Das frühere Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU) hat über das vormalige Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) den Wissenschaftsrat gebeten, drei Ressortforschungseinrichtungen in seinem Geschäftsbereich erneut zu evaluieren: das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, das Umweltbundesamt und das Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Im Rahmen der dritten Evaluation der drei Ressortforschungseinrichtungen hat der Wissenschaftsrat übergreifend erneut einen deutlichen Zugewinn an wissenschaftlicher Leistungsfähigkeit, an Forschungsqualität sowie hinsichtlich der Einbindung in die Fachgemeinschaften – national und teilweise auch international – festgestellt. Allerdings sieht der Wissenschaftsrat auch weiteren Verbesserungsbedarf, etwa hinsichtlich des Anteils an eigenständiger Forschung, der langfristigen Forschungsplanung, der internationalen Sichtbarkeit und der personal- und haushaltsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen.
Das frühere Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU) hat über das vormalige Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) den Wissenschaftsrat gebeten, drei Ressortforschungseinrichtungen in seinem Geschäftsbereich erneut zu evaluieren: das Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, das Umweltbundesamt und das Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Im Rahmen der dritten Evaluation der drei Ressortforschungseinrichtungen hat der Wissenschaftsrat übergreifend erneut einen deutlichen Zugewinn an wissenschaftlicher Leistungsfähigkeit, an Forschungsqualität sowie hinsichtlich der Einbindung in die Fachgemeinschaften – national und teilweise auch international – festgestellt. Allerdings sieht der Wissenschaftsrat auch weiteren Verbesserungsbedarf, etwa hinsichtlich des Anteils an eigenständiger Forschung, der langfristigen Forschungsplanung, der internationalen Sichtbarkeit und der personal- und haushaltsrechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen. Veröffentlicht in Dokumentationen | 01/2026.
The overarching goal of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative is to generate knowledge to inform the safe management of chemicals and so protect human health. We will use human biomonitoring to understand human exposure to chemicals and resulting health impacts and will communicate with policy makers to ensure that our results are exploited in the design of new chemicals policies and the evaluation of existing measures. Key objectives include: - Harmonizing procedures for human biomonitoring across 26 countries, to provide policy makers with comparable data on human internal exposure to chemicals and mixtures of chemicals at EU level - Linking data on internal exposure to chemicals to aggregate external exposure and identifying exposure pathways and upstream sources. Information on exposure pathways is critical to the design of targeted policy measures to reduce exposure - Generating scientific evidence on the causal links between human exposure to chemicals and negative health outcomes - Adapting chemical risk assessment methodologies to use human biomonitoring data and account for the contribution of multiple external exposure pathways to the total chemical body burden. We will achieve these objectives by harmonizing human biomonitoring initiatives in 26 countries, drawing on existing expertise and building new capacities. By establishing National Hubs in each country to coordinate activities, we will create a robust Human Biomonitoring Platform at European level. This initiative contributes directly to the improvement of health and well-being for all age groups, by investigating how exposure to chemicals affects the health of different groups, such as children, pregnant women, foetuses and workers. We will also investigate how factor such as behavior, lifestyle and socio-economic status influence internal exposure to chemicals across the EU population. This knowledge will support policy action to reduce chemical exposure and protect health.
Am 22. April 2017, dem "Earth Day", nahmen welweit in mehr als 600 Städten Menschen am “March for Science” teil, allein in Deutschland gingen etwa 37.000 Teilnehmer in 22 Städten für die Freiheit von Wissenschaft und Forschung auf die Straße. Der March for Science ist eine unabhängige Initiative, die sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, auf die Gefahren durch populistische Tendenzen hinzuweisen und für die Freiheit von Wissenschaft und Forschung auf der ganzen Welt zu demonstrieren. Nahezu alle wichtigen Wissenschaftsinstitutionen in Deutschland wie die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, der DAAD oder die Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft hatten im Vorfeld ihre Unterstützung erklärt. Die Vorstände vieler dieser Institutionen waren als Redner bei den unterschiedlichen Kundgebungen zu hören. Die zentrale Veranstaltung fand jedoch in der US-Hauptstadt Washington statt Nach dem Amtsantritt von US-Präsident Donald Trump wächst vor allem in den USA die Angst vor einer neuen Ära der "alternativen Fakten". Aber auch in der der EU wird die freie Wissenschaft immer stärker eingeschränkt, kritisiert die Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission in einer Pressemitteilung zum weltweiten „March for Science“. Regierungen entwerten die erzielten Erkenntnisse, streichen öffentliche Fördermittel, beschlagnahmen Forschungsergebnisse und besetzen wissenschaftliche Positionen politisch. Datenmaterial wird zensiert und Presseauskünfte verboten.
Dieses Gutachten zielt darauf ab, den Begriff „vernachlässigbare Exposition“ gegenüber endokrinen Disruptoren im Zusammenhang mit den europäischen Pflanzenschutzmittelverordnungen zu klären. Es wurde eine gründliche Recherche der wissenschaftlichen, politischen und rechtlichen Literatur durchgeführt. Sie resultierte in 3.087 zwischen 2010 und 2023 veröffentlichten Publikationen, von denen sich 204 überwiegend auf die Verwendung und das Verständnis des Begriffs in den Bereichen Umwelt und menschliche Gesundheit konzentrierten. Definitionen des Begriffs „vernachlässigbare Exposition“ wurden aus einer Untergruppe von 49 Veröffentlichungen zu (chemischen) Stoffen in der Umwelt extrahiert. Die Ergebnisse wurden nach narrativen, qualitativen und quantitativen Definitionen des Begriffs gruppiert. Narrative Definitionen umschrieben „vernachlässigbar“ als nicht signifikant, unwichtig, ohne Bedeutung oder nicht bedenkenswert. Qualitative und quantitative Definitionen waren komplizierter und kontextabhängig und definierten vernachlässigbare Konzentrationen/Expositionen/Auswirkungen anhand von niedrigen Werten, Werten unterhalb der Nachweisgrenze und Vergleichswerten wie einer Kontrolle, einem Benchmark oder einem gesetzlichen Schwellenwert. Aus diesen Erkenntnissen wurde eine Definition der „vernachlässigbaren Exposition von endokrin aktiven Substanzen“ abgeleitet, die von den Ergebnissen der Identifizierung und Umweltrisikobewertung dieser Stoffe und deren Unsicherheiten abhängt. Eine quantitative Definition kann auf die Exposition endokrin aktiver Stoffe gegenüber Arten angewandt werden, bei denen die Wirkungsweise bekannt ist und Testmethoden zur Verfügung stehen, die ein akzeptables Maß an Unsicherheit zulassen (risikobasierter Ansatz). Bei größerer Ungewissheit ist eine Definition angemessener, die darauf abzielt zu verhindern, dass endokrin wirksame Stoffe in die Umwelt gelangen, indem ihre Verwendung auf geschlossene Systeme beschränkt wird (gefahrenbasierter Ansatz).
Changes in European agricultural landscapes have gained on intensification in the second half of the last century. Among others, they are driven by global change phenomena such as climate change, demographic change and migration, increasing global bio-energy demands and changing human diets as well as by trade liberalisation, technological progress, and leakage effects of land use policy interventions. Farmers usually respond to such changes by adapting production and land use systems to efficiently utilize and manage their farm resource endowments. However, this process often leads to adverse impacts on the diversity of agricultural landscapes and environmental qualities. EU policies have been formulated as a reaction to singular or sectoral problems (e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy, the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrates Directive, NATURA2000), which are usually differently implemented among member states by using a variety of legislative or incentive based instruments. Consequently, more coordination among policies is required to minimize the trade-offs between different land use policy targets (i.e. land conservation versus boosting biomass production), and between private (adaptive) and societal (mitigative) land use benefits. Mitigation and adaptation are often separately analysed due to the nature of the problem i.e. mitigation is often considered as public good versus adaptation as private or club good. However, it is necessary to consider both in assessing the mutual benefits of cost-effective land uses and farm mitigation and adaptation measures, which mainly depend on spatial heterogeneity of natural and farming conditions. Consequently, it is important to consider bio-physical, ecological, and economic relationships in assessing the mitigative (public) and adaptive (private) potentials and trade-offs of alternative land uses and farm management measures.In this project we implement a data-model-policy fusion concept, which shall guarantee cost-effective mitigation and adaptation of farms and sustainable landscape and biodiversity developments in the context of climate, market, and policy instrument changes. The concept is applied to two case-study landscapes in the Mostviertel region in Austria and contains an integrated spatially explicit modelling framework to simulate the land use changes at field, farm, and landscape level as well as cost-effective farm mitigation and adaptation portfolios. The land use changes are assessed with farm economic, biodiversity, abiotic, and landscape indicators including GIS-modelling and field observations. Biodiversity effects are central in the integrated assessment acknowledging the roles of landscape structure and land use intensity. Geo-referenced land uses and land use attributes are a major interface in the data-model-policy fusion concept. The results will help farmers and regional stakeholders to identify best management practices for climate change mitigation and adaptation i
Changes in European agricultural landscapes have gained on intensification in the second half of the last century. Among others, they are driven by global change phenomena such as climate change, demographic change and migration, increasing global bio-energy demands and changing human diets as well as by trade liberalisation, technological progress, and leakage effects of land use policy interventions. Farmers usually respond to such changes by adapting production and land use systems to efficiently utilize and manage their farm resource endowments. However, this process often leads to adverse impacts on the diversity of agricultural landscapes and environmental qualities. EU policies have been formulated as a reaction to singular or sectoral problems (e.g. the Common Agricultural Policy, the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrates Directive, NATURA2000), which are usually differently implemented among member states by using a variety of legislative or incentive based instruments. Consequently, more coordination among policies is required to minimize the trade-offs between different land use policy targets (i.e. land conservation versus boosting biomass production), and between private (adaptive) and societal (mitigative) land use benefits. Mitigation and adaptation are often separately analysed due to the nature of the problem i.e. mitigation is often considered as public good versus adaptation as private or club good. However, it is necessary to consider both in assessing the mutual benefits of cost-effective land uses and farm mitigation and adaptation measures, which mainly depend on spatial heterogeneity of natural and farming conditions. Consequently, it is important to consider bio-physical, ecological, and economic relationships in assessing the mitigative (public) and adaptive (private) potentials and trade-offs of alternative land uses and farm management measures.In this project we implement a data-model-policy fusion concept, which shall guarantee cost-effective mitigation and adaptation of farms and sustainable landscape and biodiversity developments in the context of climate, market, and policy instrument changes. The concept is applied to two case-study landscapes in the Mostviertel region in Austria and contains an integrated spatially explicit modelling framework to simulate the land use changes at field, farm, and landscape level as well as cost-effective farm mitigation and adaptation portfolios. The land use changes are assessed with farm economic, biodiversity, abiotic, and landscape indicators including GIS-modelling and field observations. Biodiversity effects are central in the integrated assessment acknowledging the roles of landscape structure and land use intensity. Geo-referenced land uses and land use attributes are a major interface in the data-model-policy fusion concept. The results will help farmers and regional stakeholders to identify best management practices for climate change mitigation and adaptation i
The Commission proposal of Groundwater Directive COM(2003)550 developed under Article 17 of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) sets out criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of groundwater, which is based on existing Community quality standards (nitrates, pesticides and biocides) and on the requirement for Member States to identify pollutants and threshold values that are representative of groundwater bodies found as being at risk, in accordance with the analysis of pressures and impacts carried out under the WFD. In the light of the above, the objectives of BRIDGE are: i) to study and gather scientific outputs which could be used to set out criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of groundwater, ii) to derive a plausible general approach, how to structure relevant criteria appropriately with the aim to set representative groundwater threshold values scientifically sound and defined at national river basin district or groundwater body level, iii) to check the applicability and validity by means of case studies at European scale, iv) to undertake additional research studies to complete the available data, v) and to carry out an environmental impact assessment taking into account the economic and social impacts. The project shall be carried out at European level, involving a range of stakeholders and efficiently linking the scientific and policy-making communities. Considering the requirement of the diary of the Groundwater Daughter Directive proposal, which implies that groundwater pollutants and related threshold values should be identified before December 2005 and listed by June 2006, the duration of the project should be 24 months. In that way the proposed research will contribute to provide research elements that will be indispensable for preparing discussions on further steps of the future Groundwater Directive. Prime Contractor: Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres, Service Analyse et Caracterisation Minerale, Paris FR
| Organisation | Count |
|---|---|
| Bund | 49 |
| Europa | 3 |
| Land | 1 |
| Wissenschaft | 20 |
| Zivilgesellschaft | 2 |
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Ereignis | 1 |
| Förderprogramm | 46 |
| Text | 1 |
| unbekannt | 1 |
| License | Count |
|---|---|
| Geschlossen | 2 |
| Offen | 47 |
| Language | Count |
|---|---|
| Deutsch | 32 |
| Englisch | 27 |
| Resource type | Count |
|---|---|
| Datei | 1 |
| Dokument | 2 |
| Keine | 38 |
| Webseite | 11 |
| Topic | Count |
|---|---|
| Boden | 28 |
| Lebewesen und Lebensräume | 43 |
| Luft | 28 |
| Mensch und Umwelt | 49 |
| Wasser | 22 |
| Weitere | 49 |