Cranfield University

• Home 
• School home
• The Risk Centre

Additional Defra collaborations

Departmental Strategic Objective 4 (DSO4) challenge group support 

Defra is responsible for the priority; “to secure a healthy environment in which we and future generations can prosper". In support of this overarching requirement, Defra’s nine DSOs provide further focus for its work.

DSO4 is concerned with ensuring that flooding and coastal erosion risks are managed sustainably; that the economy, human health and ecosystems are protected from environmental risks and emergencies; and that public health and the economy are protected from animal-related disease. Ownership for this DSO lies with Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor. The DSO4 Challenge Group was established in 2009 and includes support from the Risk Centre (Prof Simon Pollard, Dr George Prpich). The group is concerned with reviewing and improving the suite of indicators for risk reduction and resilience and promoting alignment with the work of policy teams in these areas. It is anticipated the Risk Centre’s  work package on strategic risk appraisal will support the presentation of risks in DSO4 and ensure a close and informative link between supporting evidence and the analysis of risks presented at the strategic level. Further, recently initiated Risk Centre work on REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals; Dr Sophie Rocks) is expected to support the development of an indicator on REACH implementation. The challenge group meets twice a year.

Risk assessment for bioaerosols emitted from composting facilities

Bioaerosols are micro-organisms suspended in the air, including fungi and bacteria, which may result in respiratory health impacts. The Environment Agency’s current policy position on bioaerosols requires a site specific risk assessment for any composting site with a sensitive receptor within 250m of the site boundary. A recent Environment Agency project at Cranfield University (Drew et al, 2009) examined the quality of the risk assessments submitted to the Agency and demonstrated that the quality was highly variable with assessments deficient in detail, not site specific, and lacking monitoring data. A guidance document was developed and training sessions for the Environment Agency on the evaluation of bioaerosol risk assessments delivered (Dr Gill Drew). The research provided useful information for the ongoing revision of the new Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (for use by the Environment Agency and wider Defra). It also presented a potential opportunity to examine the effectiveness of any framework developed as part of the risk and evidence research theme.

Wider government collaborations

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: risk and responsibility

Risk-based policy development and regulation within Government (and its agencies) is focused on organisational implementation (from 2002 onward). Most Government departments and their agencies have risk management frameworks in place, in line with the former Strategy Unit’s (2002) and Better Regulation Commission’s requirements. Alongside this, agencies also have developed risk-based approaches to their own regulatory and non-regulatory business, placing their policy and operational functions within a risk-based framework, as required by the Hamptons Implementation agenda.

The key challenge addressed by this project is how to ensure that the responsibility for different risks and the related communication and mitigation is appropriately apportioned, clearly communicated and transparent to the public. Therefore consideration will be given to the risk actors; asymmetry of data; market failure; communication; and community resilience. This project is funded by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Collaborators include Dr Sophie Rocks and Prof Simon Pollard (Risk Centre), Dr Peter Howsam and Dr Andrew Angus (wider Cranfield), Prof Mitch Small (Carnegie Mellon University, USA) and Prof Dougal Goodman (Foundation of Science and Technology).

International collaborations

US Environmental Protection Agency/UK Natural Environmental Research Council – transatlantic initiative for nanotechnology and the environment

The recently awarded ‘Transatlantic Initiative for Nanotechnology and the Environment (TINE)’ builds on the prior work of the Risk Centre (Rocks) and is in collaboration with colleagues from Centre for Water Sciences, Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre, and Natural Resources (Cranfield) as well as the NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre and Rothamstead Research within the UK, along with colleagues from Carnegie Mellon University and the Centre for Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CIENT) at Duke University in the USA. 

The work addresses the hypotheses that: i) surface chemistry is the primary factor influencing the fate and transport of manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) in the terrestrial environment as well as the bioavailability and effects to biological receptors; ii) once released to the environment, pristine manufactured nanomaterial surfaces will be rapidly modified by interactions with organic and inorganic ligands/macromolecules or via other biogeochemical transformations; iii) ecoreceptors will respond to interactions with pristine metal and metal oxide MNMs that will reflect their combined effects.

Engaging the community: a handbook for professionals managing contaminated land

Communities affected by land contamination find the regulatory science and processes that support risk management decisions problematic. The historic ‘decide-announce-defend’ philosophy offers few meaningful opportunities for engagement in decision processes, and communities and individuals frequently feel isolated from decisions. Correspondingly, many practitioners believe that ‘science’ is misunderstood by communities, and that messages on risk are susceptible to distortion or misrepresentation by the media, by single interest groups and by those with alternative agendas in mind. At heart, this is a communication problem requiring a two way response. Better processes to allay community suspicions and distrust and to promote engagement and legitimacy within decision-making are urgently required. This research has delivered a handbook for professionals managing contaminated land in Australia.

The guidance offers valuable support to practitioners in line with international best practice, and helps build capacity in this important area for Australia. In delivering this work for CRC CARE, the Risk Centre (Prof Simon Pollard) has completed:

1. a review of trends in risk communication by reference to the assessment of contaminated land, highlighting differences between the UK/EU, the USA and Australia:
2. a critical review of Australian risk communication practice in the context of international best practice
3. a retrospective critique of selected Australian case studies (Homebush, Bowden/Brompton) with a view to identifying critical success measures to support the development of tools and guidance in this field
4. the drafting of practitioner guidance, with the support of a project advisory group, consultation and workshops to refine the text, and
5. dissemination and roll-out of the guidance through a national workshop as the platform for initiating additional capacity in this important area.

The handbook is currently in press.

Industrial collaborations

Benchmarking the Responsible NanoCode

Benchmarking the Responsible NanoCode is a new initiative within Cranfield University to build government, industry and public confidence in the use of nanotechnologies. Drawing on recent work within the University and the Risk Centre (Dr Sophie Rocks, Prof Simon Pollard), this activity seeks to ensure that the research and development as well as industrial application of nanotechnologies is done in a transparent and responsible manner throughout organisations. Using a previously developed Responsible NanoCode (NanoCode Forum), a multidisciplinary team of staff and students have gathered evidence from different organisations that use nanotechnologies (including research laboratories, small and medium enterprises and large manufacturers).

This activity allows the organisations to see how they perform against a predetermined “best practice standard” as well as showing the level of awareness of the issues surrounding nanotechnology within the UK. The project will raise the awareness of the risk maturity issues surrounding nanotechnology and provide an example of good practice for industry and research within the UK and EU.

>> Access the Benchmarking the Responsible NanoCode website here