AIRNET Experiences with Science/Policy Interface and Communication

1. AIRNETExperiences with Science/PolicyInterface and Communication Leendert Van Bree RIVM, Bilthoven l.van.bree@rivm.nl ACCENT WORKSHOP Gothenburg, Sweden October 27-28, 2004

2. AIRNET management team • Bert Brunekreef – Utrecht University (co-ordinator) • Leendert van Bree – RIVM Bilthoven (co-ordinator) • Support crew: Nicole Janssen (exposure) Annike Totlandsdal (toxicology) Gerard Hoek (epidemiology) Eric Sanderson (health impact) Nina Fudge (science-policy) Marjan Tewis (assistent) Eef van Otterloo (webmaster)

3. AIRNET and its mission AIRNET is an EU-wide Thematic Network project on Air Pollution and Health Mission statement • To help to create a widely supported basis for public health policy related to improving air quality in Europe and regulatory needs to achieve that goal AIRNET also seeks • To improve interaction with stakeholders in the interpretation and use of air pollution and health information • To act as a network with policy makers, industry, and NGO’s from the environment and public health sectors

4. To develop an overarching, Europe-wide framework for air pollution and health research To collect and synthesize scientific information from individual research projects (FP4, FP5, and nationally-funded studies) To draw policy-relevant recommendations To communicate the outcome To find ways to improve the science-policy-stakeholder interaction Objectives of AIRNET

5. The life of AIRNET AIRNET began life in 2002 and is funded until the end of 2004 Years 1 and 2 were focused on collection,interpretation, and synthesis of air pollution and health data Year 3 focus is on dissemination and communication of information QLRT-2001-00441, Key Action 4, Environment and Health

6. AIRNET’s deliverables • Six Work Group Reports • Three Annual Conferences (London, Rome, Prague) • AIRNET Alert (web-based information tool) • AIRNET Newsletters • Internet website (http://airnet.iras.uu.nl) • Stakeholder Survey in Europe (“What info, which form?”) • AIRNET Communication Strategy • National/local AIR-NETwork days across Europe (communication model) (AIRNET identified as a key project for the CAFE)

7. Causality chaintranslated into AIRNET disciplines

8. Who is in AIRNET ? Communication Agency Science Journalists

9. Contractors in AIRNET • Utrecht University B. Brunekreef • RIVM Bilthoven L. van Bree • VITO Mol R. Torfs • IOM Edinburgh F. Hurley • Medical School, University of Athens K. Katsouyanni • IIASA M. Amann • Environmental Medicine, NIPH Oslo E. Dybing • European Federation of Asthma and Allergy Associations E. Rameckers • International Society of Doctors for the Environment P. van den Hazel • CONCAWE Association of Oil Companies and Refining Capacity J. Urbanus

10. Communication Agency Science Journalists

11. Science/Policy Interface and Communication • Science-policy interface and communication is sometimes confused with “talk as long as you have an answer or consensus” • Sometimes the outcome is already defined and the interaction is considered as “massage” • BUT... real interaction means that • pay substantial attention to preparatory phase of discussion of issues • agree on the various possibilities and analyses routes • agree on the rational choices to be made • accept, explain, and communicate the outcome Korbee & Hovelynck communication consultants

12. Substantial investment is needed for further emission reductions to decrease exposure and health risks Interface becomes therefore more important, BUT… often functions poorly A better interface needs: communication of information to those who need it, ask for it, or have the right to know understanding of end-users needs develop views on what the interface should be (not only on content but also on process and mechanism) Is a science-policy-stakeholder interface needed in air pollution and health?

13. The ideal science-policy interface • Open, two-way communication of facts and figures, methods of analysis, decision principles, outcomes and values between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders • Exchange of reliable information is key to effective policy • Good communication is essential (What info, which form, which mechanism?) • Find workable solutions for: • Correct “framing” of complex issues • Uncertainty analyses (statistical, conceptual) • New philosophies to cope more sensibly with (a variety of) risks

14. SPI report on “problem framing

15. SPI report on “coping sensibly with risk” • QRA and Cost-Efficiency • Risk Weighing and Acceptance • Stakeholder Participation and Consensus • Weighing Precaution in Policy Domain

16. End-user’s needs as a basis in AIRNET reports and activities • Stakeholder survey • identifying end-user needs (key/FAQ questions, information needs, “WHAT INFORMATION”) • knowing how information needs to be presented (“WHICH FORM”) • Outcome taken as the main basis for • structuring and focussing various Work Group Reports • developing short answers to FAQ’s as an effective way to communicate • answers need back-up from end-report content

17. The interface in AIRNET’s deliverables • Work Groups end-reports (focus, FAQ’s, help of science journalists for improved readability) • Annual Conferences (science-policy-stakeholder interactions) • AIRNET Alert (web-based tool for disseminating non-specialist summaries of research papers) • AIRNET Newsletters (exchange of recent findings and highlights) • Internet website (http://airnet.iras.uu.nl) • Stakeholder Survey in Europe (end-user needs) • AIRNET Communication Strategy • National/local AIR-NETwork days across Europe (multi-stakeholder communication/interaction model)

18. How AIRNET tried to ’bridge the gap’ between science and policy Science -> <- Policy Makers and Stakeholders Challenges, experience, and lessons ?

19. AIRNET activities Developing involvement of stakeholders • Actively participating in AIRNET work groups and end-reports • Presentations on “What stakeholders want” at the 1st Annual Conference (London 2002) • Europe-wide stakeholder/end-user survey • Interactive communication form at • 3rd Annual Conference (Prague 2004) • AIR-NETwork days across Europe (NL, S, H, and ESP)

20. AIRNET activities European-wide stakeholder survey • Questionnaire to find out what the needs of stakeholders and end-users are • i.e. what information, FAQ’s, which form • Survey population • all stakeholders within AIRNET • members of CAFE steering group • members of EU parliament • stakeholders from APHEIS Overall response rate was ~25%

21. “It is not so much that sources are unavailable to us, it is more that time is in short supply” (National government agency, UK) “There is a wealth of information and sources and it is in fact a challenge to keep up with the new information” (Private sector stakeholder, Belgium)

22. AIRNET activities Outcome of EU-wide stakeholder survey • List of FAQ’s and important issues (“what information”) • Preferred information format (“which form”) • integrative, short overviews • interpreted for stakeholders • summaries for informed but non-specialist audience • Expectations of AIRNET (“which mechanism”) • information exchange and networking • identify and consider stakeholder views • policy support This outcome has focussed and structured further AIRNET activities !

23. AIRNET activities Five Work Group end-reports • development of disciplinary ‘state-of-the-art ‘ reports on air pollution and health (exposure, toxicology, epidemiology, health impact, and science-policy interface) • written for an informed but non-specialist audience • using input from EU stakeholder survey • tailored to end-user needs • with answers to FAQ’s • involvement of science journalists • use of non-specialist language Draft reports now available; finalized by end of 2004 Final integrative report for additional input to CAFE

24. AIRNET activities Developing a communication plan • Hiring a communication agency • Hiring science journalists Various communication-oriented activities

25. AIRNET activities AIRNET Alert - online database of non-specialist summaries of key scientific papers

26. AIRNET activities AIRNET NEWS - bi-annual newsletter

27. AIRNET’s “final” activities Organisation of four national AIR-NETwork days, spring/summer 2004 • Multi-stakeholder communication model now tested in four countries 3rd AIRNET Annual Conference, Prague, October 2004 …aimed at • model for communicating results and needs with stakeholders at (inter)national and local levels • bringing together scientists, stakeholders, and policy-makers • responsibility for interactive dialogue and communication • transfer of knowledge and exchange of needs • developing long-term relationships

28. AIR-NETwork days – communication model

29. AIRNET - lessons learned Organisation of an interface network... • requires a lot of planning • currently no “recipe” available on how to optimally run a interface network • knowing WHAT you wish to achieve is not sufficient, you should also know HOW you wish to achieve it • difficult to get all “players” actively involved (defining a task for each player may help, in AIRNET only the scientists have clear responsibilities) • Interface works different at international, national, and local level

30. To what extent has AIRNET “bridged the gap” ? --> ?

31. AIRNET - lessons learned Science-policy-stakeholder interface... • is interpreted differently by the different players • is not naturally occurring • does not work by itself • requires lots of planning, and structure and energy (cf. AIR-NETwork days)

32. AIRNET -lessons learned Dissemination and communication of research findings in a non-specialist way... • scientists found it hard to write in a concise and non-specialist way • AIRNET provided guidelines and also contracted science journalists to help • involvement of communication specialists is crucial (AIRNET has contracted a communication agency)

33. More information about AIRNET... htpp://airnet.iras.uu.nl