NiddaMan: Challenges in Collaboration between Science & Society (just audio)
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 13 | |
| Author | ||
| Contributors | ||
| License | CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/38215 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
6
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:01
I want to like to introduce Caroline Fölker, she joins our panel discussion too. Caroline is since 2014 in our institute and she works at the research unit of water infrastructure and risk analysis.
00:20
Caroline is a biologist and she has her diploma and also the PhD in biology with a focus of ecotoxicology. And she worked also in the Niedermann project and she was coordinator of this project part of the social ecological analysis in the Niedermann project.
00:46
And Caroline is currently also the co-lead of a junior research group at our institute which deals with the issue of plastic as systemic risk for social ecological systems and the acronym is plastics.
01:04
Okay, so there were some people that, yeah, so Jenny and, okay, Jenny. So what I would like to learn from you all is how do you deal with
01:21
unintended surprises and maybe disappointments because this is something that's challenging me in my transdisciplinary project. Like when findings come up that the practice partner hasn't hoped for maybe or, yeah, like for example you did a great job in re-naturation and then you check the results and you see
01:42
the water status hasn't improved with it or in the worst case maybe it even went down at some point. And as you said then the practice partner may be like why did I do all of this effort and then this needs some more clarification. And I can see that from a scientist perspective it can be easy to say
02:00
every problem is interesting and we can always like do something nice theoretical on it. But how do you deal with that like in the cooperation when there are disappointments or some other barriers? I do not think that you are really able to avoid these disappointments.
02:21
You have to face them and you have to stand them because otherwise you will not go on in this project. I remember that it was really a hard starting phase for the project when the first results came up and also interviews in newspapers for example and on TV highlighted the effects of chemical exposure in these rivers.
02:52
And of course there were people who have spent their entire lifetime on re-naturation projects and they were really, really disappointed.
03:02
And there were also the use of some harsh words. I think the challenge is then not to take them this personally but just to abstract it to a more professional level and to say okay
03:24
this is your side but perhaps we can get a common side on this problem because we are just looking on different sides of the same coin. And we can really only get this problem solved if we consider both aspects or as Gert Hofmann said, even more than two aspects.
03:48
This is so multi-faceted this scenario with water management that the great danger is only to look on those aspects you are interested.
04:02
At the ESO we did some work with stakeholders, we analyzed some conflicts and we did stakeholder workshops with many different groups, interest groups in the netter catchment like people from agriculture and people from the nature conservation and from the administration and so on.
04:24
And it was not disappointing but it was, I'm really into getting concrete and to work on specific examples and get some concrete results and in the context of the stakeholder workshops we talked about the different perspectives
04:41
and exchanged some views and the conflicts and talked about them and we were really on a more general level. And I wanted some concrete results, some concrete aspects and that was some kind of a disappointment in the middle of the project.
05:00
So as scientists we sat together and thought about some more concrete results, how we can achieve them and together with the water administration we made up an example that was used in a stakeholder workshop so it was quite a realistic scenario but where all
05:27
the stakeholders could work on and where we had some more specific exchange on this special aspect. So this was one of my findings in this project and it was my first trans-disciplinary project actually.
05:43
From our side it was at the beginning so that our expectation were not very high. We thought oh that's another scientist project and we have to deliver data and then we don't know what happened but with the time we realized that there is a benefit for us.
06:06
And also sometimes, Jörg Ullmann already mentioned it, there were points of disappointment because the result was not so as we expected.
06:21
But I think that is my opinion, those persons which are working in the project get motivation by this project because they saw ah okay it's very complex situation and but there was also a point
06:43
where we have the feeling that the scientists are interesting, that their findings get into practice and that was very motivating for the practice partner, those which are representing the practice partner. And we hope we are still working on it and we will still work
07:04
together and I think that was very important for a successful project. Okay thank you. I was really interested in this project so I only want to know if you want to talk more about
07:20
this process this because for me it seems like you do some kind of continual engagement with a different stakeholder. So I was wondering how long, how many time do you take for this work? How was it difficult? And because I saw that you really changed the interest from the
07:44
actors, you changed the mental model of the person and I say this is really really important and they change. So in my experience working in a project like that it doesn't work that because everything has a different agenda, they have interest. So I'm really in interest in how do that,
08:08
I mean how get really this change and yeah and how time do you take it? I can speak for the stakeholder workshops for the different interest groups.
08:23
We had four workshops within the three years of the project and I think the most important aspect was that they all had different agendas but on a broader level we had the same goal
08:44
because we all wanted the river to be in a good ecological status. So we remembered the people of these goals and yeah this was some kind of a common goal so they all had this motivation
09:01
and at the stakeholder workshop some people met for the first time. They had some conflicts, for example a woman from a sports organization who does the canoeing on the river was very angry because she wasn't allowed anymore on specific parts of the river to do the sports and
09:23
canoeing. So there were some hard conflicts and at the stakeholder workshop some people met for the first time. So they read all these conflicts from the papers but they never really met and this was very good for the people and they were very interested in the river
09:46
and in the catchment. So it was not quite difficult to motivate the people to come to these workshops. It was very easy to get the people together and yeah the common goal and the compromises we could do they were very fruitful and I think the stakeholder
10:09
yeah they think of themselves as a kind of a network that can meet if there are some specific problems at the river and they have a list of all the names and
10:22
telephone numbers that we exchange between the stakeholders. Then I would say we have this first round on the panel and I would like to continue with the question to you, Caroline, concerning the stakeholder workshops. So how do you see your own role
10:43
as the scientist organizing these stakeholder workshops? Because we have here the discussion about the stakeholder workshops and the role of scientists and are the scientists responsible for the conflict resolution? I don't think so yeah but you have these different stakeholders with
11:02
different interests and so they come into conflict. So what is then the role of the scientists thereby? Well I only can speak for the Nedermein project because it's my first experience and our role was yeah quite important because all the stakeholders
11:24
thought of us as some neutral party so we were the ones that was neutral ground it was an open atmosphere we talked about all the claims all the perspectives
11:41
and listened to them and everybody was able to speak out these claims on these conflicts and to tell us their specific arguments and perspectives but yeah solving the conflict
12:02
was not really our goal I think it was more the goal to think about how to avoid these conflicts in the future and so we talked about ways of more transparency when doing some water management measures and some more active participation of the stakeholders
12:26
more communication this is very important so I think yeah this was the role of the ISO and the Nedermein project. And then perhaps another question to all of you
12:41
so we discussed this morning with your lecture and today you saw the Neder itself so you have different and very interesting results and the project itself is very successful so I would like to better understand how these different parts of the project come together how
13:07
they are integrated so you have the stakeholder analysis for example you have this natural scientific part so and I think it's such a large project and I think for the coordination and the integration it's really a challenge I could imagine yeah so what was your experience
13:28
this is really really still an open problem for us because although the project comes to an end the reporting for example is not yet done and it has to be done and writing a report is not
13:44
integration by itself of course we deliver papers or reports for example but this can only be part of the solution I think there are two aspects of this integration the first one is more
14:01
an internal integration for us as the members in the entire project team I think many of us have experienced at least for me for the first time how diverse the different challenges can be and how fruitful also such a cooperation but this is something which can which is very hard
14:22
to communicate to people who have not been involved so we made at least an attempt with these joint papers for example in the Wissenswehr journal I quoted this morning worth to be known these are eight different issues and they at least try to
14:47
to highlight the problem from different sides and these are explicitly in German so that also not only the lean public but also the practitioners and and people working for
15:01
example in the water works or on these huge treatment plants are able to to to get informed um but I think one of the problems is that there is not a real setup to to get this
15:22
integration approach to be communicated to to people not working in the project itself I think you're very interesting especially and there was a question this direction where are the problems or disappointments I want to come back to this because that's also a question of
15:42
coordination and integration all partners in to one group I had one time the idea to make a guideline to say okay we have the findings now we want to make a guideline and in my opinion or my perspective I thought I write headlines and then I give it to the
16:03
and say okay write down what we are thinking to these headlines yeah that was not possible that was my perspective where simple perspective on this because okay it's also a time of it was a question of time I realized that but to find to say okay what is the way that the
16:27
research finding come to the practice and I already mentioned in my presentation that the guideline is a very good instrument to have that so that you can give every people every party system and in our administration the guideline and say okay
16:43
that can you use it and that is for each case very useful but that was not possible because there was I think different thinking we are very often using in our administration guidelines to say okay that's the first step that's the second step and then you do that and that
17:02
and that's for scientists I think very difficult to understand to bring it in a simple way to say it very easily for understanding for everybody that's not the view of the scientists and I think that's a very difficult
17:22
step and perhaps we are able to reach this in later on but I think that's was a very disappointed for me but I am have to realize that's that is a problem we have different language and different idea of working I think another tool for integration you mentioned
17:47
the Wissenswehrt and I think in the morning you mentioned you also mentioned the Nitter talk Nitter talk was some yeah you already heard about it and there the different project partners had to introduce their results to the to the public so they had to use a
18:07
simple language like you you already said and probably yeah this was another another tool that was useful to yeah to to get out of the of the own scientific discipline and to to broaden
18:25
the perspective and to yeah to get some totally different questions from the audience
18:57
did you have difficulties in being respected as the neutral scientist with in the public because
19:05
in my experience we are working with the Lila living lamb project maybe you know that and we only work with the project partners and these are more institutions and from different governance levels and in the beginning we had problems to be respected as the scientists and with our knowledge and I wonder if it was the same with the public or if it was like okay we
19:26
have this respect because it is science no my experience was totally different so we were respected and valued for this um for this attempt to to do these workshops and people were quite interested and um thankful or how to have you another experience no
19:58
it's very good experience
20:03
I'm sorry no no it's I think it's this we have we we have the same opinion it was very a very good experience then um directly the the second question um so there were any complaints about the solutions or the results you did because um I wonder if there was um some
20:22
interest groups or something that stick to their interests and was like okay my interest isn't built up with these results or something yeah I understand but the the complaints were made to water authorities or the water management and not to us okay yeah the the the guys from the water authorities were the ones that were uh defending themselves um and we're just um
20:45
organizing and getting some nice results for uh science but um yeah it probably was a different role that we had in this um project yeah I could add something uh I had the same experience
21:02
when participating in these stakeholder workshops but during the Nida talk discussions there were really some conflicts for example I remember a discussion after the one of the first workshops when we addressed specifically the role of chemicals that one of the farmers stand up and
21:23
said um I'm so tired of these discussions always we from agriculture we are in charge of everything here and um so he was very very angry and um but then uh we we didn't react
21:40
directly but um other participants at the Nida talk um around then stood up and said so this is not correct what you are saying we know that um at least some of your black sheeps in your group um are using chemicals even if they are not allowed and they do not respect for example
22:01
the safety distance to the waters when applying um biocides and so on so many of these conflicts were already solved within these discussions without um an action from from as a scientist willingness to to involve or to responsible some some actors in the project or
22:40
yeah take make them take responsibility just as the farmers or the industry was it ever part of the project or was it just within the conversation and the farmers got angry and then people told them that they shouldn't specifically if you address the role of agriculture and the
23:01
farmers it is it was really extremely difficult to to get them involved with a more active role in the project beyond being a part of a stakeholder workshop for example I introduced the Revam projects these 15 different projects and virtually none of them
23:25
had participation from agriculture and this was also discussed in the so-called steering council for for Revam where all the project leaders for this for the single project came together and we were asked why do do you not have the the agricultural sector on board in your project
23:47
but we tried at least but none of us succeeded because they said we have no interest uh they do not want to be in a formal involvement in such a research project they want to be involved for example in stakeholder discussions so that they can perhaps defend also their
24:05
interests and make their point but they see at least it is my impression any research project which may address the current agricultural practice as as a danger for their interest
24:23
yeah i think it's the main conflict about the river catchment and the restoration of the of the river the the areas that are missing and that are helped by agriculture and the pesticides and and other um the um yeah the nutrients that are um um regretting into the
24:42
river so um the the um farmers yeah they know that they are responsible and that's a yeah a great conflict and the Nederman project was not yeah from the beginning we weren't really an agricultural project or something like that so it's yeah we we only talked to them um
25:04
but it was not the main the main goal of the of the whole process when is did you i don't know i guess not but did you lose any of the practice partners during the process so that they say okay now we are not interested anymore or did they
25:23
did all of them show more interest during the proceeding and then the second question is so i think you you learned a lot out of this project and if it would start um tomorrow what would you make different is there or just one point which was yeah each of you what would
25:44
you make different if it starts again um i only can speak for the stakeholders we didn't lose any practice partners and we didn't lose any stakeholders so we're all interested because they were yeah they were they are interested in the river and they're
26:04
um yeah they are using the river and so the the interest is there they cannot lose it and um um if i yeah i from from today i would invite some more i would do some some workshops with
26:25
uh farmers actually or some some people that i would more i would integrate the the agricultural agricultural part um um intensively more intensively into the project or into the process i think yes karo already said we didn't lose um any partner during the project nor
26:51
any of the stakeholders but there was a i think at least an issue with continuity in a way in the stakeholder process because um a given stakeholder was represented by different
27:02
persons over the course of the project and this did not really made problems but um it took some time until the the new representatives for a given stakeholder were again on on the level of the discussion um but anyway the second question is much
27:23
more difficult to answer what would we do better if we had a second chance perhaps it is a little bit arrogant but i can hardly remember a project which was so successful in my own career like like nidaman and successful not in the means of the scientific outcome
27:42
but um to the level of of um yeah new knowledge it brought for me personally this was really a success um and and so i wouldn't change too many things and except one that i was really really naive when planning the project and for example approaching the
28:04
practice partners in the um in the um yeah authorities because i really had no imagination how such an authority works and upon the dependencies within the hierarchy and
28:21
who's the right person to approach and you can you can make a cardinal mistake when you approach the wrong person and it takes you weeks or months until you can get a solution for such a problem you know what i'm talking about but but and at the end i was was
28:42
was so happy to to to get in touch with gert hoffman and and this was really then the key that we uh got all the other um um partners from the uh public sector from the authorities engaged in this project but what is really a problem and i think this is not only in germany
29:01
but it is general uh where these uh third party funded projects that at the end the funding stops immediately and um many of these good things we have developed within nidaman simply require additional time and it is now um perhaps our own responsibility or initiative whether we
29:24
continue to cooperate and we will cooperate of course but this is really without funding and and i think um i've i've discussed this also with with uh people from the bmbf from the federal ministry which is has funded this project with huge amounts of money for several years
29:43
this is really a waste of of of your investment at the end if you have not this continuity in in the funding it can be reduced of course but you should give at least the necessary amount that all the positive outcomes can be get into practice well that's the same
30:04
with the stakeholder workshops they were all interested in continuing these workshops beyond the project but we didn't have the the resources for that so we only made this contact list and we're all acknowledged okay we will be there if there's a specific problem but
30:21
nobody knows what the future will bring so it would have been very nice and wouldn't cost much money to to continue this and to yeah to continue this exchange so this very yeah very sad then i think this is mainly a question forget hoofman but also maybe before
30:49
um because you mentioned before that you kind of approached authorities kind of approach the project like there's another science project again we have to deliver data but we don't really see the benefits and the output so when was the point for you like to see the outputs and
31:05
you also said like your project kind of naive um which i think i would totally do the same um and like so were were the benefits not communicated in a way that you saw them as benefits or like did it just take time until you could see what the benefits could be of the
31:25
project like i think this is something interesting because most of the time it's like you don't see the benefits as authorities for a project like this i cannot tell you when it happened that
31:41
we have a click and say okay that's a benefit for us i think that was a process and i think it depends also on the persons which are involved and when you have the feeling i get the feeling that the scientists are interested to make something for the practice and then you have the feeling as a practice partner to say okay they are honest they want
32:06
to do something they are interesting that something changed then you're more motivated to give ideas to say okay how we can use this research finding and to look where is the
32:22
benefit for us um i think that's you cannot say what is the instrument or what you can do i think very important is come to communicate that's very important and the motivation of all partners um i think it's depend also very much of the person which are involved
32:42
um that's the one thing um the other thing i want to say to the stakeholder workshop which are mentioned here already for us it's we are looking very interesting in this process because for us it's a not new but so intensive workshops that is a very new instrument for us
33:05
and not very common for us we are used to enforcement and to say okay you are going this way and we are know what's the right way to come into the discussion and uh caroline also mentioned that we have to explain our arguments and so that's not very very common in
33:27
administration and the other thing with the agriculture we all know there's a problem but there's also a political question that's and and hessen we have
33:41
all all people which are talking about water management knows that farmers are a big problem but the politician decide that we try to solve this problem by consultation we have a big
34:00
program for consultation of the farmers to reduce the nutrients input and the pesticides and we have some new regulation in law about the um to protect the waters by the distance where they are not allowed to uh bring out pesticide and nutrients and something like that
34:26
it starts to increase that we have a stronger regulation but the most instrument the the main instrument is consultation that's the political decision and we are not able to change it and we
34:40
cannot come as admittance from administration say no that's not the right way we have to change it and we have to enforce uh the the farmers to reduce their input or something like that that's not possible because the parliament is deciding the way of the administration i completely agree and i think the key factor is to get the right people involved not only as
35:04
project partners but also in the stakeholder dialogue and especially for the partners and we were quite lucky that most of them were really open-minded and that means they have no hidden agenda within such a project um there were also scientists taking part and Ulrika the coordinator
35:24
and i had discussions with some of them because they said to us oh what you actually what you're asking from us this is not our task as scientists when we ask for example to um to interpret their results in a more common way so that the relevance for the practice
35:41
can also be seen and and we just stated them then you haven't uh got the right impression from of your role within the project this is of course your role you are not only scientists to deliver publications in a scientific way but you are it's also you're responsible that your results are relevant for the practice and on the other side uh speaking in terms of the
36:05
practice partners in the public sector and the authorities my impression is is it was um it is getting increasingly difficult uh difficult uh if you climb up the hierarchy and especially when talking with persons from the ministry um it is really challenging because
36:26
they have a political agenda in the background and they are not really open for for for scientific um news yeah they just check whether this fits with the expectations and if it is
36:42
if the answer is yes then it's okay and your results are welcome but if it's no um then you really have a problem uh yes i'm very interested in the stakeholders um situation so i would like
37:02
to know if if before the project started you have any any news of the stakeholders if they were concerned about the situation of the river or the water that's the first question and the second one is that after the project after these three years project nidaman do you
37:23
think that could be possible to continue the project because of the interest of the stakeholders if they can manage or conduct an initiative uh not against but to work with the administration or to to try maybe maybe to
37:43
start an organization our organizational process because they live in in the river they live off the river so maybe how do you think this could be important how the impact could be from the neither project in the stakeholders situation um the stakeholders
38:03
were really informed about the river because they were yeah some some were um fishers some were um nature conservation conservationists so they um yeah were really informed about the whole river and some made some some restoration projects actually at the river um for example
38:23
the fishers um yeah they have to know about the ecological status of the river because and probably they eat the fish um from it um so um yeah they were informed they all had their their different view and their different perspective and their different claims on on the
38:41
river catchment and i think and they are willing to to do some something about um the the restoration and the the status of the river because they already um are doing something um and i'm yeah talking about the fishes again so they they make some some um projects
39:04
where they um yeah just clean up the river and and um yeah and they know about the the different um sections of the river and the the actual status they have some knowledge some local knowledge and i think um if the water authorities are interested in um incorporating
39:25
these stakeholders and this knowledge they are all willing to do this and to to help um with their knowledge and with their expertise to um yeah restore it or to to um just support some measures and yeah that's basically that my perhaps you because um at the easel we are
39:51
actually um making a small guideline how to integrate these stakeholders more into these water management measures and yeah it's a question of resources time and money to to do this
40:04
actually with the stakeholders together and to to um let them more um actively participate into these processes and within these processes and um not not only to inform them um but really
40:20
work together with them so that's um yeah i think they all want to do it um i think probably time and money are missing yeah um but i think it's also a question of culture uh i also mentioned already that
40:44
we have a very um special view um as administration of planning and uh implementation of measures we are thinking we have we are technical administration so we think we we have
41:02
to find the right solution technical solution and all these let me say social surrounding is not so important but because we know the way that's that's our view until now
41:21
uh but i think and we are working in a project um in the eu where we are have a exchange of about experience by implementation the water management regulations and
41:41
there mentioned the british people that's total different uh there are more the the public interested to restore the rivers they're implemented and they are interested and they push it and the administration is only a little bit beside it and the the public get the money
42:05
there is an organization a coordinator and he's working um on this project and try to find the best solutions so that's for us a very new perspective but i think and that's also experience of the project nidaman we have to change our uh or better we have to add instruments
42:28
uh for a better um collaboration with the public i think that's very important because to have ideas and to say okay we want to implement these doesn't work when we have not the social
42:45
background and the social um yeah the people you have to take the people with you otherwise it doesn't work and that's very important and i think we have to change
43:00
our strategy at that point as well um yeah i don't know if you maybe just partially gave an answer to my question indirectly um but before you mentioned that um there was a lot of money going into the project so i'm kind of to a certain extent doubting the
43:22
sustainability of the project as you said the project's over now and now there's no money left like if the budget that you get from that like exceeds your actual capabilities it's unlikely that you can like stem that financial burden in the long run so that kind of question makes me question the amount of money that's been put in for just like single projects and also
43:43
considering you said there's 120 applicants and only 15 were chosen there's like that leaves like 105 without that funding so they're not going to be able to do this so wouldn't be there maybe not just a better strategy like to distribute the money a bit more evenly and instead of just like creating those uh kind of showcase projects to ensure that there's a lot
44:07
more sustainable approach for more people as well good idea but i think not realistic um yeah but um i wouldn't be so pessimistic or regarding the sustainability of such an effort
44:23
for example we at the university we are in a very privileged condition in in the sense that we have plenty of manpower because there are students who want to perform their their thesis and and looking for for topics to be investigated and all these um this manpower this can be used
44:47
also for project and actually this is what we are doing we have a common project where the regional council darmstadt at the river hall of because we saw during the investigations of nidaman that there is really a huge problem with fine sedimentation so the the river is full
45:06
of fine sediments in parts with in a depth of more than one meter and we are just trying to perhaps first address the the extent of this problem and then find possible solutions
45:24
this is just one example and on the other end i think it is also um possible that to extend this cooperation because also our our students they will look for jobs afterwards
45:44
and they are extremely interested in such cooperation of project projects because they see the chance to step in for example in such an authority and to to to be already directly in contact with her with a potential employer in the next step and the third aspect is
46:10
and this is really something we are quite proud of that as an outcome of this project we have created a new module for our master's program environmental sciences and this will take place
46:23
first time in september this year it is a module with 10 credit points european ects points and in this module also part of the stakeholders but also of the authorities
46:43
including gert hoffman will take teaching duties and i think this is also something that which explains that that we are really interested in in this further cooperation it will of course need money but i think um we still have enough money at the university to do this kind of
47:06
research and also within the authorities yeah um i have the question because i was thinking a bit more about like the situation the political situation what we have in germany that the
47:21
alternative for germany is rising and the people think that the politics is doing something up there and they are not connected anymore so that these projects could be a way of direct democracy and maybe you sold it like this to the people who live there like this
47:41
is the first what i want to know but also like if these people who are yeah were in this project are representing the whole of society or only like the middle class and like a lot of other people are left behind because they are not yeah really
48:01
had the access or like we're not motivated to be part of it yes yeah that's a difficult question um the we um mainly um integrated people that were um that had something to do with
48:25
the river so we're really thinking about the middle class or different of this political aspect these political aspects were not really part of the project but i think in general um transdisciplinary projects in some cases um yeah can be a a good answer to this problem to this
48:47
political problem but i think middleman is a special it's a special case and then yeah some parts probably um people felt more more integrated and more um yeah but yeah i i cannot
49:05
really really answer this um beside the project knitterman i think if you remember stuttgart i think this was the point um okay okay that was is a project in stuttgart
49:32
is a railway station which the deutsche bahn tried to realize underground railway station
49:43
and it costs million of millions and the citizens of stuttgart they're very disappointed about this project and they are demonstrating and then it started the process of to cooperate with those persons to try to find a solution but it's still a problem
50:08
because there are environmental problems and also a question of the big money which are spent for this project where the people say that's crazy and so um and that changed a little bit
50:23
the position of the authorities or administration to say when you're starting such a big project you have to involve the public and you have to be transparency you have to talk about and you have also think about alternatives and all these things and um some of these
50:45
uh aspects um find uh instruments in the reg in the law so that when we are planning such a project we have to make very early public duration uh start before starting the project
51:04
we have to say okay we have an idea it's going on and what i are thinking about where are the advantage where are the disadvantage um and i think they're starting something in in the uh in this direction we are thinking about but i especially the water framework we
51:22
are still uh learning at that point because there's a little bit different than a planning process like the these railway station because we have the the duty to uh reach the good status and in the mind at the moment we are thinking okay we have to do all so that we are reaching
51:44
this goal but we are not thinking about very often about the surrounding social surrounding that they we have to take with us because we are only thinking about technical we have to reach this goal and that's a little bit the problem and so we have to learning at that
52:03
point yes i think one of the outcomes of the stakeholder workshops was that the public involvement should be earlier than it is done um currently but not too early because otherwise if you are just in the very early planning phase you are thinking about perhaps making
52:24
something like a restoration at the river stretch a or b then people are very interested for example in the conservation of the status quo will stand up and so oh no not with us and so you can destroy already the very early planning phase and the other point is that communication should be
52:43
perhaps more targeted than today so more specific for the recipients at the other side so that they really understand what you are doing yes yes and the um the second question whether you whether we think that we can really get a yes a representative
53:07
representation of the entire population i do not think so honestly i think such questions are specifically interested for perhaps 10 percent of the inhabitants which are really
53:20
um yes affine to to environmental issues and so on and i would guess more than 50 percent they don't care at all yeah but the other ones the remaining 40 percent they are interested to read for example in the newspaper that something is going on and even when this is
53:41
discussed in newspapers articles for example they have the impression that they are involved and informed and i think um looking at an authority like the uh regional council of darmstadt with what did you say to 1 700 employees it could be very well invested money to have just just a group of two to five people dealing at such a huge organization with
54:08
the organization of such stakeholder dialogues and and because then the rest of the work could be much much easier if you have not um this dramatical offense when you start with with
54:20
something new i have a question about the workshops could you could you explain us a little bit uh how was the the setup of the workshops how many people etcetera and my second question is uh what would you say were the main insights that you got from the workshops um we were about 20 15 to 20 people the last workshop was in in a time where nobody could
54:48
really participate i don't know why so it was a but it was a the the final workshop so it was quite um just yeah to to make some some final statements so it wasn't three we had three um
55:01
workshops where we were working so we um did some um some plenary discussions some panel discussions and exchanged some arguments and then we worked in smaller groups and the groups were differently um so at some workshops we had um we we grouped people that
55:25
worked in an equal position so all the ecologists together and the agriculture and the the people from the industry in another group so they really could exchange arguments from their from their viewpoints and um the main finding so we we made up these conflicts and we opened
55:46
the discussion and then we closed it by um finding solutions how um conflicts could be avoided in the future and the main the main result was um yeah um participation or more intense party
56:03
participation of the people in this whole processes from the beginning and um together with the stakeholders we worked on the guidelines how to yeah and worked on on good ways how to integrate the people how at which uh which points which phases of the projects
56:23
and um yeah the different tools for participations um at the different phases um where yeah all the stakeholders made some input and they worked on an a fictional example and um from this um from this workshop we gained some some points for the guideline we made at the end
56:45
yeah that's basically so i think we come to the end now the dinner is waiting as we're here and it's hot here too so um i think it's not possible to summarize all the discussion but i think it was interesting
57:03
to hear um about this um case study middlemen from different perspectives so we had the perspective of society and the fractioners um of mr hoffman and the scientific perspective too and it is a
57:20
very good example how um a collaboration between science and society can be successful and we heard also some important factors what are success factors for example the personal factor it depends on the person but you mentioned in your talk with respect to the first phase of
57:43
the research project so many um preconditions for example the institutional support of the responsible at the institution so this is very important we heard a lot about the funding conditions the conditions of the project management too so and this is combined with this time frame
58:05
we have the time frame with respect to the issue of regional water management there are specific time frames in the administration you have to consider and there's kind of multi-level governance that is needed for the implementation and you have the specific time constraints also
58:27
with respect to the natural conditions the ecosystem functions that you explained for us um this morning and we could learn from the knitterman project that it is possible that
58:42
science and society can collaborate and it's it is possible as you mentioned that also scientific research can be combined with academic qualifications or in phds and there are master thesis and so on so and we learned a lot about the role of stakeholder
59:03
workshop stakeholder analysis as one specific methodology to deal with conflicts at least to make the conflicts visible yeah so thank you very much for your time that you shared with us
59:21
and thank you for listening and contributing to the discussion and so we continue with the dinner
Recommendations
Series of 15 media