VOICES AND OTHER EU FUNDED RRI INITIATIVES. Marzia Mazzonetto. Science Centre World Summit 17 March 2014 Pink Room, 2:45

Transcription

1 VOICES AND OTHER EU FUNDED RRI INITIATIVES Science Centres as venues for Citizens Participation in Policy Making Marzia Mazzonetto Science Centre World Summit 17 March 2014 Pink Room, 2:45 1

2 Public Engagement in EU: from PUS to RRI Shift from public education and persuasion, to two-way communication Dialogue Decision making on Research and Innovation should actively engage the public and lead to acceptable innovations addressing societal needs Responsible Research & Innovation

3

4 WHAT IS VOICES? VOICES is a year-long, Europe-wide, citizen consultation exploring the concept of waste as a resource and is a means of integrating public opinion into an environmental research dimension of Horizon 2020, fostering real citizen participation in Social Innovation. EC: clear commitment to make use of the outcomes to influence Waste Research Calls. 4

5 VOICES: THE PROCESS Qualitative methodology for understanding and harvesting of citizens views: VOICES focus groups (3 hours long each). Using science centres and museums as the powerful citizen engagement resources. One thousand European citizens have joined VOICES focus group discussions on innovative uses and solutions for urban waste. VOICES has engaged citizens in 33 locations covering all 27 EU countries. 100 focus groups, with ten citizens each (Recruiting Criteria). 5

6 VOICES: THE PROCESS Setting Up (January-February): involvement of the science centres, selection of recruiting agencies, set up of the FG script, set up of the website and online repository. Development (February-March): meeting with Advisory Board, Pilot Focus Groups, refining of the script Implementation (March-June): training of moderators, Focus Groups conduct and analysis of results Consolidation (June-July): delivery of the consultation outcomes, consolidation meeting with experts Outreach (June 2013 July 2014): 6 events in science centres, dissemination at conference and events Monitoring and Evaluation (February 2013 February 2014): observations and interviews, two evaluation reports 6

7 7

8 VOICES focus group design Introduction Exercise 1: raise awareness of household waste and related waste management systems; identify what people know and do Exercise 2: identify barriers and concerns with respect to prevention and urban waste pathways and their causes Exercise 3: stimulate creative ideas for improvement and solutions for problems Exercise 4: attribute a level of priority to identified innovations and solutions Evaluation 8

9 Exercise 1 Waste Streams Collective bin neighborhood Recycle Glass Paper Packaging/plastic Electronics Chemical waste Food waste Clothes Food & garden waste Large household waste Residual waste Furniture

10 Production and prevention Excessive packaging and use of plastic Overconsumption Limited knowledge Prevention Poor motivation Consumer Products Exercise 2 Barriers and Concerns Waste disposal and pathways Inconvenient Reuse waste collection Recycle Inconvenient waste disposal in containers and collection points Laziness Lack of knowledge on waste pathways Suspicion that separated waste ends up on one pile Concerns environment and pollution Waste management in the household Inconveniences related to waste bins Costs in terms of money, time and effort Lack of information on how to separate waste Landfill Lack of awareness and motivation Incinerate

11 Exercise 3 Research/Innovation for a Zero Waste Society Which ideas do you have for realizing a zero-waste-society What techniques and knowledge are needed for realizing these ideas Prevention Reuse Recycle Environmental Science and Technology Technical/physical/che mical/ engineering Materials Bio(techno)logy ICT Policy, Management and Communication Policy Management & logistics Communication & education Local initiatives Incinerate Landfill 11

12 Citizens collective wisdom on waste management policy and research issues is in line with current trends and priorities: VOICES contribution to RRI More efficient materials for packaging, e.g. 100% biodegradable, recyclable, edible packaging. More easily recyclable/reusable products. Less packaging. More regulations aimed at producers. Educate people (especially children) about importance of proper waste management, zero waste Citizens society, waste pathways, prevention, etc. More recycling points at convenient locations; Expand deposit return system; Improve incineration plants (heat, energy). Policy Makers What could strengthen EU RRI in the field of waste management? Citizens see themselves as part of a system but they feel that much responsibility (costs) for waste separation is put on them while profits are not shared. Suggested ideas: Incentives to consumers to separate waste (reward systems). Not enough attention to waste in the household. Suggested ideas: Develop devices for household automatic sorting/compacting, e.g. smart bins. Technology Researchers to use waste directly in house/apartment to produce energy or products. Little knowledge on what happens with waste. Suggested ideas: More

13 Regional differences Five highest ranking countries on MSW list: Austria, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden Five lowest ranking countries on MSW list: Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria Prevention of waste higher priority in highest ranking countries Collection and disposal within management and logistics higher priority in lowest ranking countries improving organisation of waste management system Education and awareness campaigns higher priority in lowest ranking countries

14 Citizens feedback FGs were highly regarded by participants Around 85% of participants thought that there had been sufficient time to discuss. Over 98% of respondents indicated that the event was well run. Many participants indicated to have learned and become more aware. Over half of the participants claimed that the event had made them change (their) views or that their views had been strengthened. Participants considered it a good thing that the EU were consulting citizens Over half thought the event would influence future EU policy, and some were doubtful. 14

15 VOICES Advisory Board Suggestions that only aim to increase convenience in the household, partly to an extent higher than ever before, like a machine that automatically sorts the waste, or a pipe that delivers food / food pills etc. so that people don t have to go shopping anymore. After some more thinking it became clear that convenience in households is, from a citizen s point of view, one of the most important issues, and hence absolutely justified to talk about. To a certain extent the increase of convenience by new waste technologies may therefore also be a good way to make people support modern waste management. Matthias RAPF, Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality and Waste Management Group Resources Management and Industrial Wastes (RIK), University of Stuttgart, ISWA 15

16 What made VOICES a good practice VOICES consulted citizens using a renowned method - focus groups - in a unique way: Flexibility: the VOICES methodology was successfully implemented in a range of cultures and contexts, across 27 EU member states, and can also be adapted for use at national and local levels, and with a range of policy topics. Structure: the VOICES focus groups worked with four exercises, which engaged participants on relevant topics, drawing out collective opinions and ideas in a carefully facilitated face-to-face process. Expertise: 22 external experts from a variety of backgrounds were involved in validating the methodology, devised by a highly experienced academic team at the VU University Amsterdam s Athena Institute.

17 The role of science centres/museums Most of the consultations have taken place in science centres/museums. Their added value is that in all European countries museums represent trusted institutions. Research has shown that museums share the trust that the public often puts in science and science reps (scientists, researchers, etc.), but are not seen as politically and economically influenced as for example media, local governments or communication agencies. Secondly, museum staff, and therefore involved have long lasting experience in working with general public, moderating activities, engaging in discussions, raising interest and letting people talk. Expertise and context of the location play an important role in granting a un-biased consultation, as well as making citizens feel at ease in talking about issues they are not familiar with.

18 RRI EU funded initiatives FP7: Mobilization and Mutual Learning action plans (MML). One example: Sea for Society (seaforsociety.eu) HORIZON2020: Responsible Research and Innovation has become one of the Cross-cutting issues in Horizon In practice, RRI is a package aiming to better engage society all across Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation activities. This package touches mainly upon civil society engagement in Research and Innovation, supported by further activities enabling easier access to scientific results, better uptake of the gender equality and ethics dimension in R&I, and formal and informal education to science. Through RRI as a cross cutting issue in H2020, multi-actor and public engagement will be mainstreamed throughout good opportunities for further projects: Call for integrating Society in Science and Innovation, SWAFS call ISSI

19 Marzia Mazzonetto Senior Project Manager Ecsite Brussels 19