James Henty Williams on the importance of the collaboration between scientists and stakeholders
Ricardo Carapeto (AEMPS)
“I think the first thing is that we have to step back from ourselves as being scientists. We have our own language within science, and even within the disciplines. So, put ourselves into the perspective of stakeholders.”
What is the most important goal we are trying to achieve in SYBERAC?
It is a shift in the mindset of how Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is done. We should take a more holistic, systems approach rather than just focus on the current paradigm, which is single product, single assessment, looking at limited context.
Particularly among the regulatory authorities, this procedure can be improved. SYBERAC can help with generating the data and the case studies that show there is an alternative way to do it, and improve decision-making in environmental risk assessment.
We are not going to be able to change the system overnight. The system requires transformation – but that first starts with: We have to change people’s way of thinking. I think that is the most important part for my aspect of SYBERAC. We want to have a systems-based risk assessment that takes account of the variability, more rooted in the realities of what is happening in the world.
Could you please describe your role and specific tasks within the project?
I am James Williams from Aarhus University, the work package leader for Work Package 1, Stakeholder Engagement via multi actor approach. The actors involve stakeholders in the EU regulatory environment at an EU level, and at the very practical end at the case study level. We try to achieve the connection between the two – so that stakeholders at the farm face can understand what stakeholders at the EU-level are trying to accomplish, and the EU-level understand the practical realities of what’s happening at the farm level.
So, my role is trying to connect those two different aspects and ensure that SYBERAC, in what it’s delivering for systems-based ERA, can help both of those groups of people in making better decisions about the impact of chemicals on the environment. Finally, how those chemicals are regulated and can be used in real-world settings and account for real-world impacts.
SYBERAC case studies range from Mediterranean orchards to Central European crops. When looking at a specific site, how do you connect that a pesticide used on the field isn’t just hitting a pest, but it has like a domino effect on the groundwater and pollinators to the public or the land manager? And what is the most eye-opening example connecting these levels that you’ve seen in the field studies?
In Work Package 1 we are trying to engage with the different stakeholders. When we go out into the field as a project team, for example at case study site visits during consortium meetings, we actually get to see what practitioners, e.g. winegrowers or crop farmers are doing on the ground. The case study stakeholders we work with, they realise these more distributed impacts and they understand how their work on the farm affects the wider environment.
If we take Hope Farm [see article of visit], or when we were in Barcelona [and visited the Ebro Delta and a local winegrower, see article here], I think these are really clear examples. These experiences bring it home to us that we as scientists often think that we have all the answers. But practitioners are actually aware of a lot of these issues and trying to improve things themselves anyway. And sometimes they need scientists to help them understand the details, but they do see it.
Farmers – they see seasonal changes, they may realise that over time, something has happened. They don’t quite know what, but something has happened. And then, when science combines with that, you can look at both sets of knowledge to say this is reality, and not just statistics.
“Farmers – they see seasonal changes, they may realise that over time, something has happened. They don’t quite know what, but something has happened. And then, when science combines with that, you can look at both sets of knowledge to say this is reality, and not just statistics.”
In WP1, you are bringing together very different groups of people. Which strategy do we need to use to create a common language across different stakeholder groups? How do you approach this in your work?
I think the first thing is that we have to step back from ourselves as being scientists. We have our own language within science, and even within the disciplines. So, put ourselves into the perspective of stakeholders. Try to think how they think: what are their concerns, what are their interests, what would they want to learn. And then we have to tailor our messages in that way.
Recently [my colleague] Natasha Mølgaard and I presented at a workshop about the use of visual imagery. Within SYBERAC, we are creating AI imagery. Humans are very visual. We may be seeing the same thing, but we see it in different ways. You can use this visual imagery to find points of connection and understand each other’s perspective. Natasha, when she is interviewing [EU-level stakeholders], can think this is what it means, but then she clarifies that with the interviewee and they can use that image to say, 'no, this is what I really meant.'
Often as scientists we use a lot of intricate charts, plots... And for many stakeholders, it’s not their everyday language. Therefore, we have to find other ways to communicate the information to them.
