Welcome to Econnect Communication’s August 2004 newsletter.

Following last month’s newsletter, we received an email from Mark Simmons regarding the issue of “communicating in a void” – the problem of communicating on issues when a lack of scientific data exists. We decided to make it a theme for this month’s newsletter.

If you have any feedback or ideas you’d like to add to our newsletter, we’d love to hear from you – especially if you have inspiring things to contribute to our next month’s edition.

Regards,

Econnect Communication

Jenni Metcalfe, Michelle Riedlinger, Terri Telford

August 2004

Communicating in a void – by Mark Simmons

Scientific communication and risk – by Jenni Metcalfe

We need more than data – by Michelle Riedlinger

The Precautionary Principle

Contact Us

Communicating in a void

By Mark Simmons

My background is in natural resource management, principally with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I was Communications Coordinator for two years for the Authority's recent and controversial Representative Areas Program. This planning program resulted in a massive increase in the area of 'no-take' zoning in the park, at the expense (to varying degrees) of access to resources by both commercial and recreational fishers. The compensation debates are being worked through at the moment.

From a communications perspective the program was extremely difficult and challenging. The Authority was taking the precautionary approach to biodiversity conservation and from the beginning we had very little scientific evidence that biodiversity was under threat (biodiversity was quickly re-interpreted by many stakeholders as 'fish stocks).

There was plenty of anecdotal evidence that 'fishing wasn't as good as it used to be'. Trends for iconic species such as dugong and loggerhead turtles showed they were in trouble, but for most species on the Reef we, and the scientific community, knew very little. We had panels of scientific experts giving advice and opinions.

On the other hand I attended hundreds of angry meetings where fishermen told me they could still go out and easily catch a feed so 'where was the problem'.

When we introduced evidence of the success of protected areas from a variety of international studies not just on fish stocks but a diversity of species and habitats, stakeholders immediately dismissed this as being irrelevant - because it was 'different overseas'. There was little ownership of the problem amongst many of the primary stakeholders.

How do we sell a solution when the community didn't believe there was a problem? This was my challenge.

The above oversimplifies the case somewhat but it was a struggle to get the information we needed to deal with stakeholders and politicians and in the end we used a variety of information sources and just plain common sense.

I'd be interested if you and your readers have any views on how to deal with the issue of communication and natural resource management when there is a void of hard scientific evidence to back up proposed management strategies. It strikes me that many resource managers must be in similar positions.

Scientific communication and risk

By Jenni Metcalfe

Scientific communication usually implies communication about "uncertainty". Much of the information generated by research is not absolute and may change with new information.

This makes it difficult for scientists to communicate with groups and individuals other than their peers or colleagues. It is especially true for communication with commercial clients or decision-makers, and for communication to the general community through the media. Scientists want to give fool-proof information to maintain their credibility, while these other people often need to make decisions on the best available information.

Problems of communicating “uncertainty”

1. Complexity of technical data. Usually scientific research related to areas such as risk assessment is complex and difficult to simplify. For example, it often involves probabilities or management options which may be difficult to interpret in terms of risk.

2. Science does not progress without "disagreements". When there is scientific uncertainty or “risk” there is usually also scientific disagreement about the level of risk or the interpretation of the data. This problem is heightened by the general perception of people that science is “always right”.

3. Process of peer review. The traditional process of peer review means that scientists are generally unwilling to communicate their research without the data being accepted by accredited colleagues. This can delay the communication of important data and increase the level of concern and conflict for community and decision-makers.

How to communicate “uncertain” technical information

1. Find out what people want to know. What you think is important, and what others think is important may differ greatly. While it is important to communicate information you consider critical, you need to consider the concerns of affected or interested groups.

2. Acknowledge uncertainties. This will help your long-term credibility as well as helping to educate people about the nature of scientific research.

3. Put information into perspective. It is important not to raise expectations beyond what can be delivered or to minimise risks. People require enough information to enable them to make the best possible decisions given the available data.

4. Release information early. Delays in releasing critical information can lead to:

uninformed decision-making by affected groups/individuals
cover-up claims and subsequent loss of credibility
the build up of prejudiced attitudes or emotions
reactive communication strategies.

5. Take care when simplifying information. A fine balance needs to be maintained between providing too much complex information and providing them with too little.

6. LISTEN. It is as important to listen to target groups as it is to inform them.

7. Interact. Avoiding interaction with interested and/or affected individuals/groups is a recipe for trouble. They need to be involved early and consulted regularly.

We need more than data

By Michelle Riedlinger

We have the idea that if we can gather the scientific information necessary to make accurate predictions about the future state of the environment (based on current or potential management practices) we will be able to convince people to manage aspects of their environment differently. However, we need more than data.

If the social, moral, ethical and economic impacts of potential change are not explained adequately it can be very difficult to achieve that change.

This is demonstrated quite clearly in communication about biotechnology.

For decades, the research community believed (and some members still do!) that if communities understood the science behind biotechnology it would be much more readily accepted. But we know from social research that this is not the case.

The impact upon the lifestyles and emotions of communities are the most important considerations for acceptance or rejection of this science, therefore, it provides a valuable lesson for environmental management. If the information provided by researchers is not reflective of the needs of communities, no matter how well those communities understand the technology, it will be, at best, ignored and, more likely, rejected.

The Precautionary Principle

Environmental Defenders Office (Qld) Inc.

The precautionary principle means that:

"a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Each state’s legislation interprets it differently. For example, Queensland’s Integrated Planning Act 1997 is more ambiguous and less binding than this, lacking any reference to scientific certainty and the prevention of environmental degradation. Under the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the precautionary principle is taken to be:

"the principle that, if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, careful evaluation must be made to avoid wherever practicable serious or irreversible environmental damage including, if appropriate, assessing risk weighted consequences of various options." (s1.2.3(2) Integrated Planning Act 1997).

It is hard to predict how a Court will interpret the various versions of the precautionary principle, however:

· it has wide application, as many proposed developments will entail threats of irreversible environmental damage (e.g. clearing of remnant vegetation and ecosystems destruction is irreversible damage to the environment);

· examination of the ecological arm of ecological sustainability (above) may assist interpretation of what is 'serious environmental damage';

· a careful evaluation by the decision maker needs (as a precondition) adequate information about the effects of a proposal. If the decision maker is unable to carry out the evaluation of the threat of significant damage due to lack of information on some significant element of a proposal, then as the purpose of the evaluation is to avoid the environmental damage, refusal is obligatory;

· a careful evaluation of a development application necessitates careful scrutiny of the proposal and information supplied by developers. If the decision maker does not have the expertise to do this, then to carry out this evaluation it is necessary to seek information from independent sources and expert assistance; and

· the point of the precautionary principle is to avoid wherever practicable the serious or irreversible environmental damage. Does this mean practicable on the part of the developer or the decision maker? If it means on the part of the decision maker, then refusal of an application is a more feasible way to avoid environmental damage than imposing conditions if monitoring for compliance is unlikely to occur. The options for the decision maker include approving all or part of the application with conditions to deal with the threatened harm, or refusal of an application. These are all options with different risks associated, where the weighting of those risks may be compared.

This information was provided by the Environmental Defenders Office (Qld) Inc., a non-profit community legal centre specialising in environmental law.

Contact Us

Econnect Communication works with science, environment, ecotourism and natural resource management agencies to:

evaluate and develop communication strategies
write and design products that meet audience needs
run workshops that train staff and management in communication skills

Contact us: phone 07 3846 7111; email admin@econnect.com.au

Website: http://www.econnect.com.au

New tips: http://www.econnect.com.au/news_qt.htm

Subscribe/unsubscribe: send email to admin@econnect.com.au with “subscribe” or “unsubscribe” in subject line.

View past newsletters: http://www.econnect.com.au/news_newsletter.htm

Articles in this newsletter can be reproduced if Econnect Communication Pty Ltd

is acknowledged as the source