer und damit auch feuchter werde. 

Spannende Erlebnisse und intensive Erfahrungen machen einen Forschungsaufenthalt auf einer Helmholtz Außenstation unvergesslich. „Es ist eben das Gesamtpaket, was es hier so spannend macht“, berichtet Fieke. Die Landschaft sehe durch das sich ändernde Licht immer anders aus, es werde nie langweilig und es sei besonders in einer solchen Gemeinschaft zu leben. Für Lisa ist es eine „intensive Zeit, in der man super viele Eindrücke sammelt“. „Es ist immer was Neues“ und man macht „Sachen, die man sich früher nicht zugetraut hat“. Das erst Mal Polarlichter zu sehen, war für Nellie sehr beeindruckend. Ein besonderes Erlebnis war es „das erste Mal die Sonne wiedersehen“ zu können - nach zwei Monaten Polarnacht. „Da merkt man, dass man die Sonne vermisst hat“.

Our parliamentary breakfast on sea level rise, directed by Dr. Jan-Niclas Gesenhues (Alliance 90/The Greens, GRÜNE), took place on October 11, 2023. The event was attended by 28 people in total. These included eleven members of the German Parliament (members of SPD, CDU/CSU and Alliance 90/The Greens, GRÜNE) and employees from SPD, CDU/CSU, Alliance 90/The Greens, GRÜNE and FDP.

Prof. Dr. Karin Lochte (UN-Ozeandekaden Komitee Deutschland, former AWI director), who held a short key-note lecture, pointed out that sea level rise is a slow, gradual development, which also offers an opportunity for adaptation. Sea level rise is a global and high risk, which is associated with an increasing number of storm surges. This threatens, among other things, drinking water supplies and biodiversity. Various Helmholtz centers are working on the important topic of “sea level rise” as part of the joint research program “Changing Earth - Sustaining our Future”.

First, Dr. Ingo Sasgen (Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)) covered the polar perspective of the global risk. The decrease in ice masses can be measured with satellite data at relatively high resolution and is progressing faster than predicted by climate projections. The question is not if, but when we will have a certain sea level rise. Through climate action, we can influence the future sea level rise.

Another problem that adds to sea level rise is land subsidence. In the next presentation, Dr. Tilo Schöne (Helmholtz Center Potsdam - German Research Center for Geosciences GFZ) made aware of this problem. Sea level varies in different places across the world and particularly affects smaller island states. Jakarta - the ‘sinking city’ - now lies with 40% of the city area below sea level. In 2011, 26 cm of land subsidence was recorded in a single year. Coastal erosion and limited coastal protection, for example because dikes cannot be built on reefs, are key problems in these island states.

But rising sea levels also have an impact on the German coasts. According to Dr. Insa Meinke (North German Coastal and Climate Office; Helmholtz Center Hereon) and Dr. Ralf Weisse (Helmholtz Center Hereon), the increase of sea level in Cuxhaven in the last 100 years was 20 cm and in Warnemünde 13 cm, which is comparable to the global average. The precautionary measure for construction measures in coastal protection until 2100 is currently 1 m. Regional scenarios predict an increase of 30 - 120 cm in Cuxhaven by 2100. Erosion increases the threat to coastal protection and also affects drinking water supply. In addition, the overloading of the inland drainage system is a problem. Storm surges will be higher, more frequent and longer in the future, which will increase the area which has to be protected and requires more intensive protection measures.

Following the presentations, questions and comments from the participants on i) the influence of tourism on the North Sea coastal region, ii) storm formation, iii) measures to support small island states, and iv) political requirements were answered by the experts. All participants and anyone who is interested is invited to contact our Helmholtz experts further on the topic of sea level rise. Key messages and contact info from our experts can be found on our fact sheet. The parliamentary event was organized by SynCom, Climate Office at AWI, German Arctic Office, REKLIM and North German Coastal and Climate Office.

Researchers from all seven Helmholtz centers Earth & Environment came together in the Magnus-Haus in the center of Berlin for the kick-off meeting of the SynCom project ‘Scaling up Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)’.

Mark Lawrence and Kathleen Mar (RIFS) introduced CDR in the context of CO₂ budgets and climate goals and discussed challenges that CDR faces. After this scene-setting talk, terrestrial (Daniela Thrän, UFZ) and marine (Klaus Wallmann, GEOMAR) CDR concepts and highlights of research were presented. Oliver Geden (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik) provided valuable insights into the politics of CDR policymaking.

The second day was dedicated to work on the objectives of the SynCom project and to organize the next steps. Fruitful discussions led to three different formats regarding i) research synthesis, ii) connection of science and industry, and iii) policy dialog. We are looking forward to the progress of these formats in the upcoming months and to the next workshop of the SynCom Project ‘Scaling up Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)’.

Meta-Analysis is performed to gain insights beyond the specific contexts of individual studies. Generalizations across studies can help us to understand the bigger picture and tell us what individual studies contribute to the earth as a system.

The accumulation of thousands of studies addressing particular questions in the environmental sciences has presented a compelling need for robust, replicable and unbiased methods for synthesizing results across studies. Research synthesis methodology provides a tool kit of powerful procedures to accomplish these goals.

Within the SynCom activities for research synthesis, Prof. Dr. Helmut Hillebrand (University of Oldenburg & HIFMB) offered a Research Meta-Analysis Workshop.

The online course comprised an overview of all steps necessary to perform a meta-analysis, starting with systematic literature search and the definition of selection criteria. Common metrics (effect sizes), construction of a comprehensive database, statistical models and heterogeneity were discussed. Finally, important quality aspects of a meta-analysis were assessed. The participants had the opportunity to gain hands-on experience and perform a meta-analysis in R.

On Sep 21^st (2023) the participants had the opportunity to discuss open questions and get feedback on own synthesis ideas and analyses. The participants thought that the workshop provided valuable and interesting insights into meta-analysis and are already discussing the information gained from the workshop for their own studies.

Marie Heidenreich (head of SynCom) and Annette Kirschmann (intern) presented at the IUGG 2023 in Berlin on Science-Policy-Dialogues, emphazising the importance of creating an active dialogue with decision makers to ensure effectiveness of science communication. They also shared tips for the preparation of parliamentary events to maintain long term contacts with members of the German parliament.

Interdisciplinary scientists from the AWI, GFZ and Hereon met with group representatives of the German parliament on June 1st to prepare the parliamentary breakfast on sea level rise. The workshop aimed at establishing an active dialogue between science and policy to identify knowledge gaps and to collect current research results and to process them into key messages for science communication.