Europe is facing major societal challenges (climate change, demographic trends, cultural shifts induced by technology, new geopolitical balances, among others), which are radically changing the landscape of the European Union. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the instability of the markets and the economy and the difficulties of national and European public administrations in responding to the priorities of the citizens, have contributed to the increased detachment and lack of trust among citizens. While this poses risks to the
formal structures and institutions traditionally framing and holding together the European social system based on democracy and the free market, the EU is pursuing major transition programmes in order to respond to the major societal challenges. Its concerns with resilience extend to both, the structures and institutions that hold Europe together, and to the transition programmes that it wishes to drive.

We consider civic resilience, as the ability of a community, city, or society to prepare for, respond to, recover from, and adapt to adversities, challenges, or disruptions. Civic resilience is a core concern in crises as well as in transitions. It is about civil society surviving changes (disruptions, tipping points, crises etc. whether they are abrupt or founded in long-term developments). It calls for local commitment, preparedness beyond the support of the public administration and the private sector. It´s about civil society, both the community (social organizations) and the individuals (citizens), taking the initiative – as a key actor framing any social system –
to lead social change.

Exploring alternative futures addressing radical changes in society can help better prepare for future crises and strengthen the resilience of civil society today. Therefore, in this policy brief, we aim to assist policymakers by devising four possible future scenarios in 2040 and by considering their implications for today. While the challenges considered are global, policy implications are addressed especially about the European research and innovation policy. Four alternative scenarios were identified around two main axes (technological and economic adaptation and social & environmental stewardship):

• The first scenario, where both techno-economic adaptation and socio-environmental stewardship are high, represents an ideal future. This scenario (best of worlds) would be featured by low levels of community and individual resilience (welfare annihilates survival instinct): civil society would not be ready to face an unexpected event, totally devoid of self-protection mechanisms.
• The second scenario, where techno-economic adaptation is low but socio-environmental stewardship is high, means institutional void but strong community consensus. Here the risk -in terms of civic resilience- is that if the community prevails totally, then individuality is cancelled. Citizens are subordinated to the collective, which means the coexistence of a high level of community resilience and a low level of individual resilience.
• The third scenario, where high techno-economic adaptation meets low soc-environmental stewardship, represents a risk of rupture in the social fabric due to ubiquity and omnipresence of technology (AI, Singularity, Transhumanism?), an anomic society where community resilience is low -or even maybe annulled- even individual resilience may be high: in a homogenised alienated society
  where social institutions are annulled the only possible resistance may come from the individuals (a minority).
• The fourth scenario, the worst-case one, represents the survival mode where the menace is extreme, total and constant. Low techno-economic adaptation meets low socio-environmental stewardship, producing a vicious circle of desolation characterized by the fact that the social fabric is broken. It would be a radical context where both community and individual resilience may be high because
  hostile environments reinforce survival instinct (both individual and collective)

Each scenario provides a different point of view towards the situation in the EU today and what could and should be done by EU R&I policy, and by related policy fields that will affect the efficacy of the R&I policy pursuits towards civic resilience.

In this brief, we explore practices and processes by which information should be exchanged between knowledge actors and policy-makers with the intention to produce scientifically informed policies in Europe. We can see an increasing prominence of science in many public debates and the increasing willingness of governments to mobilize scientific and other advice mechanisms in the context of public debate.

The aim of science for policy is to produce actionable science, however, the level of control over those producing the knowledge and their responsibility for the consequences of the action is a matter of important societal dispute. Debates and interactions in the political and public space encompass interest-driven channels of communication, including scientific advice but also lay knowledge.

Therefore, science for policy needs to integrate knowledge from different sources and this requires building connections and relationships between actors from different scientific disciplines and across public administrations, affecting both the nature of science and the nature of policy-making. Science for policy may face adjustments in its modes of operation and its formats of interaction, which – at times – may well be at odds with the dominant empirical-analytical perception of science.

We make a deep dive into developments which are currently underway in the realm of research and innovation policy, and which can take us to different futures, including events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by constraints of diverse nature. We identify possible policy implications based on five scenarios of the future (in 2030), which highlight different types of science for policy ecosystems:

• Scenario A on societal-challenge-driven and mission-oriented research and policy provides the context for advice mechanisms to policy. Such a context can be amenable for scientific advice but it also entails risks for science.
• Scenario B on participatory science and policy support ‘under construction’ opens up the discussion on broadening the sources of evidence; why and how to include new types of actors beyond the ‘usual suspects’ (well-connected experts). This has implications for how to promote science and develop the policy support system. 
• Scenario C on data enthusiasm and AI overtaking scientific policy advice illustrates the role of data, AI and international governance challenges and it alarms about over-reliance on multinational data providers, which may lead to a loss of transparency, autonomy and (normative) reflection in scientific advice. We should ask whether technology can be neutral, and whether scientific advice can be normative. 
• Scenario D on open science and policy support points out that open science is not the same as open scientific advice whereby experts can speak frankly. Useful scientific advice has characteristics of a protected space where also unpopular (but well-founded) opinions can be voiced. 
• Scenario E on policy-based evidence-making in incumbent-driven industrial policy increases weight on advice mechanisms and embedding data, evidence, and experimentation within government agencies, and government research and regulatory organisations. 

The study focuses geographically on Europe and looks toward 2050, on regimes of stewardship of land and sea and address the role of ownership, access and use rights in rural areas (cities excluded), multiple uses of spaces (both land and sea), biodiversity, food (both aquaculture, fisheries and agriculture), energy (use of renewables), raw materials (mining etc.), carbon removal and storage, adaptation to climate change. While the challenges are global, they are addressed especially from the European research and innovation policy perspective. 

The immense social and technological evolution of the Anthropocene continues transforming the Earth’s surface and its dynamics through extensive (mis-)use of its resources, both on the land and in the sea. This policy brief develops scenarios on rural and marine areas in Europe in 2050 and subsequent implications to today’s R&I policy in Europe. Each scenario considers i) Economy and technology, ii) Demographics, lifestyles and values, iii) Governance and iv) Environment.

In Scenario A, European Civic Ecovillages pursue self-sufficiency and contribute to establishing a cooperative, locally oriented, caring economy restoring the ecosystem carrying capacities in land and sea. In Scenario B on Sustainable High-tech Europe, European businesses enjoy global leadership in regenerative and multi-functional high-tech solutions for energy, aquaculture and agriculture. In Scenario C on the United States of Europe, centrally planned Europe is divided between intensive use of land and sea and large conservation areas. Scenario D on European Permacrisis portrays Europe in a post-growth and politically scattered context that leads to low rates of innovation and fragmented use of land and sea.

None of the scenarios features a decisive solution to the global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario A forcefully targets the resolution of the biodiversity crisis in Europe, by aligning human practices with nature, but provides little support to global climate and biodiversity crises. Scenario B proactively tackles the biodiversity crisis both in Europe and internationally but struggles with the fragmentation of efforts and with scaling up good practices and wider impact to curb the crisis. Scenarios C and D with intensive use of nature reduce biodiversity. Thanks to European-wide coordination Scenario C can protect vast areas with positive impacts to biodiversity, whereas Scenario D also struggles with the major fragmentation of conservation efforts and its detrimental impact on biodiversity. Such challenges illustrate the importance of balanced approaches in developing both local and global solutions to climate and biodiversity crises.

All scenarios depict a future of rural and marine areas in the context of extreme weather events and ecological crises, all be it with different intensities. Social developments, instead, range from major social confrontations to more collaborative and inclusive practices. Their policy implications include, among others, the need to address major risks of patchy land use that hamper the sufficient size of ecosystems and diminish resilience. The scenarios also touch upon integrated spatial planning of urban, rural and marine areas, and how the effective use of spaces can benefit from the further extension of user rights. Future research could explore if and how land ownership models in some rural areas could be replaced or complemented with public ownership and user rights. Furthermore, policy implications include a need for balancing sustainability with food affordability and security in different modalities of agriculture and aquaculture. The challenges of climate and biodiversity crises addressed by the scenarios suggest that balanced approaches are needed in developing both local and global solutions.

This brief is the result of one of eight Deep Dive Foresight Studies in the project ‘European R&I Foresight and Public Engagement for Horizon Europe’ conducted by the Foresight on Demand’ consortium for the European Commission. During the spring of 2023, an expert team identified factors of change and organised two scenario and one policy implications workshops also engaging experts from academia, business and public administration around Europe. The process was also supported by discussions in the Horizon Europe Foresight Network.

Stories and narratives are a powerful tool of Futures Literacy and Futures Thinking. In recent years, they have been fighting for attention next to scenarios and trend research within the Foresight discipline, and there is a good reason for it. Adding up to 21 stories, the narratives in this booklet deal with the planetary emergency, the existential threat of climate change and the biodiversity crisis, which are driving the European Green Deal. They were built on ideas by people from all around the world. Some were experts in the field, some purely engaged citizens with a story to tell. Stories from 2050 range from plausible sci-fi stories of the future to fictional fairy tales that provoke abstract thinking. Some stories are hopeful; others are concerning. They are going to stimulate your thinking by providing different perspectives and layers of understanding.

undefined

Innovation is changing in several dimensions. First, the initially closed innovation processes are complemented by various forms of open innovation. Second, consequently, innovation is not only performed by companies, but other actors, like users or non-governmental organisations get involved. Third, the dominance of product innovation based on hardware components is not only complemented but also partly substituted by digital components including software. Finally, the initially envisaged impact of innovation on firms and countries; economic success has been significantly widened in its contribution to sustainable development. Consequently, the existing IP regime is challenged by both its processes and its products, the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

We explore how these changes in several dimensions of innovation might influence the IP regimes, its processes, and products, including their implementation and impacts in the future.

Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to the European Union and to the world. As a response, among other things, the European Green Deal aims to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050, boost the economy through green technology, create sustainable industry and transport, and cut pollution. The transition towards greener and more sustainable economies is a game changer in the EU labour market alongside digitalisation and automation. Skill needs will change with impacts far beyond the key occupations driving them, affecting all economic sectors.

Europe needs to promote and support green employment, address the skilling and reskilling of workers, and anticipate changes in workplaces of the future. In order to get a better grasp on potential future outcomes, and better anticipate their potential policy implications, a foresight Deep Dive has been carried out. The Deep Dive uses a broad conceptualization of skills that encompasses the full palette from scientific and engineering skills to vocational and crafts-like skills. All are needed in the green labour market, although the scenario-led focus here for the most part is on skills of vocational professions. This policy brief presents the main findings.

A set of four different scenarios for the futures of green skills and jobs in Europe in 2050 were crafted:

• Scenario A: Green technology-intensive Europe: Struggling to fill all the green jobs
• Scenario B: Apocalypse Soon: Fighting skills mismatches in a degraded environment
• Scenario C: Feeling the pain: A workforce left behind in a non-green world
• Scenario D: Green leapfrogging: Old, mismatched Europe surrounded by new green giants

Climate change impacts are one of the main threats to human society and natural ecosystems. Even though natural dynamics also have a substantial effect on climate, there is no doubt that current alterations of climate with the correlated impacts are manmade. Alongside continuing efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, there may be possibilities to geoengineer climate systems to reduce or mask the impacts of climate change. There are also strong arguments for large-scale changes in social practices for adapting to and mitigating climate change. The big challenge comes with the necessary scale of interventions as those changes need to be large-scale and global, putting new challenges to all levels of governance from local to global.

Many present drivers seem to indicate a gloomy future for the climate. The current individualistic mindsets drive overconsumption and overproduction. The offsetting of carbon emissions is sometimes used to compensate for dirty activities. Intense competition for natural resources is not safeguarding their sustainability. Bio-holistic worldviews confront anthropocentric views, but climate delay has emerged as the new denial and the lack of courage to address climate supremacists, i.e. the global wealthy, shows little change of direction. According to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the wealthiest top 1% were responsible for 15% of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the world’s poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7%. Overly optimistic beliefs in tech or social transformation to solve it prevail, and there is a wide reluctance to consider broad system change.

There are also drivers towards desired futures. Improved understanding of climate and global change and the capacity and knowledge to purposefully shape nature and society provide better means to address climate change. Climate anxiety and perception of government inaction have triggered, for instance, the ‘Fridays for future’ movement, which contributes to the emergence of global conscience on the climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for justice. New understandings of human purpose and fairness also encourage the development of a wider range of responses like de-desertification, seaweed permaculture, ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage, and solar radiation management. We may learn to protect the global commons, including indigenous cultures and atmospheric commons.

Economic growth in societies based on individual material gain, here-and-now-thinking, short political cycles, and lack of broad political agreement on alternative paths seem to keep us on the path to the climate crisis. Furthermore, exacerbated social inequalities may lead many to have no willingness or ability to participate in transitions. While we are overconfident with systems’ design, we underestimate natural forces and ecosystems. Emerging options for large-scale ‘geoengineering’ interventions in the climate system promise new opportunities and new risks, including novel geopolitical tensions.There are diverse perceptions on geoengineering and possible social change towards potential acceptance or societal rejection. The planet lacks a fair and appropriate governance structure providing a framework on who might be entitled to carry out geoengineering projects in the name of the planet and what their responsibility is. There is no sufficient dialogue on what it means to be a responsible company, researcher, research organisation, or policy-maker in this context.

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project.

The second Mutual Learning Event (MLE) took place online on September 26, 2024, as part of Eye of Europe, a Horizon Europe project which aims to enhance the integration of foresight practices into Research and Innovation (R&I) policy-making across Europe and to nurture a vibrant, cohesive R&I foresight community that contributes significantly, as a collective intelligence, to shaping and guiding policy decisions.

The online MLE brought together fifty participants from diverse stakeholder groups: Eye of Europe partner organizations, the European Commission, R&I funding agencies, representatives of governmental bodies. The event, organized by Technology Centre Prague (TC), focused on the topic of policy oriented communication of foresight results. Group and plenary discussions in three interactive sessions were framed by expert presentations showcasing diverse practices in the application and communication of foresight.

Presentations:

• Michal Pazour (TC Prague, Czech Republic) introduced the Eye of Europe project and the context of this second Mutual Learning Event.
• Moderator of the event Lenka Hebáková (TC Prague, Czech Republic) followed up with an introduction to the event’s aims and agenda.
• Mikko Dufva (SITRA, Finland) – “Communicating foresight. From knowing it all to empowering change”. The presentation included three case studies: SITRA’s decade long experience with megatrends as a platform for dialogue, their work on weak signals as an invitation to broaden futures thinking in a “what if?” spirit and, finally, their efforts to empower others to define futures bottom-up, through small funding to diverse teams across Finland.
• “Communicating foresight in the European Commission” presented by Maia Knutti and Teodora Garbovan (EU Policy Lab, European Commission) brought insights into how, in the European Commission context, foresight is employed and linked with the policy cycle. Examples covered foresight content (e.g. Strategic Foresight Reports) and engagement tools (e.g. megatrends hub, scenario exploration system) that are serving different stakeholder groups across multiple channels.
• Bianca Dragomir (Institutul de Prospectiva, Romania) discussed a case study on embedding foresight into policy making in the context of developing the Strategy for Fishing and Aquaculture 2035 in Romania. Moreover, she shared about embedding foresight into both policy making and societal conversation, discussing two Foresight on Demand projects: Scenarios on “Transhumanist Revolutions” and foresight-meets-speculative-design project “Futures Garden”.
• Totti Könnölä (Insight Foresight Institute, Spain) shared about the Foresight on Demand project "European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe" that advanced several objectives: generating foresight intelligence, i.e. through forward-looking policy briefs; monitoring of foresight activities and providing support for exploitation (Horizon Futures Watch); laying the building blocks for a European foresight community supported by an online platform.
• Marie Ségur (Futuribles, France) presented a case study on “Future of social work in France to 2035-2050” and the methods employed throughout the process: using surveys to motivate engagement with futures thinking, scenario building that may inform strategic choices and guide towards a vision and, finally, communicating outcomes in a synthetic manner, that may contribute to a wider discussion around the topic.
• Eye of Europe project coordinator Radu Gheorghiu (UEFISCDI, Romania) shared previews of the upcoming upgrade of the futures4europe.eu platform, with its new look and extended features.
  
  
  
  This event is the second in a series of five MLEs planned in the project; the following event will be held in January 2025 also in an online format. All Eye of Europe MLEs are organized by Technology Centre Prague (TC), Eye of Europe partner and key Czech national think tank and academia based NGO with a rich experience with knowledge-based policy making support and (participatory as well as expert based) foresight activities.

undefined

As a Coordination and Support Action funded, project “Eye of Europe” aims to enhance the integration of foresight practices into Research and Innovation (R&I) policy making across Europe. Ultimately, the project envisions a more cohesive and influential R&I foresight community that contributes significantly, as a collective intelligence, to shaping and guiding policy decisions.

To this end, Eye of Europe builds on existing initiatives and experiences to foster knowledge-sharing between foresight practitioners and policy makers, attract domain experts in foresight endeavours, and engage a broader audience in futures thinking. Nurturing futures4europe as the online home for the community and running various face-to-face events with different stakeholders will underpin these ambitions.
Methodologically, the project relies on the following building blocks:

• futures4europe.eu as the online hub for the R&I foresight community in Europe: The platform accommodates the interests of various stakeholders such as foresight experts, beneficiaries, domain experts, and an active audience. It operates on multiple integration levels, from mapping organizations and experts to sharing foresight results and capabilities. Moreover, it acts as the communication gateway for ongoing foresight activities, events, educational and inspirational materials.
  
  
• Sharing of practices: This entails mapping institutions engaged in R&I foresight activities, promoting mutual learning through interactive formats, developing shared visions for the future of foresight in R&I policy within the European Research Area (ERA), fostering exchanges among the foresight in R&I policy community through conferences, encouraging dialogues between futurist/expert communities, academics and policy practitioners.
  Key figures: 5 mutual learning events (MLE): 2 online, 3 face-to-face events; 1 vision building event for the Future of R&I Foresight in ERA; 2 conferences
  
  
• Running foresight pilots: Conducting a series of pilot workshops and online consultations with diverse formats, methodologies, and participants. This involves identifying topics of common interest within the European Research Area (ERA), where foresight perspectives offer added value, designing and implementing tailored pilot foresight activities involving various stakeholders, harnessing lessons learnt and feeding them into the platform and other dissemination channels.
  Key figures: 11 Foresight pilot processes: 3 exclusively with citizens, 4 mainly with experts and researchers tackling specific R&I topics, 4 involving a bespoke group of participants. Out of the 11 events, 8 will be face-to-face events, and 3 pilots will take place online
  
  
• Boosting futures literacy: The project encourages meaningful engagement with diverse audiences, from foresight professionals, researchers, policy-makers to various futures sensitive profiles (e.g. entrepreneurs, journalists, artists) and the wider civil society. The project will provide guides, methodology toolboxes, and training modules for R&I foresight and futures literacy, incorporating written and multimedia content.
  Key figures: 5-10 short training sets for participants in foresight exercises; 1 training module for foresight beneficiaries; 1 foresight training for early career researchers, 1 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on R&I foresight; 12 conversational podcasts; 6-8 Short videos and/or animated materials showcasing foresight processes and outcomes
  
  
• Fueling the public discourse around futures: Promoting the project and fostering the foresight community via the online platform futures4europe.eu and complementary channels such as social media and a dedicated newsletter. In addition to highlighting the project's own initiatives, Eye of Europe will also aim to promote foresight content developed in other projects, showcasing a diverse range of perspectives and insights within the foresight field. The quarterly newsletter will feature various content types like interviews, project updates, and foresight-related articles. Social media, particularly Futures4Europe's LinkedIn page, will be used to engage professional communities and wider audiences, with a focus on sharing project activities and fostering discussions.

As a result of the recent pandemic, global value chains have completely transformed. This has raised concerns over the ensuing social, economic and environmental trends and related impact on the way supply chains are organised. In this context, the EU-funded ReSChape project will analyse social, economic and environmental changes and disruptions, including the COVID-19 pandemic, and evaluate their impact on supply chains. New supply chain models will be proposed, aiming towards a more streamlined supply chain process to assure humans (workers, consumers and in general citizens) to be at the center of the business also thanks to new digital technologies. It will be studied how to assure a positive social impact and innovative policy scenarios will be developed with recommendations to support the future supply chains.

The aims of this proposal are:
• To analyse social, economic and environmental changes and disruptions (including covid) and evaluate their impact on SCs, identifying related challenges in terms of relationship between countries, configuration of the network, impact on employment.

• To study and propose a set of SC models for the evolution of global SC integrating strategies like resource efficient, closed-loop and humanitarian as a way to increase EU resilience and sustainability. Particular attention will be given to the role of digitalization as a way to establish new paths for social inclusion taking into consideration the needs of urban and rural areas. Some important European sectors like fashion, automotive, medical and machine tools will be analysed with case studies and survey.

• To develop Innovative tools for monitoring and assessing sectoral trade patterns and defining mechanisms to evaluate relationship of disruptions like pandemic and global value chains taking into consideration impact on employment, economic growth, incomes etc also in the long term. Moreover, it will be analysed the impact of different trade patterns, on the EU value added of sectoral and countries with a specific focus on analyzing income inequalities and proposition of decent work and social cohesion. Particular attention will be gives to gender issues and social disparities.

• To develop innovative policy scenarios with recommendations for future global value chains: policy scenarios will be based on Key horizontal issues impacting on several sectors and will provide recommendations for EU, national and sectoral strategies, policy measures and targeted actions aimed at shaping fair, inclusive and sustainable trade patterns, value and supply chains as well as production networks.

Food systems require urgent and profound transformation to become sustainable, both in Europe and worldwide. Social innovation plays a pivotal role in transforming today’s food systems into ones that are economically and socially feasible, and sustainable within planetary boundaries.

The project Reimagining the Food System: scanning the horizon for emerging social innovations was conducted by the Foresight on Demand consortium between July - December 2021, on behalf of the European Environment Agency. It engaged in a systemic examination of emerging social innovations across the food chain, conducted using horizon scanning, a tool to detect early signs of potentially important developments. Thus, it offers insights into the experimentation taking place in alternative ways to produce, trade and consume food.

Project phases:

• The horizon-scanning combined web mining with a filtering and validation process, using machine learning and human evaluation. The exercise identified over 240 weak (or early) signals from a variety of news articles, blogs and grey literature published in English between 2017 and 2021. The signals were aggregated into 24 closely related subsets, with each cluster hinting at a potential emerging issue (see image below);

• Next, 21 representatives from civil society organisations, business, academia and government discussed these issues at a sense-making workshop in September 2021;
• Following the workshop, 10 emerging issues were prioritised for characterisation. The characterisation was based on desk research and 11 semi-structured interviews with experts in the field. The 10 selected emerging issues include developments in new foods, products, services, and business and governance models. These issues have often been enabled by existing technologies and new forms of local partnerships, involving a variety of engaged stakeholders. They vary in their degree of maturity and novelty: some are relatively new developments, while others lend new perspectives to known subjects. Moreover, some provide new combinations of existing elements, while others are niche practices beginning to filter into the mainstream:
  
  1. Agroecology: a way of producing food and living, a science and a movement for change
  2. Soulful soil: alternative methods for nutrient and pest management
  3. The power of many: community-supported agriculture networks and initiatives
  4. Food-growing cities: urban farming, integrated food policies and citizen involvement
  5. Muscle-up: alternative protein sources for human consumption
  6. Knowledge is power: ensuring traceability and informing consumers
  7. Reclaiming retail: (re)connecting farmers with consumers and businesses
  8. Procurement strategies supporting sustainable agricultural and fishing practices
  9. Menu for change: restaurants feed appetite for sustainability
  10. The gift that keeps on giving: upcycled foods and food into energy

Read the European Environment Agency's briefing building on key findings of the project: Reimagining the food system through social innovations — European Environment Agency (europa.eu) 

This project aims at:

i) providing timely foresight intelligence and forward-looking policy briefs to the European Commission for purposes of R&I policy on the following topics:

• Futures of interpenetration of criminal and lawful economic activities 
• Futures of Science for Policy in Europe 
• Futures of using nature in rural and marine contexts in Europe
• Futures of Social Confrontations
• Futures of Green Skills and Jobs
• Futures of Big Tech
• Futures of innovation and IP regulation

ii) providing a hub for Europe’s R&I foresight community and a space in which foresight agencies and researchers can share knowledge and tools;

iii) networking EU supported R&I projects with important foresight elements and promoting their results to policymakers, including via Horizon Futures Watch quarterly newsletters;

iv) promoting broad public engagement with foresight for R&I policy, including stakeholders as well as the public and covering all sections of society, from scientists and engineers to policy-makers, artists, intellectuals and engaged citizens.