Algorithmic Governance Workshop (NUI Galway)

Algorithmic Governance Workshop (source: Niall O Brolchain)

The workshop ‘Algorithmic Governance’ was organised as an intensive one day discussion and research needs development. As the organisers Dr John Danaher
and Dr Rónán Kennedy identified:

‘The past decade has seen an explosion in big data analytics and the use  of algorithm-based systems to assist, supplement, or replace human decision-making. This is true in private industry and in public governance. It includes, for example, the use of algorithms in healthcare policy and treatment, in identifying potential tax cheats, and in stopping terrorist plotters. Such systems are attractive in light of the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of society; the general ubiquity and efficiency of ‘smart’ technology, sometimes known as the ‘Internet of Things’; and the cutbacks to government services post-2008.
This trend towards algorithmic governance poses a number of unique challenges to effective and legitimate public-bureaucratic decision-making. Although many are already concerned about the threat to privacy, there is more at stake in the rise of algorithmic governance than this right alone. Algorithms are step-by-step computer coded instructions for taking some input (e.g. tax return/financial data), processing it, and converting it into an output (e.g. recommendation for audit). When algorithms are used to supplement or replace public decision-making, political values and policies have to be translated into computer code. The coders and designers are given a set of instructions (a project ‘spec’) to guide them in this process, but such project specs are often vague and underspecified. Programmers exercise considerable autonomy when translating these requirements into code. The difficulty is that most programmers are unaware of the values and biases that can feed into this process and fail to consider how those values and biases can manifest themselves in practice, invisibly undermining fundamental rights. This is compounded by the fact that ethics and law are not part of the training of most programmers. Indeed, many view the technology as a value-neutral tool. They consequently ignore the ethical ‘gap’ between policy and code. This workshop will bring together an interdisciplinary group of scholars and experts to address the ethical gap between policy and code.

The workshop was structured around 3 sessions of short presentations of about 12 minutes, with an immediate discussion, and then a workshop to develop research ideas emerging from the sessions. This very long post are my notes from the meeting. These are my takes, not necessarily those of the presenters. For another summery of the day, check John Danaher’s blog post.

Session 1: Perspective on Algorithmic Governance

Professor Willie Golden (NUI Galway)Algorithmic governance: Old or New Problem?’ focused on an information science perspective.  We need to consider the history – an RO Mason paper from 1971 already questioned the balance between the decision-making that should be done by humans, and that part that need to be done by the system. The issue is the level of assumptions that are being integrated into the information system. Today the amount of data that is being collected and the assumption on what it does in the world is a growing one, but we need to remain sceptical at the value of the actionable information. Algorithms needs managers too. Davenport in HBR 2013 pointed that the questions by decision makers before and after the processing are critical to effective use of data analysis systems. In addition, people are very concerned about data – we’re complicit in handing over a lot of data as consumers and the Internet of Things (IoT) will reveal much more. Debra Estrin 2014 at CACM provided a viewpoint – small data, where n = me where she highlighted the importance of health information that the monitoring of personal information can provide baseline on you. However, this information can be handed over to health insurance companies and the question is what control you have over it. Another aspect is Artificial Intelligence – Turing in 1950’s brought the famous ‘Turing test’ to test for AI. In the past 3-4 years, it became much more visible. The difference is that AI learn, which bring the question how you can monitor a thing that learn and change over time get better. AI doesn’t have self-awareness as Davenport 2015 noted in Just How Smart are Smart Machines and arguments that machine can be more accurate than humans in analysing images. We may need to be more proactive than we used to be.

Dr Kalpana Shankar (UCD), ‘Algorithmic Governance – and the
Death of Governance?’ focused on digital curation/data sustainability and implication for governance. We invest in data curation as a socio-technical practice, but need to explore what it does and how effective are current practices. What are the implications if we don’t do ‘data labour’ to maintain it, to avoid ‘data tumbleweed. We are selecting data sets and preserving them for the short and long term. There is an assumption that ‘data is there’ and that it doesn’t need special attention. Choices that people make to preserve data sets will influence the patterns of  what appear later and directions of research. Downstream, there are all sort of business arrangement to make data available and the preserving of data – the decisions shape disciplines and discourses around it – for example, preserving census data influenced many of the social sciences and direct them towards certain types of questions. Data archives influenced the social science disciplines – e.g. using large data set and dismissing ethnographic and quantitative data. The governance of data institutions need to get into and how that influence that information that is stored and share. What is the role of curating data when data become open is another question. Example for the complexity is provided in a study of a system for ‘match making’ of refugees to mentors which is used by an NGO, when the system is from 2006, and the update of job classification is from 2011, but the organisation that use the system cannot afford updating and there is impacts on those who are influenced by the system.

Professor John Morison (QUB), ‘Algorithmic Governmentality’. From law perspective, there is an issue of techno-optimism. He is interested in e-participation and participation in government. There are issue of open and big data, where we are given a vision of open and accountable government and growth in democratisation – e.g. social media revolution, or opening government through data. We see fantasy of abundance, and there are also new feedback loops – technological solutionism to problems in politics with technical fixes. Simplistic solutions to complex issues. For example, an expectation that in research into cybersecurity, there are expectations of creating code as a scholarly output. Big Data have different creators (from Google to national security bodies) and they don’t have the same goals. There is also issues of technological authoritarianism as a tool of control. Algorithmic governance require to engage in epistemology, ontology or governance. We need to consider the impact of democracy – the AI approach is arguing for the democratisation through N=all argument. Leaving aside the ability to ingest all the data, what is seemed to assume that subjects are not viewed any more as individuals but as aggregate that can be manipulated and act upon. Algorithmic governance, there is a false emancipation by promise of inclusiveness, but instead it is responding to predictions that are created from data analysis. The analysis is arguing to be scientific way to respond to social needs. Ideas of individual agency disappear. Here we can use Foucault analysis of power to understand agency.  Finally we also see government without politics – arguing that we make subjects and objects amenable to action. There is not selfness, but just a group prediction. This transcend and obviates many aspects of citizenship.

Niall O’Brolchain (Insight Centre), ‘The Open Government’. There is difference between government and governance. The eGov unit in Galway Insight Centre of Data Analytics act as an Open Data Institute node and part of the Open Government Partnership. OGP involve 66 countries, to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, harness new technologies to strengthen governance. Started in 2011 and involved now 1500 people, with ministerial level involvement. The OGP got set of principles, with eligibility criteria that involve civic society and government in equal terms – the aim is to provide information so it increase civic participation, requires the highest standards of professional integrity throughout administration, and there is a need to increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability. Generally consider that technology benefits outweigh the disadvantages for citizenship. Grand challenges – improving public services, increasing public integrity, public resources, safer communities, corporate accountability. Not surprisingly, corporate accountability is one of the weakest.

Discussion:

Using the Foucault framework, the question is about the potential for resistance that is created because of the power increase. There are cases to discuss about hacktivism and use of technologies. There is an issue of the ability of resisting power – e.g. passing details between companies based on prediction. The issue is not about who use the data and how they control it. Sometime need to use approaches that are being used by illegal actors to hide their tracks to resist it.
A challenge to the workshop is that the area is so wide, and we need to focus on specific aspects – e.g. use of systems in governments, and while technology is changing. Interoperability.  There are overlaps between environmental democracy and open data, with many similar actors – and with much more government buy-in from government and officials. There was also technological change that make it easier for government (e.g. Mexico releasing environmental data under OGP).
Sovereignty is also an issue – with loss of it to technology and corporations over the last years, and indeed the corporate accountability is noted in the OGP framework as one that need more attention.
There is also an issue about information that is not allowed to exists, absences and silences are important. There are issues of consent – the network effects prevent options of consent, and therefore society and academics can force businesses to behave socially in a specific way. Keeping of information and attributing it to individuals is the crux of the matter and where governance should come in. You have to communicate over the internet about who you are, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t dictate to corporations what they are allowed to do and how to use it. We can also consider of privacy by design.

Session 2: Algorithmic Governance and the State

Dr Brendan Flynn (NUI Galway), ‘When Big Data Meets Artificial Intelligence will Governance by Algorithm be More or Less Likely to Go to War?’. When looking at autonomous weapons we can learn about general algorithmic governance. Algorithmic decision support systems have a role to play in very narrow scope – to do what the stock market do – identifying very dangerous response quickly and stop them. In terms of politics – many things will continue. One thing that come from military systems is that there are always ‘human in the loop’ – that is sometime the problem. There will be HCI issues with making decisions quickly based on algorithms and things can go very wrong. There are false positive cases as the example of the USS Vincennes that uses DSS to make a decision on shooting down a passenger plane. The decision taking is limited by the decision shaping, which is handed more and more to algorithms. There are issues with the way military practices understand command responsibility in the Navy, which put very high standard from responsibility of failure. There is need to see how to interpret information from black boxes on false positives and false negatives. We can use this extreme example to learn about civic cases. Need to have high standards for officials. If we do visit some version of command responsibility to those who are using algorithms in governance, it is possible to put responsibility not on the user of the algorithm and not only on the creators of the code.

Dr Maria Murphy (Maynooth), ‘Algorithmic Surveillance: True
Negatives’. We all know that algorithmic interrogation of data for crime prevention is becoming commonplace and also in companies. We know that decisions can be about life and death. When considering surveillance, there are many issues. Consider the probability of assuming someone to be potential terrorist or extremist. In Human Rights we can use the concept of private life, and algorithmic processing can challenge that. Article 8 of the Human Right Convention is not absolute, and can be changed in specific cases – and the ECHR ask for justifications from governments, to show that they follow the guidelines. Surveillance regulations need to explicitly identify types of people and crimes that are open to observations. You can’t say that everyone is open to surveillance. When there are specific keywords that can be judged, but what about AI and machine learning, where the creator can’t know what will come out? There is also need to show proportionality to prevent social harm. False positives in algorithms – because terrorism are so rare, there is a lot of risk to have a bad impact on the prevention of terrorism or crime. The assumption of more data is better data, we left with a problem of generalised surveillance that is seen as highly problematic. Interestingly the ECHR do see a lot of potential in technologies and their potential use by technologies.

Professor Dag Weise Schartum (University of Oslo), ‘Transformation of Law into Algorithm’. His focus was on how algorithms are created, and thinking about this within government systems. They are the bedrock of our welfare systems – which is the way they appear in law. Algorithms are a form of decision-making: general decisions about what should be regarded, and then making decisions. The translation of decisions to computer code, but the raw material is legal decision-making process and transform them to algorithms. Programmers do have autonomy when translating requirements into code – the Norwegian experience show close work with experts to implement the code. You can think of an ideal transformation model of a system to algorithms, that exist within a domain – service or authority of a government, and done for the purpose of addressing decision-making. The process is qualification of legal sources, and interpretations that are done in natural language, which then turn into specification of rules, and then it turns into a formal language which are then used for programming and modelling it. There are iterations throughout the process, and the system is being tested, go through a process of confirming the specification and then it get into use. It’s too complex to test every aspect of it, but once the specifications are confirmed, it is used for decision-making.  In terms of research we need to understand the transformation process in different agency – overall organisation, model of system development, competences, and degree of law-making effects. The challenge is the need to reform of the system: adapting to changes in the political and social change over the time. Need to make the system flexible in the design to allow openness and not rigidness.

Heike Felzman (NUI Galway), ‘The Imputation of Mental Health
from Social Media Contributions’ philosophy and psychological background. Algorithms can access different sources – blogs, social media and this personal data are being used to analyse mood analysis, and that can lead to observations about mental health. In 2013, there are examples of identifying of affective disorders, and the research doesn’t consider the ethical implication. Data that is being used in content, individual metadata like time of online activities, length of contributions, typing speed. Also checking network characteristics and biosensing such as voice, facial expressions. Some ethical challenges include: contextual integrity (Nissenbaum 2004/2009) privacy expectations are context specific and not as constant rules. Secondly, lack of vulnerability protection – analysis of mental health breach the rights of people to protect their health. Third, potential negative consequences, with impacts on employment, insurance, etc. Finally, the irrelevance of consent – some studies included consent in the development, but what about applying it in the world. We see no informed consent, no opt-out, no content related vulnerability protections, no duty of care and risk mitigation, there is no feedback and the number of participants number is unlimited. All these are in contrast to practices in Human Subjects Research guidelines.

Discussion:

In terms of surveillance, we should think about self-surveillance in which the citizens are providing the details of surveillance yourself. Surveillance is not only negative – but modern approach are not only for negative reasons. There is hoarding mentality of the military-industrial complex.
The area of command responsibility received attention, with discussion of liability and different ways in which courts are treating military versus civilian responsibility.

Panel 3: Algorithmic Governance in Practice

Professor Burkhard Schafer (Edinburgh), ‘Exhibit A – Algorithms as
Evidence in Legal Fact Finding’. The discussion about legal aspects can easily go to 1066 – you can go through a whole history. There are many links to medieval law to today. As a regulatory tool, there is the issue with the rule of proof. Legal scholars don’t focus enough on the importance of evidence and how to understand it. Regulations of technology is not about the law but about the implementation on the ground, for example in the case of data protection legislations. In a recent NESTA meeting, there was a discussion about the implications of Big Data – using personal data is not the only issue. For example, citizen science project that show low exposure to emission, and therefore deciding that it’s relevant to use the location in which the citizens monitored their area as the perfect location for a polluting activity – so harming the person who collected data. This is not a case of data protection strictly. How can citizen can object to ‘computer say no’ syndrome? What are the minimum criteria to challenge such a decision? What are the procedural rules of fairness. Have a meaningful cross examination during such cases is difficult in such cases. Courts sometimes accept and happy to use computer models, and other times reluctant to take them. There are issues about the burden of proof from systems (e.g. to show that ATM was working correctly when a fraud was done). DNA tests are relying on computer modelling, but systems that are proprietary and closed. Many algorithms are hidden for business confidentiality and there are explorations of these issues. One approach is to rely on open source tools. Replication is another way of ensuring the results. Escrow ownership of model by third party is another option. Next, there is a possibility to questioning software, in natural language.

Dr Aisling de Paor (DCU), ‘Algorithmic Governance and Genetic Information’ – there is an issue in law, and massive applications in genetic information. There is rapid technological advancement in many settings, genetic testing, pharma and many other aspects – indications of behavioural traits, disability, and more. There are competing rights and interests. There are rapid advances in this area – use in health care, and the technology become cheaper (already below $1000). Genetic information. In commercial settings use in insurance, valuable for economic and efficiency in medical settings. There is also focus on personalised medicine. A lot of the concerns are about misuse of algorithms. For example, the predictive assumption about impact on behaviour and health. The current state of predictability is limited, especially the environmental impacts on expressions of genes. There is conflicting rights – efficiency and economic benefits but challenge against human rights – e.g. right to privacy . Also right for non-discrimination – making decisions on the basis of probability may be deemed as discriminatory. There are wider societal and public policy concerns – possible creation of genetic underclass and the potential of exacerbate societal stigma about disability, disease and difference. Need to identify gaps between low, policy and code, decide use, commercial interests and the potential abuses.

Anthony Behan (IBM but at a personal capacity), ‘Ad Tech, Big Data and Prediction Markets: The Value of Probability’. Thinking about advertising, it is very useful use case to consider what happen in such governance processes. What happen in 200 milliseconds for advertising, which is the standards on the internet. The process of real-time-bid is becoming standardised. Start from a click – the publisher invokes an API and give information about the interactions from the user based on their cookie and there are various IDs. Supply Side Platform open an auction. on the demand side, there are advertisers that want to push content to people – age group, demographic, day, time and objectives such as click through rates. The Demand Side platform looks at the SSPs. Each SSP is connected to hundreds of Demand Side Platforms (DSPs). Complex relationships exist between these systems. There are probability score or engage in a way that they want to engage, and they offer how much it is worth for them – all in micropayment. The data management platform (DMP) is important to improve the bidding. e.g., if they can get information about users/platform/context at specific times places etc is important to guess how people tend to behave. The economy of the internet on advert is based on this structure. We get abstractions of intent – the more privacy was invaded and understand personality and intent, the less they were interested in a specific person but more in the probability and the aggregate. Viewing people as current identity and current intent, and it’s all about mathematics – there are huge amount of transactions, and the inventory become more valuable. The interactions become more diverse with the Internet of Things. The Internet become a ‘data farm’ – we started with a concept that people are valuable, to view that data is valuable and how we can extract it from people. Advertising goes into the whole commerce element.

I’ll blog about my talk ‘Algorithmic Governance in Environmental Information (or How Technophilia Shapes Environmental Democracy) later.

 Discussion:

There are issues with genetics and eugenics. Eugenics fell out of favour because of science issues, and the new genetics is claiming much more predictive power. In neuroscience there are issues about brain scans, which are not handled which are based on insufficient scientific evidence. There is an issue with discrimination – shouldn’t assume that it’s only negative. Need to think about unjustified discrimination. There are different semantic to the word. There are issues with institutional information infrastructure.

Giving time – randomised experiments on volunteering and citizen social science

As the event blurb explained  “the Giving Time experiments were led by a team from four UK universities, who wanted to know whether sharing information about how others have volunteered could help to improve volunteering… this was about giving time – and whether volunteers can be nudged. The methodology was randomised control trial (RCTs) in real-life field settings involving university student volunteers, Parish Councils, National Trust volunteers, and housing association residents.  The research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).” The discussion of RCTs and Citizen Science in the same event was bound to generate interesting points.

In the first session, Prof Peter John (UCL) discussed The research challenges of large scale RCTs with volunteers and volunteering organisations. Peter covered the principles for Randomised Control Trials  (RCTs) – using randomness in trying something: assuming that two random groups will behave the same if you leave them alone, so you do things only to one group and observe the results. Start with baseline, random allocation to programme and control group, and then compare the outcome. Tying the outcomes to random allocation and – they are unbiased estimates of the impact of outcomes. Key distinguishing features of RCTs: need to deliver an intervention and the research at the same time. He suggests a 10 steps process – assessment of fit for RCTs, recruitment of partner organisations in which the work will be carried out, select a site, decide treatment, specify control, calculation of sample size, develop the procedure for random allocation, collection of data on the subjects, preparation of research plans, and assessment of ethical principles. The things can go wrong include: loss of subjects – people drop out along the way; failed randomization – deciding on who will be included in the process; treatment not given or modified; interference between treatment and control – when the groups meet; unavoidable confounds – when something come along in policy or media and policy change; poor quality data – what the data mean and what is going on with it; loss of cooperation with partners; and unexpected logistical challenges.
The Giving Time was the first RCTs on volunteering experiments – volunteering is more complex than giving money. The question is if behavioural methods can impact on the changes in the process. Working with the volunteering sector was challenging as they don’t have detailed records of volunteers that can be used to develop RCTs. There was willingness to participate in experiments and it was quite interesting to work with such organisations. There was a high level of attrition for those who are staying in the study – just getting volunteers to volunteer – from getting people to be interested until they do something. Is it possible to make it easier, get better quality data? RCTs required changes in organisational practices – if they are information based they are not hugely costly. It is possible to design trials to be sensitive to organisational practice and can be used quickly in decision making. There are issues with data protection and have a clear data sharing agreement.

Against this background, the second session Towards ‘Extreme Citizen Social Science’ – or volunteering as a tool for both social action and enquiry explored a contrasting approach. The session description already explored challenge: “For many, the scale of engagement with volunteers undertaken through Giving Time brings to mind related questions about the role of citizens in formal research – and then of course Citizen Science – or perhaps ‘Citizen Social Science’? At the same time we see the emergence of “Extreme Citizen Science” aimed at stimulating debate and challenging power relationships through citizen involvement in large scale scientific investigations. Extreme citizen science often starts from natural and physical sciences and has citizen researchers working with formal researchers to define the central research questions, and methods of investigation. But what is the potential for Extreme Citizen Social Science – characterised by being large scale, focused on social science questions, exploiting digital technology, having a high degree of participant control, and orientated towards influencing policy?”

Liz Richardson (Manchester Uni) gave her view on citizen social science approach. She is doing a lot of participatory research, and you need to explore with participants what is accepted to do with them. We can solve problems in a better way, if we have conversations on wide knowledge base in science – e.g. – a rough guide to spotting bad science. Liz compared her experience to early memories of the RSPB Big Garden Bird Watch – the natural sciences version of citizen science, and part of it is access to back gardens and wide area research. She also reflected on her participation in Zooniverse and the confusion about what is the science there – e.g. why scientists ask which direction wildebeest look? There are different levels of engagement in citizen science classification, such as Haklay 2013 and a version in the book community research for participation – from low participation to high level. Citizen social science  – example for a basic one is the 2011 big class survey in the BBC – just giving and sharing information – more crowdsourcing. Another, more complex example is Christian Nold emotional maps when people responded to arousal measurement, part of evolution in visualising information and sharing mapping. The app MapLocal is used in local planning and sharing information by community members. Groups can also collect data and analyse it – they then work with social scientists how to make sense of data that they collected (work carried out with White Rock Trust in Hasting). It’s not research that done alone but integrated and leading to a change – it’s community consultation. An example is a game in Boston with Participatory Chinatown – and example for a community-led action research from the Morris Justice Project with support from academics.

I provided a presentation about extreme citizen science, positioning it within social science context (similar to my talk for the Institute for Global Prosperity) with some pointers to underlying social theory – especially that the approach that we take in contrast to some behaviour change approaches that take methodological individualism for granted.

Jemma Mouland (Family Mosaic) provided the provider point of view. Head of research at large social housing provider, with about 45,000 tenants. They have done project with Liz, and she explained it from provider point of view. Family Mosaic is looking at community involvement and decision making – what affect them in their daily life and where the housing provider come in? How to work more collaboratively with the residents. They run the a citizen science project around the meaning of community. They have done that through the Giving Time project – they sent email to recruit people to become citizen scientists – from 8000 people that received the message, 82 were interested, then 13 people were involved. They provided the material to carry out workshops, and didn’t instructed how to carry out the research – that led to 50 responses, although instructed to get at least 3, so some people moved beyond just 3. They also got the citizen scientists to analyse the data and the residents interpreted the data that they have gathered. The results from the survey – different definition of community, with active minority, and barriers include time and articulating the benefits (‘why should I do it?’). The residents felt that it was great, but they weren’t sure about doing it again – and also acting on behalf of the provider can be an issue, as well as feeling that all familiar contacts where used. The issue of skills is also interesting – gave very little information, and it can be effective to train people more. For Family Mosaic – the data was not ground breaking, but prove that collaboration can work and have a potential, it gave evident that it can work for the organisation.

So, *can* volunteers be nudged? Turning the spotlight on the future of Nudge techniques. Professor Gerry Stoker (Southampton Uni) The reasons for the lack of success of intervention was the use of the wrong tool and significant difference of money donation and time donation. Nudge come with a set of ideas – drawing on behavioural economics – we use short-cuts and tricks to make decision and we do what other do and then government followed it in a way to influence and work with people and change their behaviour. There are multiple doubts about nudge – nudge assumes fast thinking, but giving time is in slow thinking mode – donating money closer to type 1 (fast thinking) and volunteering closer to type 2 (slow thinking). Second, humans are not just cognitive misers – there are degrees of fast and slow thinking. Almost all nudging techniques are about compliance. Also it’s naive and overly promotional – and issues when the topic is controversial. The individual focus missed the social – changing people mind require persuasion. Complexity also make clear answers harder to find – internal and external validity, and there are very complex models of causality. There are ironic politics of nudge and experiments – allowed space only at the margins of policy making. Need to recognise that its a tool along other tools, and need to deal with groups side by side with other tools. Nudge is a combination with structural or institutional change, wider strategies of behaviour change, and not that other techniques are not without their own problems and issues

Discussion – need to have methodologies that are responsive to the local situation and context. A question is how do you nudge communities and not work at the individual level.

The final talk before the panel discussion was Volunteers will save us – volunteering as a panacea. Presenter: Dr Justin Davis-Smith (National Council for Voluntary Orgs) State of volunteering in 2015 – volunteering can lead to allow social transformations – e.g. ex-offenders being released to volunteering roles and that help avoiding offending. Another success is to involve people who are far from the job market to get employable skills through volunteering. Volunteering also shown that volunteers have better mental health and wellbeing. Not volunteering has a negative impact on your wellbeing. There are volunteering that can be based on prescription (e.g. Green Gyms). Volunteers are engaged in public services, such as special constables. Social capital is also improved through volunteering. Replacement value £40Bn, and the other impacts of volunteering are not being quantified so the full value is estimated at £200Bn. So volunteer will save us?
However, volunteering is cost effective but not without cost and require investment, which is difficult to make. The discussion about engagement of volunteers in public service put the volunteers against paid labour, instead of co-production. There are also unhealthy dynamic with paid staff if it only seen as cost-saving measure. We have a small core that provide their volunteering effort, and the vast majority of volunteering is made by a small group (work on civic core by the centre for third sector research was mentioned). The search for the panacea is therefore complex. Over effort of 15 years in different forms of volunteering, there is only 5% change in the amount people report about volunteering. Some of the nudge mechanisms didn’t work – there is a lot of evidence to show that campaign on volunteering don’t work well. People react negatively to campaigns. Barrier for volunteering is lack of time, and concerned that getting involved will demand more and more of their time. Reflecting on time constraints and micro-volunteering can work.

The final panel explored issues of co-production of research and the opportunities to work with volunteering organisations to start the process – many social services providers do want to have access to research but find it difficult to start the process.

Standards and Recommendations for Citizen Science (University of Zurich)

Following a short project that was headed by Daniel Wyler of the University of Zürich in collaboration with the League of European Research Universities, two draft documents aimed at universities and research funders were developed. The documents can be found here, and there is scope to comments and suggest changes for the next month on them.  The university organised a one day workshop to discuss the findings of the work and the need for guidelines and standards.

The opening remakes came from Michael Hengartner (President, University of Zurich) highlighting the commitment of the university to openness as secular university and one of the first in Switzerland to be open to women. Switzerland has a long tradition of participatory democracy, though it also create challenges (e.g. participation in Horizon 2020). Citizen Science is a way for Swiss scientists to take advantage of the strong tradition of participatory democracy and very strong universities. There is also early involvement in citizen science – for example through the university of Geneva (citizen cyberscience centre) in collaboration with CERN and UNITAR. The reports are the result of the Citizen Science Initiative Switzerland. One of the initiative of CSI is the standards for excellence in citizen science and policy recommendations. They create a citizen science centre in Zürich, with infrastructure to facilitate and support citizen science across the world.

Next came a short note from Alice Shepard (citizen scientist, Galaxy Zoo) shared her experience as a citizen scientists who became lead forum moderator at Galaxy Zoo. Came to citizen science by accident – in 2007 became a lead forum moderator from being a lead volunteer and active. Her background is environmental science, and was frustrated from the lack of engagement of the public in her studies. In 2007, she became involved in galaxy zoo and it became an obsession. Different people have different skills and abilities to teach each others – they collaboration between volunteers started to find new things: one offs, accidental findings and that’s the way ordinary citizens, without much specific science training found new things and started their own projects. In galaxy zoo there is a safe space of the forum which was well behaved and allow questioning of many issues and explorations. They then started to have meetups and gathering and abilities to join on projects. They discovered classes of astronomical objects, and appear in book by Michael Nielsen. Lay people can do science to build new tools. Galaxy zoo treated volunteers as collaborators, write regular blog posts to work that recognised volunteers, recognition on page, and encourages safe civilised space on the internet an encouraged to find new things. Becoming a professional scientist is a challenge to become  – the general public are very capable, and we want to join in. the people who want to become professional scientists experience difficulties – gaining degrees, writing academically – so need to open new routes to science.

Following Alice, I gave an overview of Citizen Science (slides below)

Next was a talk by Michael Pocock (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) about    Thoughtful enthusiasm for Citizen Science instead of just enthusiasm to citizen science, having a more careful and reflective one. There are many projects that are following under the title citizen science, but provocatively he argues that there is no such thing as citizen science: science is science – it should be judged as such, so shouldn’t have special treatment. Secondly, a problem with citizen – should be people or participants, and it is term of convenience – types of approaches which have common attributes. Citizen science need ‘real’ science with excellent engagement – citizen science is not about compromised between the two but merging the two. While examining the Shirk et al typology of contributory/collaborative/co-created citizen science, The Biological Recording Centre in which he works use multiple methods. A very important type of projects are enthusiasm led and the volunteers led the projects completely, with professionals providing support and tools. Citizen Science has a long standing activities in ecology and wildlife. Even for the BRC it is very diverse – across many taxa. It is possible to enthuse people about a very wide range of topics and not only popular species. The UK have 70,000 volunteers a year, ranging from occasional recorders, to non-professional experts. The work lead to high impact papers and understanding issues such as climate change. They also contribute to evidence based policy. Citizen science has diversity, with the analysis of many projects show that they are in a full range, from mass participation to systematic monitoring, and from simple to an elaborate approach. Citizen Science is like a toolbox – need to use the appropriate type and approach to citizen science to the issue. Be careful of being carried out by hype – that the project can become too big to fail, and lacking critical evaluation, so we would like to see thoughtful reflection on where it should be used. Universities offer cutting-edge research, societal impact, new technology, enthusiastic researchers and innovation. There is also hypothesis led citizen science such as conker tree and there is value in short term projects at a small scale. Need integrity to finish and close a project and finish it well. Need to preserve the fun and to some extent the anarchy that is common in citizen science

Next came the policy overview, in Open Science: From Vision to Action with Jean-Claude Burgelman (Head of Unit Science Policy, Foresight and Data, DG R&I at European Commission). The commissioner view is open innovations, open science and open to the world. Open Science is a systematic change in the modus operandi of science and research, and affective the research cycle and its stakeholders. From the usual close cycle of doing the cycle of science in a closed way to an open publication, review, blogs, open data, open annotations, workflows, code, pre-print services – new ecosystems of services and standards. We see activities of major companies getting involved in different ways in the new tools (e.g. Elsevier and Mendeley). It’s key drivers – digital technology, exponential growth of data, more researchers and increased in scientific production. There are plenty things happen at one: open source software, collaborative knowledge production creative commons, open innovation, Moocs etc. We need to use the openness to increase transparency, openness and networked collaboration – getting trustworthiness from the public. Citizen science as a way to link science and society and being responsive to their needs. The public consultation for Science 2.0 led to  many responses, leading to the selection of open science. 47% agree that citizen science is part of open science – the lowest response from scientists, while 80% argue that it’s because of digital technologies. The barriers for open science are quality assurance, lack of credits, infrastructure and awareness to benefits. Interestingly, less than 70% were concerns about ethical and privacy issues. People viewed that the implications for science will make science more reliable, efficient and faster leading to wider innovation, while crowdfunding is not seen as important indication of open science. In terms of policy – there was policy about open access to publication, data, infrastructure and framework conditions – need to ensure that it is bottom-up and stakeholder-driven – not a top-down solution from Brussels. Decided on open science policy – 5 blocks: foster open science, remove barriers, developing infrastructures (open science cloud), open access on publication and data, and socio-economic driver. In fostering open science – promoting best practices, research integrity, citizen science and similar area -and establish an open science forum. Also mainstream open access to publications and data in Horizon 2020. The open cloud for science is challenging – require governance, data and service layer and infrastructure layer. The policy forum includes a working group on citizen science. Citizen science is important – but should be seen as part of the wider open science landscape

Another view of processes that are happening at the policy level was provided by Claudia Göbel (European Citizen Science Association, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin) in Citizen Science associations as Agents of Professionalisation using the Socientize framework, looking at the mesoscale and macroscale. We’re seeing growth in national (Austria, Germany) and international – Citizen Science Association, Australian Citizen Science Association and European Citizen Science Association (ECSA). ECSA got 84 members from 22 countries – they have organisations, and members – about 66% are from science organisation, and four important hubs – Germany, Spain, Italy and UK – but that depends on the history of ECSA and how its network grown over the past 5 years. ECSA started to set up some of the key documents: ECSA strategy – part of the activity is to be a think tank for citizen science – sharing knowledge & skills across field, and linking to international links. Many of the members are involved in ecology and biodiversity and therefore there is a link to dealing with sustainability though citizen science, and developing participatory methods for cooperation, empowerment and impact. ECSA also developing memorandum of understanding with ACSA and CSA. Interesting response between the association came as a response to the Nature editorial on citizen science. The capacity building working group has launched the ten principles of citizen science – and try to identify good practice within a flexible concept. Responses to policy document can be challenging within a volunteer based organisation. ECSA have an important effort in environmental policy, and in Responsible Research and Innovation. We have seen the ECSA is located at the meso level in exchange and capacity building in the Socientize framework – doing the multiplier effect. In the university sector – some specific research group, museum or sub-organisation is members of ECSA . Also example for innovation in citizen science and new mechanisms, structures process for an area. What we are seeing is a process of professionalisation – fostering learning and action, providing information and services and expertise – creating community of peers, standards, and quality and they will play a role in the field as a whole.

This was followed by a panel discussion which was moderated by Mike Martin (Gerontopsychology, University of Zurich) with myself, Lidia Borrell-Damián (Director Research and Innovation, European University Association), Jennifer Shirk (Field Development Coordinator, Citizen Science Association), Josep Perelló (OpenSystems Research and Complex Lab Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona), Effy Vayena (Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Prevention Institute, University of Zurich), François Grey (Citizen Cyberscience Centre, University of Geneva), Dirk Helbing (Computational Social Science, ETH Zurich), Alice Sheppard (Galaxy Zoo)

 

The afternoon was dedicated to two workshops Policy Recommendations for Funding Moderator: Jean-Claude Burgelman, who noted that as policy maker, defining everything as citizen science – calling any informal participation in science is not useful for policy making. Some of the recommendations that the people in the room made include: Need to be clear about innovation, sharing of intellectual properties. Need to ensure that there are clear benefits to citizen scientists – commitment to professional training, and opportunities that are opened to them. Every research institution should develop a policy on open science as part of that citizen science. There is need for data management plans. The software development of an infrastructure is lots of time are not well covered in usual funding. Citizen science require a social infrastructure that is not part of the current rewarding of scientists and organisations. Citizen science can be used as an area of a demonstrator for citizen science – open data, open access, open source as a way to transform the field. We need to consider how to work at local, regional, national and European Countries. we also need action to increase the participation in citizen science across Europe. There is also an issue of ‘right for data’ that should allow people to access to their own data. Need to define parameters for high quality science research and the document should be for outside the context.  Quality of the science need to be equivalent to the general scientists, localness of citizen science is an issue that limits academic interest – there isn’t enough recognition of the local aspects and interest.

The second workshop looked at Standards for Citizen Science Moderated by Kevin Schawinski (Astrophysics, ETH Zurich) included some of the following points: do we need standards and rules? maybe we should wait to give it emerging over time. Maybe begin with guidelines, and then let them evolve over time. The citizen scientists need to be involved in setting the standards and working through them. Standards can be used in multiple ways, as a reference to allow people to see how things should work. Good principles can express aspiration of excellence. Quality of the research is multi-faceted – can consider the outcomes (the goals of the project) and evaluating the process through which they were achieved. Acknowledging citizen science through scientific outcomes can be challenging – some people want and don’t want to be named. There are also many ways of authorship, participation and practices between scientific fields. Worth asking the people who participate what they want.

Conclusions: Results and next Steps, was set by Daniel Wyler and Katrien Maes (Chief Policy Office, League of European Research Universities) ‘citizens are not organised’  so the feedback on the documents came so far from more institutional partners – need to engage with the public much more. The general view is that it is worth considering guidelines and principles for universities – it can help funders to fund project and put citizen science in focus. We should have in the guidelines parameters about different levels of participation and engagement. Acknowledgement is an issue that depend on the science and the guidelines should allow variations and practices. There is an issue with judging and assessing citizen science completely different – we should ensure similar valuation. For medical research need to consider how to approach personal data. we should have a single point of entry where they can get support for education and training .

From LERU’s perspective, the papers are important to put citizen science on the map and raise attention. There isn’t just one citizen science, so there is plenty of information awareness raising that is required to make universities aware of the opportunities. For universities, the paper will need to take a narrower view of citizen science – especially integrating it with open science agenda and with the activities of research universities. Guidelines and principles – not regulations and strict rules as this will not be appropriate for the field.

ECSA annual meeting in Barcelona (28-29 October)

Barcelona is becoming a hub of strong support for Citizen Science with an office for citizen science at the city level. It was therefore the site of the 2015 annual meeting of the European Citizen Science Association.

wpid-wp-1446153439017.jpgOn the day before the annual meeting, the afternoon was dedicated to a citizen science safari, with visit to the Parc de la Ciutadella and the nearby coast, learning and trying a range of citizen science projects.

Some of my notes from the meeting day are provided below.

Katrin Vohland (ECSA vice chair) open with noting that we see growing networks at national levels (Austria, Germany) and internationally. She noted that role of ECSA as a networking organisation and draw parallels to transformative social innovation theory which talks about ‘guided expansion’. ECSA can develop into multiple hubs (innovation, urban, ecology etc.) with shared responsibility and potentially distributed secretariat . We can share experiences and work load across the network and find new ways to grow.

Libby Hepburn (Australian Citizen Science Association ACSA) talked about the experience in Australia from two perspectives  – personally running the Coastal Atlas of Australia and being involved in ACSA. Starting with the Australian context – the history that it didn’t have many people (20 mil population over space larger than Europe, displacement of aboriginal groups and loss of local knowledge) and impact of weather and climate is important. Only 25% of Australian species have been described. There are lots of introduced species – from rabbits to dung beetles to cane toads, thought there are counter examples such as dung beetles are actually successful as they deal with the impact from hoofed species that were introduced. The development of science in Australia is from the late 19th century.  The political approach towards science is complex and changing, but citizen science doesn’t wait for the political environment. The Australian Museum created a project to digitise over 16,000 transcriptions of species. Projects such as Explore the Sea-floor allow people to classify images that are being taken automatically under the sea. Philip Roetman Cat Tracker project is another example, allowing to understand the damage that domestic cats causing to local biodiversity. The atlas of living Australia allow for information sharing and distribution patterns. and additional layers – including likely rainfall. They are starting to develop a citizen science project finder, and starting an association – while keeping links to the other emerging associations and projects. She noted the analysis of the Socientize white paper, OPAL, and other lessons from around the world.

wpid-wp-1446156208999.jpgA presentation from the Citi-Sense project explained the need for development of sensor-based on citizens’ observatory community. Some of the products that are ready for use. Starting to have stationary boxes that are becoming possible to produce information about air quality. They have developed the CityAir app which provide to report geolocated perceptions and visualise user community reports. Provide personal and community perceptions. There are ways of integrating the data from the models and perception.

Sven Schade (JRC) talked about the citizen science data flow survey. Received 149 projects. at different scales – from neighbourhood to multi national. The data re-usability is that while 90 projects provide data, the majority do that after embargo.

Daniel Wyler (University of Zürich) talked about the citizen science in universities – an initiative in the University of Zürich – establish citizen science at public research and education bodies, they want to establish the Zürich Citizen Science Centre, and developing two papers – a policy paper about the area, and a set of suggested standards for research universities and science funding bodies.

Josep Parelló talked about creativity and innovation in Barcelona – BCNLAb is collaboration with the city council – providing a hub that allow grass-roots to create activities. Providing open scope – they established a citizen science office and promoting participatory practices in scientific research, enjoy from multipliers of research, sharing resources, having a large base of committed participants, common protocol, data repository. He used inspiration from Michel Callon (2003) Research in the wild concept.

Daniel Garcia wpid-wp-1446153467202.jpgtalked about the Responsible Research and Innovation Challenges and the linkage to citizen science. RRI includes concept such as CBPR, Science Shops , Open Science. Citizen Science is concerned in the political acceptance to inform policies. There are multiple links between RRI and Citizen Science.

 

Anne Bowser and Elisabeth Tyson described the Wilson Center commons lab and the emerging legal landscape in the US: the crowdsourcing and citizen science bill of 2015 that is being offered in congress – it’s about educating policy makers to the topic. There was also memo from the Office of Science and technology Policy. The memo asked to have point of contacts for citizen science, secondly standardising metadata and cataloguing citizen science activities. A toolkit was published to assist with the implementation. There is an effort of creating a shared database across the CSA, CitSci.org, SciStarter and other sources. There is value in these database for end users, and also use the database as a research tools.

From the ECSA meeting itself there are several news: ECSA have 84 members from 22 countries 30% individual members, the rest organisational members. New badge for ECSA – you can have a badge that recognise ECSA members. The working group on the principle and standards published the 10 principles of citizen science. The new working group deal with best practice and building capacity. Data working group exploring interoperability, privacy/reliability, and intellectual property rights. The international conference is now in planning in 19-21 May 2016, and there is an emerging social media representation on Instagram and Facebook. The policy group is engaging at EU policy levels, but also noticing international developments in the area of citizen science and policy. Planning policy briefing. Responding to policy consultations, and there are some proposals for  areas that ECSA can impact policy. A new working group was suggested to coordinate the work of citizen science facilitators. New members selected to the advisory board: Malene
Bruun (European Environmental Agency), Alan Irwin (Department of Organization at Copenhagen Business School), Michael Søgaard Jørgensen
(DIST, Aalborg University), Roger Owen (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) and Ferdinando Boero (University of Salento).

 

There is more information on the TagBoard platform, where the hashtag #ECSAbcn captured the

Environmental information: between scarcity/abundance and emotions/rationality

The Eye on Earth Summit, which was held in Abu Dhabi last week, allowed me to immerse myself in the topics that I’ve been researching for a long time: geographic information, public access to environmental information, participation, citizen science, and the role of all these in policy making. My notes (day 1 morning, day 1 afternoon, day 2 morning, day 2 afternoon, day 3 morning & day 3 afternoon) provide the background for this post, as well as the blog posts from Elisabeth Tyson (day 1, day 2) and the IISD reports and bulletins from the summit. The first Eye on Earth Summit provided me with plenty to think about, so I thought that it is worth reflecting on my ‘Take home’ messages.

What follows are my personal reflections from the summit and the themes that I feel are emerging in the area of environmental information today. 

wpid-wp-1444166132788.jpgWhen considering the recent ratification of the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs by the UN Assembly, it is not surprising that they loomed large over the summit – as drivers for environmental information demand for the next 15 years, as focal points for the effort of coordination of information collection and dissemination, but also as an opportunity to make new links between environment and health, or promoting environmental democracy (access to information, participation in decision making, and access to justice). It seems that the SDGs are very much in the front of the mind of the international organisations who are part of the Eye on Earth alliance, although other organisations, companies and researchers who are coming with more technical focus (e.g. Big Data or Remote Sensing) are less aware of them – at least in terms of referring to them in their presentations during the summit.

Beyond the SDGs, two overarching tensions emerged throughout the presentations and discussions – and both are challenging. They are the tensions between abundance and scarcity, and between emotions and rationality. Let’s look at them in turn.

Abundance and scarcity came up again and agin. On the data side, the themes of ‘data revolution’, more satellite information, crowdsourcing from many thousands of weather observers and the creation of more sources of information (e.g. Environmental Democracy Index) are all examples for abundance in the amount of available data and information. At the same time, this was contrasted with the scarcity in the real world (e.g species extinction, health of mangroves), scarcity of actionable knowledge, and scarcity with ecologists with computing skills. Some speakers oscillated between these two ends within few slides or even in the same one. There wasn’t an easy resolution for this tension, and both ends were presented as challenges.

wpid-wp-1444327727288.jpg

With emotions and scientific rationality, the story was different. Here the conference was packed with examples that we’re (finally!) moving away from a simplistic ‘information deficit model‘ that emphasise scientific rationality as the main way to lead a change in policy or public understanding of environmental change. Throughout the summit presenters emphasised the role of mass media communication, art (including live painting development through the summit by GRID-Arendal team), music, visualisation, and story telling as vital ingredients that make information and knowledge relevant and actionable. Instead of a ‘Two Cultures’ position, Eye on Earth offered a much more harmonious and collaborative linkage between these two ways of thinking and feeling.

Next, and linked to the issue of abundance and scarcity are costs and funding. Many talks demonstrated the value of open data and the need to provide open, free and accessible information if we want to see environmental information used effectively. Moreover, providing the information with the ability of analyse or visualise it over the web was offered as a way to make it more powerful. However, the systems are costly, and although the assessment of the IUCN demonstrated that the investment in environmental datasets is modest compared to other sources (and the same is true for citizen science), there are no sustainable, consistent and appropriate funding mechanisms, yet. Funding infrastructure or networking activities is also challenging, as funders accept the value, but are not willing to fund them in a sustainable way. More generally, there is an issue about the need to fund ecological and environmental studies – it seem that while ‘established science’ is busy with ‘Big Science’ – satellites, Big Data, complex computer modelling – the work of studying ecosystems in an holistic way is left to small group of dedicated researchers and to volunteers. The urgency ad speed of environmental change demand better funding for these areas and activities.

This lead us to the issue of Citizen Science, for which the good news are that it was mentioned throughout the summit, gaining more prominence than 4 years ago in the first summit (were it also received attention). In all plenary sessions, citizen science or corwdsourced geographic information were mentioned at least once, and frequently by several speakers. Example include Hermes project for recording ocean temperatures, Airscapes Singapore for urban air quality monitoring, the Weather Underground of sharing weather information, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team work in Malawi, Kathmandu Living Lab response to the earthquake in Nepal, Arab Youth Climate Movement in Bahrain use of iNaturalist to record ecological observations, Jacky Judas work with volunteers to monitor dragonflies in Wadi Wurayah National Park  – and many more. Also the summit outcomes document is clear:  “The Summit highlighted the role of citizen science groups in supporting governments to fill data gaps, particularly across the environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development. Citizen Science was a major focus area within the Summit agenda and there was general consensus that reporting against SDGs must include citizen science data. To this end, a global coalition of citizen science groups will be established by the relevant actors and the Eye on Earth Alliance will continue to engage citizen science groups so that new data can be generated in areas where gaps are evident. The importance of citizen engagement in decision-making processes was also highlighted. ”

However, there was ambivalence about it – should it be seen as an instrument, a tool to produce environmental information or as a mean to get wider awareness and engagement by informed citizens? How best to achieve the multiple goals of citizen science: raising awareness, educating, providing skills well beyond the specific topic of the project, and democratising decision making and participation? It seem to still be the case that the integration of citizen science into day to day operations is challenging for many of the international organisations that are involved in the Eye on Earth alliance.

Another area of challenging interactions emerged from the need for wide partnerships between governments, international organisations, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), companies, start-ups, and even ad-hoc crowds that respond to a specific event or an issue which are afforded by digital and social network. There are very different speeds in implementation and delivery between these bodies, and in some cases there are chasms that need to be explored – for example, an undercurrent from some technology startups is that governments are irrelevant and in some forms of thinking that ‘to move fast and break things’ – including existing social contracts and practices – is OK. It was somewhat surprising to hear speakers praising Uber or AirBnB, especially when they came from people who familiar with the need for careful negotiations that take into account wider goals and objectives. I can see the wish to move things faster – but to what risks to we bring by breaking things?

With the discussions about Rio Principle 10 and the new developments in Latin America, the Environmental Democracy Index, and the rest, I became more convinced, as I’ve noted in 2011, that we need to start thinking about adding another right to the three that are included in it (access to environmental information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice), and develop a right to produce environmental information that will be taken seriously by the authorities – in other words, a right for citizen science. I was somewhat surprised by the responses when I raised this point during the discussion on Principle 10.

Final panel (source: IISD)

Finally, Eye on Earth was inclusive and collaborative, and it was a pleasure to see how open people were to discuss issues and explore new connections, points of view or new ways of thinking about issues. A special point that raised several positive responses was the gender representation in such high level international conference with a fairly technical focus (see the image of the closing panel). The composition of the speakers in the summit, and the fact that it was possible to have such level of women representation was fantastic to experience (making one of the male-only panels on the last day odd!). It is also an important lesson for many academic conferences – if Eye on Earth can, I cannot see a reason why it is not possible elsewhere.

Eye on Earth (Day 3 – Afternoon) Remote sensing, conservation monitoring and closing remarks

The afternoon of the last day of Eye on Earth included two plenary sessions, and a discussion (for the morning, see this post). The first plenary focused on Remote sensing and location enabling applications:

wpid-wp-1444340329759.jpgTaner Kodanaz (digitalglobe) technology that looking out to the sky now allow us to look at the Earth from 400 miles. Digital Global started 14 years with high-resolution satellite imagery – with billions of users a day that rely on online map. In natural disasters, they provide information that helped responding to it. Some examples of accelerating efforts include forest fire, intentional fires – in Global Forest Watch, Digital Globe data is used to monitor fire and deforestation and address it. The work WRI led Indonesia to deal with forest fire. Also showing the Missing Maps and respond to Kathmandu earthquake and other cases.

Anil Kumar (Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi) Abu Dhabi have done conservation effort for a long time. They have special interesting Houbara, Falcons, Scimitar Horn Oryx and several other species. Abu Dhabi was doing wildlife tracking 20 years ago, use satellite tracking to give insights into migratory routes and stopovers to reach agreement about avoiding their hunting during migration, and they’ve done different patterns of use. They also done Habitat mapping using satellite information with field verification checking that the classification works. Local ability to create classification of different habitats made it possible to share it, digitally and on paper. Allow protecting areas, follow national and international obligations, improve governance and even for emergency response and accurate blue carbon information. They also map local forestation. They have an environmental portal and share the information.

wpid-wp-1444340353887.jpgLian Pin Koh (Conservation Drones) the idea to have be able to monitor nests of Orang-utan which are difficult to monitor from the ground. Because commercial drones are expensive, he was involved in creating a DIY drone in 2012, based on toy plane and programme the route, with simple camera. This enable them to create attention from conservation groups and community scientists. Conservation Drones started as a project and done many places. They have manage to use it for a wide range of projects and shared their experience. The drone is cheap – $700 and allow repeat monitoring, and also identifying illegal logging. Reaching 1-2 cm resolution. Also used in disaster relief in a case of flood from a busted dam that happened during forest monitoring. Attitude to ConservationDrones.org changed rapidly, from ridicule to excitement, and now they are involved in exploring mapping how to quantify biomas – fuel load and control burns. The issues about drones is to create actionable information.

wpid-wp-1444340364530.jpgJustin Saunders (eMapsite) – Malawi experience an incredible rainfall, with 200,000 displaced. Rapid response don’t happen until it reach the news – but it didn’t received much attention. They received radar imagery. They used the UN Charter to gain access to the radar imagery that helped to respond to the places that were flooded. They could see the inundation, and also use a flood model to see how realistic was it. Climate change exceeded all the assumptions – including one in 500 years. In Malawi, there isn’t information about the building and community assets. They have worked with OpenStreetMap, carrying out community mapping following the practices of Open Cities and this allow the support of many relief organisations – supporting. Also used the Masdap.mw system that is the Malawi Spatial Data Portal (based on open source) and that allow sharing information. Only one platform help to ensure sharing. Use crowdsourcing before, during and after the event – they are aware that with climate change it will exceed historical records. Use of open source software encourage people to train, and improved the flood modelling. Institutions take new technology, data and methodology rapidly – especially when it was free and not require investment. Visualisation helped action.

Steven Ramage (What3Words) – there are 135 countries that don’t have addressing information, and the Universal Postal Union, this is very valuable. There are four billion people without location reference. Allow creating a digital location reference in 3 words in places that are informal and don’t have addressing system. There are 860,000 people in informal settlements – how do we communicate the location. Instead of lat/long but when you need to communicate between people, creating 3 words key to the place. The system is small – 10MB and can work without connectivity, and there is research that demonstrate that words are easier to remember then numbers. Long words are to less populated area and there is new dictionary for each language, enabling to integrate into indigenous languages. Started to be used by esri, nestoria, UN, Safe Software, Mapillary, GoCarShare. Used in the Nepal earthquake, in delivery of medicine in informal settlement, UNOCHA suggest using what3words.

The final set of talks was titled Feet in the field chaired by Stuart Parerson (Conservation Leadership Programme) exploring volunteering programmes. He noted that the questions for the session were: How do we build capacity to collect primary data? How do we make people future conservation leaders? How do we communicate with policy makers? The Feet in the Field is aimed to support future conservation leaders. They have 6 key stages process of identifying and promoting young leaders. There i a need of investment and attention to maintain diversity.

David Kuria (KENVO) Kijabe Environment volunteers – explore conservation and livelihood – founded in 1994 in Kikuyu Escarpment Forest. They do education but also community empowerment. They observed forest degradation – illegal logging, over grazing and also breakdown of social systems. Knowledge and skills that gained locally and through NGOs, and then use that to mobilise the community, lobbying, but also patrolling and monitoring. They have done different studies – poaching, bird surveys, forest monitoring, as well as climate change and carbon trading. The data is used to action – e.g. encouraging ecotourism, or capacity building of many farmers. Data is important for decision makers and a strong tool for conservation awareness – and fosters support. But more important is the human side – good leadership, motivation and engagement, respecting existing systems, owned by stakeholders, working with marginalised groups. Many challenges: technical capacity, resources, high turn over of government staff, limited ability in volunteering, vast area and more.

Alberto Campos (Aquasis in Brazil) – 21 years preventing extinction in Brazil – based in Fortaleza, and they look after highly endangered marine mammals and birds. The have emergency plan and action plan – to do that they need long term plan. The problem is that they need long team funding, conservation & fieldwork training – and they been receiving support from the CLP). Systems that they developed been adopted by the government. Communicating these results is shifting focus for conservation of species to the resources they help to conserve. Biodiversity conservation is opening other resource – Manakin is becoming indicator to clean and accessible water – and that help to recognise them

Ayesha Yousef Al Blooshi (Marine Biodiversity at EAAD) – primary producers of environmental data, EAD produce data, then pass it to environmental management sector, that is use by government and then share it with the world. They been monitoring corals undersea and take photo transects that are analysed – it’s a very manual process that take a lot of time. They think about using CoralNet that use machine learning to recognised species. The sea grass is supporting the population of Dugongs, and monitor them from the air. They also track them and use drone technology to monitor dolphins. They have a collector app that allow them to record different sightings which speed up and simplify data collection. They also gather traditional knowledge from fishermen – also looking at the past and capture wealth of data.

Nicolas Heard – funds from the Mohamed bin Zayed conservation fund. They like people who are passionate about species. They can show how the small grant can be used to further the  cause of their species. The passion need to be matched with science – also important to pass on enthusiasm to local communities, but that is not enough. Need data, information, knowledge, skills and collaboration. They provide small grants for survey and monitoring and encourage contribution of data to other purposes. Help support outreach, prioritising conservation action, help in efficiency

Jacky Judas (Wadi Wuraya National Park) in the eastern coast of the UAE. The park was created in 2009 and made into RAMSAR site in 2010, aiming to develop management plan. The water research programme are education, awareness and scientific data. The participants learn about fresh water ecosystems and the challenges, and also learn how to monitor the ecosystem. 10-15 volunteers through EarthWatch, research activities include Toad monitoring – field data collection, lab experiment, data input. Also monitoring dragonflies (hot spot for them in the area)  and discovered a species that was never spotted in the UAE. Working with volunteers allow monitoring over the season, the use iNaturalist and help to GBIF

Jean-Christophe Vié (IUCN) have tradition of looking at primary data collection. Behind each assessment in the 70,000 species in the Red List, there is at least on person working on the ground. The created the habitat conservation programme allow them to support primary data collection. Species are good way to tell stories. Projects such as Save our Species help in understanding distribution of species and then identify key areas to provide support for conservation. They ask to have some monitoring information to understand what is the impact of investment.

Summary of the session: We need capacity of research; data must lead to action; show how species help to protect other resources; combine traditional and scientific knowledge; and realise that small funding can go long way with volunteers.

Once that part was completed, we moved to the summary of the summit. 

wpid-wp-1444327778438.jpgH.E. Razan Khalifa Al MubarakJacqueline McGlade, Barbara Ryan, Janet Ranganathan and Thomas Brooks .
Nima Abu-Wardeh, who moderated the whole summit, set questions to the panel: How do you all fit together? Razan: we find ways to fit together – regions are represented, there are many positive things happen in the Arab region and share them. Barbara: no one organisation can deal with environmental problem alone, the power is coming together from public, private and civil society – all need to work together, and there are challenges of changing our internal systems, bridge the transition from data to wisdom, we need to do that. Thomas: IUCN fit in to EoE through the power of the network of public bodies, 1000 civil society members, and more than 10000 experts, Janet: WRI – trying to scale things through counting and present it in an engaging way. Jacquie – what is important is to representing the UN family making poor and vulnerable heard. To address environmental problems, we need the Eye on Earth alliance, this is the way to reach out across the world. What are the tools and mechanisms that people need – how ‘how am I going to do it?’ is going to happen. Jacquie: provides a web intelligence information from UNEP Live, we can see how clusters of knowledge are being built up. Things are linked to other places across the world and letting citizens influence the agenda. Razan: need to synchronise elevator – one with policy makers that need the data and another one with scientists who are producing the data. We need to synchronicity that change in each region according to need.
wpid-wp-1444327783438.jpgPeople can completely bypass the system in many ways, but what happen if policy makers take too much time, and the needs are urgent – what will happen after the event? Jacquie: we are suggested activities that are dealing with foundational – global network or networks, environmental education, access for all and then link to thematic areas – biodiversity, disaster management, community sustainability and resilience, oceans and blue carbon, and water security. Barbara: the organisations that we are involved in – we need to think how our activities that already exist with identifying the themes. Thomas: IUCN can contribute the knowledge products to the range of Eye on Earth products, and advocate for mechanisms to develop capacity to generate data. Janet: contributing data platforms – resource watch, forest watch and on access for all. the Environment Democracy Index came out of EoE.
How do we do things better? there is much ground to cover and stimulating change. Barbara: for partnerships to work, it got to align with our own vision. The partnership let us do that. Advocacy for broad open data policies – we need to get on with it. Jacquie: we need to bring Principle 10 to the UN. We need to open up governmental debate, we grab participation by the neck and make it central to what we do. We have big environmental assembly. We need data that inform. Barbara: the capabilities of citizen science and citizen sensing was front and centre and that is central.

We need to talk with the media and behaviour change, broadening our horizons.

Razan – we converge and collaborate. We came from all regions of the world and walks of life. Some are affiliated with government, research, start up, companies, ecologists and environmentalists. Many here were here in 2011. Thanking for signaling the value in the eye on earth network. Developing a strong sense of community, aiming to solve major problems of the planet. We see sense of purpose in assisting the monitoring and progress towards the SDGs. We have 5 organisations that commit to be founding members of the organisations: AGEDI, IUCN, WRI, UNEP and GEO. They commit to develop assist and guide global community to achieve the SDGs. Eye on Earth can provide collective voice – it is informal alliance, and agreeing to convene Eye on Earth again.

Eye on Earth (Day 3 – Morning) – Enabling Conditions and access to information, participation & justice

Building on the themes of Data Demand (on the first day of the summit) and Data Supply (on the second day), the last day of the Eye on Earth Summit explored the enabling conditions that link producers and users of data.
wpid-wp-1444288732480.jpgBefore the first plenary, the World Resource Institute (WRI) launched The Environmental Democracy Index (EDI). Lalanth de Silva noted that the index rank countries according to Principle 10 pillars: access to environmental information, participation in decision making, and access to justice. The index was sent to governments since its Beta version release in May. The responses led to adjustment scores. 70 countries are included, and 30 responded, including comments from civil society. The index was supported by 140 lawyers from across the world.
Jesse Worker (WRI) provided the background  The Access Initiative started in 1999 – network of over 200 civil society organisation in over 50 countries that are there to support Principle 10 pillars. The focus of environmental democracy are information, participation and justice. There have been progress since 1992 nad there are other regulations, such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). At the same time, laws are weak or absent in many countries. Practice also lags behind and there is no consistent measurement of progress of laws. The EDI is based on 75 legal indicators, following the Bali guidelines, with 24 supplemental practice (implementation) indicators. They started with 70 countries with 140 lawyers advising. Each country had two – one assessing, and one reviewing. On the website, each country got a short, accessible introduction and the country response is also included on the page. It provided civil society information about government intention. There is also the ability to rank countries. The indicators are based on established framework (Bali guidelines) with limited subjectivity on how they are evaluated, making it easily accessible – and engage governments and stakeholders. Also help civil society to learn about what other achieved. The top countries are Lithuania, Latvia, US, South Africa. It is noted that the signatories to the Aarhus convention, which is binding convention, are doing better. Countries with good laws tend to have better practices, access to information was ahead of public participation. 19 countries responded and they have done score changes. They aim to update it every 2 years, and reach global coverage by 2019. They also aim for Aarhus Convention specific indicators and expend the assessment of implementation.
For Jordan, (Seif Hijazi) commented that the EDI results were below expectation – they expected that the score will be higher, based on their perception of the legal system in their country. The score of Jordan scored 63 out of 70. Some examples: recently enacted law to access and request information from the government, as there are limitation – e.g. the applicant need to demonstrate direct interest which is difficult in law. In public participation, the EIA regulations require public participation – but no legal requirement to consider the comments from the public. Government officials agreed with the scores – and they want to take corrective measures to improve the situation. Jordan is one of the fewer countries in the region to have access to information law.
For Jamaica (Danielle Andrade), the score was especially law on participation, especially environmental impact assessment, policy and law making. The EDI provider a new impetus for working on legislations for public participation – and the government dusted off drafts from 2011 and work on implementations. The assessment of the EDI are used for legal reforms. There is a process of extending Principle 10 in South America and Carribean and the EDI form the position of the country in such negotiations. The score on access to justice the score midway, with lacking support for groups and individuals to fund their representation in court.
Generally, Participation is the pillar that lags behind. Even in democracy there aren’t enough public spaces to engage with government. Comments from Italy, Jordan, Italy and Lebanon about the importance of participation and the need for active civil society to promote it. Jesse – they worked with the TAI network members, because of limited resources, and most European countries are members in Aarhus to develop indicators specific to this system. Participation laws and practice – people need timely information to be informed citizens. People have constraint on their time, and they need timely information in the public domain and know that their comments will be taken into account – you need to know that your comments will be taken seriously. There are gaps between proactive information disclosure and what is done in practice. Requirement to provide information on facilities that have big impact on the environment. Assessing public participation is very difficult. There are also laws that limit the scope of civil society, so it is an ongoing issue that require monitoring.

wpid-wp-1444292368277.jpgThe first plenary of the day developed the theme of the day Creating the enabling environment – getting attention, remembering and acting is important. Opening with Jim Toomey – as a cartoonist, committed to the ocean and worked with UNEP on communication of ocean related issues. There is also revolution in the media industry in terms of sharing it and accessing it, and it is under similar transitions to the data . With his comics, he mixes entertainment with message (e.g. cartoon that is about sustainable sea food). Media is very powerful – e.g. celebrities on the web compared to information on climate change (see pie chart in the slide!). The ability to create content and because it is without much commercial interest, it allows new forms of producing and sharing information. Issues of climate change, or ocean acidification are critical, but the media is not covering it – so do become your own media campaign. He looked at issues with UNEP, including Blue Carbon, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and more.

The plenary, which included a keynote and short statements, included Inger Andersen (IUCN) chair, with Enrico Giovannini (economist and statistician University of Rome); Carmelle Terborgh (Esri); Patricia Zurita (Bird Life international)

wpid-wp-1444293721980.jpgInger – we stand at a crossroad, and we need to make them with a sense of understanding of the choices that we make. We are on unsustainable path, increased inequalities, stresses on the environment, biodiversity loss etc. We see extinction of species 1000 times the natural rate – we need dramatic change in policy direction and action. We are making choices – the SDGs are not just a list of goals – they are about choosing a different path. Next Paris COP21 will need to demonstrate that we can get on the path for 2 degrees and action towards it. We need good data to make good decisions – we have drops of information from seas of data. The enabling conditions are not there to link data into environmental information that is relevant. The conditions that are needed: financing – IUCN Red Lists and other knowledge products that are needed for many decision-making – the datasets are very cost-effective, with amazing body of volunteers with 300 volunteering years. We don’t see the investment that come with it. The data that go to other system – the global observatory on climate is funded in billions. People are happy to get environmental information for free, but this is not matched with investment. Open data is interesting, but also raise issue for professional scientists of credit, plagiarism etc. There are also the technologies and the use of the data from remote sensing (e.g. WRI Global Forest Watch). In some way, conservation is lagging behind the attention to climate change. How we can we also improve ocean monitoring – we need them to be able to make decisions. Better tools matter also to enable implementation, environmental impact assessment. Lets make tools actionable. Capacity building is key, with different funds – need ‘feet on the ground’ to make conservation possible. We also need the resources to make knowledge available and they get direct benefits from these activities. The conservation movement is a greying movement – how are we going to fire up the new generation, with love of nature? How to inspire children to be part of this army for good.

Enrico – We want to generate information and science to anticipate what people will experience. Enabling conditions are about the overall environment to reach the SDGs goal. A thought experiment is: What a brand new country want to reach the goals? They will have to put SDG in the constitution, and should have assessment of any piece of legislation to check that it fit the SDG. Enabling conditions go beyond financial, technical or statistical conditions. A UN report on the data revolution for sustainable development influenced the statistical monitoring of SDG. We are not moving at an appropriate speed – in the way UN system react, we won’t have baseline until 2019. We need these baseline faster. There is waste of money in international organisations – e.g. in visualisation system or data repositories and lack of sharing data. We need a new social contract with the private sector and companies to get information that is needed for sustainable development data. Speed is required, and we need to avoid waste and share resources.

Carmelle – need to have integrative framework, GIS is a way of bringing issues together. Making it possible to integrate issues that lead to action. GIS is essential to man y decision making, and need to think about networked GIS as a way to allow geographic understanding across organisation. Need to have capacity for people to be able to access information, but also make it possible to access and use open data. Should use maps to tell stories – illustrate key issues. Empowering people through apps and devices is a way to make information useful in context. GIS and geospatial technologies are needed as part of an enabling condition.

Patricia – Bird Life International – 150 organisation about nature, with birds as ambassadors. The issue is how they make impact on the ground. They created IBAs – with huge volunteer effort and multi-million dollars investment. The try to turn information into stories, such as the Marine IBA e-atlas to help protect and conserve areas across the globe. Taking action is about empowering local people, through technology – not just information gatherers, but being able to interpret data and use it for local decision-making. There is need for adequate resources – not only to collect it but also to monitor and continue to invest in it over time, how to ensure that we got the funding to upgrade technology as much as the private sector? How can it be done that without capitalising on intellectual property ? We can have hybrid access models to ensure income. We need to have local to global approach. We need to maintain to continue and maintain the science team so there is the robust understanding of what was collected. We need to turn sources like the Global Environmental Outlook into digestible pills.

Following the panel, the session Principle 10 of Rio Declaration– for better environmental governance and access for all in different regions explored “Efficiency and accountability of policy development can be further enhanced through a more open access to environmental information and data as well as better conditions for public participation in environmental decision-making thus aiming for environmental  governance improvement.
Major progress was achieved in this regards on the regional level since Rio Conference and especially after Rio+20 Conference on Principle 10 (access to information and  public participation on environmental matters) promotion and implementation. Most recent development marks the Latin American and Caribbean regions Principle 10 process where 20 countries launched few months ago the negotiation of Principle 10 regional instrument.”

Alexander Juras (leading on access for all special initiative) chaired. He takes journey of principle 10 in different places. Start with a short video on principle 10 that is used to promote the Latin America process

;

Principle 10 hold government to account, and some government don’t like it – in many regions of the world, it’s an ongoing struggle to make it


wpid-wp-1444330002070.jpg
Carlos De Meguel
(UN ECLAC) – process in the region of Latin America and Caribbean – the government should do their job to enable people to participate. It’s connect human rights, environment and access rights. In Rio+20 20 countries in the region decided to develop an initiative around Principle 10, with a link to different goals in the SDG. Principle 16 ad 17 are explicitly connected to Principle 10. There is progress, but challenges: lack of regulations, and many people without access to information due to economic, social, and political reasons. Sometime the information itself is lacking – need alternative ways of resolving conflicts. The need for regional agreement is to maintain compliance, to allow collaboration and increase commitments.The new agreement can potentially impact 500 million people. The process evolved from 2012 to 2014, with final negotiation starting now. There are many resolutions, also in intergovernmental forums – a lot of political backing. Structure of the document include the 3 pillars and other aspects – with reference to Bali guidelines and other developments since Principle 10. There is also wide public consultation on the document. Aim to reach it by 2016.

wpid-wp-1444327816347.jpgDanielle Andrade (lawyer for Jamaica/ TAI)  and Andrea Sanhueza (founder of TAI)- Danielle opened, discussing the impact of access that influenced people’s life. The Caribbean are not only a holiday spot, for example she told the story of state-owned sewage plant that was malfunctioning since the 1970s, but continue to receive effluent  and created local problems. Only with an NGOs they manage to bring court action about neglecting the site, and use freedom of information to demonstrate that people were charged to pay for fixing the plants. That led to fixing the sewage plant. Andrea talked about examples from Ecuador – in 2004, in Tumbaco, some people had headaches and skin condition. They done tests and suffer from arsenic poisoning. They water system was managed by the municipality and they set out public group for water without arsenic, and they used attention in the media and investigation of the case by the government. The analysis included a range of tests, showing the impact of blood contamination that came from an external lab in Canada. The municipal company argued that they can’t deal with the pipes, but changed the source of water and that helped in solving the situation.

Tsvetelina Filipova (REC for Central and Eastern Europe) – Building Bridges between regions http://building-bridges.rec.org/ – Aarhus change behaviour of government and people who understood that they have a right – that’s because it was legally binding. The process was not ideal, and lots of countries had difficulties – many countries were ready, but even the countries that thought that they are good in Principle 10 legislations, failed many time. The project is about inter-regional cooperation  and helped in sharing the experience from Aarhus to Latin America. Some benefits: supporting the negotiation process and have experience on how to deal with issues that come up. There is also experience and interregional experience on how to implement, and also empowering stakeholders. In all these initiatives it is people who are pushing the process forward. The process require funding so it is inclusive enough. The implementation of the bridges was through training and live on-line exchange seminars – sharing good practice, draw recommendations on running the process efficiently. The benefits: designing, drafting, negotiating, implementation and interpreting. Some of the people are involved in working on these issues since 1996.

Alexander Juras – The Aarhus also helped in instilling democratic values in many countries that use to be part of the Soviet union.

wpid-wp-1444302028231.jpgJeremy Wates (European Environmental Bureau, past secretary of Aarhus) – development of Principle 10 in the Middle East and north Africa region. It is not enough to have environmental information system, if you don’t provide the legal rights – don’t treat it as a marginal aspect to Eye on Earth framework, it need to be central processes. The second point is that Aarhus convention is not being talked about enough, and taken for granted, not that it all gone right and there are real challenges to fit within it – even today the EU is struggling to comply. Aarhus apply to many countries with long and shorter experiences of democracy. The building bridges is about a forum for dialogue – lots of mistake that can be learnt from. The next region to open this dialogue in is the MENA region, but the political situation in the region lead to select few countries to start. Starting with Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and UAE, with the aim to implement Bali guidelines better. Some of them been aware of the Aarhus process. The hope is to get enhanced environmental performances, and participatory government. They see 4 main actions in the process: raising awareness, carry out gap analysis to see what is already in place and what information already available. Then encourage government and civil society in Aarhus convention process and strengthen civil society organisations and network. That is aimed over 2 years projects. The issue is to get partnerships going

Stephen Stec (Central European University, author of the Bali guidelines and Aarhus implementation guide). covered Bali Guidelines – an effective tool for implementing Rio Principle 10 at the national level. The standards for the rest of the world are the Bali guidelines from 2010. It’s global instrument for Principle 10, and base on national experience and the international experience from Aarhus. He covered the Bali guidelines – they are voluntary and request driven, to help filling gaps in national legislations. There are 26 guidelines – most in access to justice, and the early one are about access to information. In the Access of All special initiative of EoE included several outcomes – the environmental democracy index, then UNITAR national profiles that is part of the Environmental Governance Programme – national assessment and tailored capacity building. UNEP also run Regional Workshops to promote multi-stakeholder dialogue on Rio Principle 10 and the guidelines and the implementation guide on Bali guidelines that was launch on the first day.

Discussion: moving beyond Principle 10 and starting to think about how we support public production of environmental information? This is a growing area, and the information completely changed. Seeing citizen science that it will take care of itself – say the chemical release inventory, worth putting the effort in the current extension of principle 10 into more areas. For less developed IT countries for further promotion of right, improving active citizenship can be done through citizen science. Public Production of information – if you want to provide data in non-traditional data is the issue of recognition and allowing it to be used in decision making processes. Daniella give an example of community data collection in a mining case to complete the data gap. In the current Principle 10 , require certain standards – and it might find its way into agreement

A question from Cameroon about the legal framework for access to justice in terms of cost, expertise and when the bridge will reach Africa? the experience is that you need government that is committed to the idea of regional convention, which also have leadership in transparency, stability, open etc. That work in the LAC area. The limitation on building bridge are the costs of extending projects.

From Mauritius – for small island states – Rest of the World region. Working with UNEP is very complicated and as new network how they can work together when they have limited ability.