 Natalia, you're muted. Okay, let me again welcome everyone into this session organized by OpenAir about the open data and how this openness and not just open data but the openness is driving policy decision making and especially in the climate change, fighting climate change. Before we start, let me go over some housekeeping rules so the event will be recorded. We would like to have your, for you to mute your microphones. Then if you want to participate, please use chat to introduce yourself and to interact with the rest of the people and raise hand to speak because what we want to do is to have a live discussion. The presentation and the recording will be updated in the event page and then if you want to tweet, feel free or use social media with these hashtags. Having said that, I would like to just say a few words about what is open access and open access week and open for climate justice. If we turn the climate justice is a concept that addresses the just vision, fair sharing and equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of climate change and the responsibilities to deal with the climate change. This is something that affects us all. This is something that we all need to participate and as part of this, OpenSpark, which is an international non-profit organization based in the US, is organizing the open access week every year. This year thing, it's about open for climate justice, which is again something that we need to take into account and especially to see how the open science groups, how the open science community can turn open science and we can put it into the utility of climate change. How can we join forces to fight climate change? Let me see. So, this session has invited expert speakers and researchers to discuss how they address this topic. And then what we want to do is this session is about presenting two key projects from the European Commission Horizon 2020, both in support of decision making. One is the Decido, which is a project that is getting evidence and clouds for more informed and effective policies and they will explain what they do in overall, but they will also present us with a particular use case, which is about food waste and how food waste affects the climate and the end and the climate change. We will probably hear more detailed information. And then IntelCon, which is another project, which is using data and open data and big data as Decido in order to make better informed decisions and close the loop from science and research to innovation and to policy decision making. So how can we close the loop? And they will focus on a case study for energy. So how is this link together? I can go forward, these are our speakers, Cecilia Cabello, Fabio Perosini, Antonio Filograna, Davide Prete, and Professor Phoebe Kunduri, unfortunately, could not be with us today. But on her behalf, it's a media papadagi that I will introduce shortly. So we will start. The idea is that we start with the presentations from the two projects. We will first have Decido project presenting what they're doing in the particular case of the food waste and how it affects climate change and how they use openness in trying to tackle this problem and then IntelCon. So from Decido, I would like to welcome Antonio Filograna, who is a project coordinator of Decido. He's from Angelini. Oops, there is some noise on the background. Somebody has unmuted. Okay. Thank you. And he's a nice city specialist, special skills in areas like open and government social innovation, smart city. Then we have Davide or David Prete, who is the head of the European Projects Office at Volto and is in charge of a particular case study that they will present in the municipality of Turi and Fabio Perosini, who's the communication manager of Decido, and he is working in Malta. So the floor is yours. Let me stop sharing my screen. If I can switch back to the sharing of the screen. And then, please, you have 15 to 20 minutes to present the project and how you're tackling the several issues. Can you see my screen? Yes. So good. Yes. Yes. Okay. So thanks a lot for inviting us to show how Decido can impact on the open science and climate justice. Just to give you a very brief background on where Decido want to be, want to work and have an impact is the policymaking. And we're considering this policymaking as a process in order to create a monitoring policies to solve the social challenges. But we image the policymaking as a cycle with several phases and activities to be performed in order to create or improve a policy. And Decido, the scope of the policy is to support policy makers, but also cities and organization, businesses, and all the actors involved in the policy life cycle to create better policies or improve the existing one exploiting the power of data. The main result of Decido, the main output will be a web portal on one end and a methodology on the other end in order to provide digital services to facilitate the co-creation activities in each phase of the policy life cycle. So from the scientific point of view, the mission is to be a bring between the public sector on one side, the citizen science world, and the European cloud infrastructures. With a strong collaboration with EOSC from which we will exploit the storage capacity and the processing power. But Decido wants to go from data to decision making and in particular from evidence-based data to decision making, in which way during the project, the last time of the project we are in the middle of the development of the project and the project last three years, we wrote a storytelling with other pilots and collecting the needs and challenge of each pilot in the domain of disaster risk management. We understand what kind of services we can exploit from EOSC and starting from all the services provided by EOSC and we define a data catalog, a Decido data catalog made by all the open data collected by pilots, but also this is an important result, data from coming from the co-creation activities. All this data will be collected and we define how to use this select data, implementing the algorithm to analyze those data and visualize dashboard in order to take decision and in this way we are improving our policy based on evidence factor and here the cycle restart because we evaluate the policy and at the end of the journey, all the actors involved in the policy will give feedback on that. We want to experiment our solution and now we are in the first experimentation phase in four pilots, so with three different domains, in Finland we deal with forest fire, as in Aragon with wildfire, in Halki, an island of Greece, we deal with power outage and in Turin, that is the use case Davide will present after Fabio speaking, we have three, mainly three use case, one related to the flutes in Turin, one to the outcome of Ukrainian refugees and one to avoid waste food. We call, so as I already said, we are building our data catalog from different data sources, so data coming from municipality, data coming from EOSC, of course GIS data and also satellite data from Copernicus and Corin program with different, in different domain, for example, food areas, but also energy consumption, we need from EOSC the climate and the earthquake data and so on and all this data at the end of the project we are collecting and also the data, in particular the data coming from municipality, that are now not public data are open, we will release as public data through our data catalog and this is the services that we are going to use in our first version of Decido Portal coming from EOSC and we will use the cloud infrastructure, the data has our level of persistence, the checking for the authorization and authentication services and Jupyter Notebook to develop, implement our algorithm and from open air we are using Zenodo for public, for publishing all our documents and make it public and Amnesia in order to pseudo anonymize our data before publishing them. And now I pass the floor to Fabio that tell us more about the climate justice, how Decido can address this important factor. Okay, simply to introduce the concept of the climate justice and mainly to understand what is the link between the climate justice and the Decido project. I think here you have the official definition of climate justice, but we can summarize that we have three directions, the first one is use data coming from a climate change to behave in a better way, better way addressing the responsibility that we are going to pass to next generation and on the other hand create a political direction that will help with regulation and constrain to mitigate climate change for the future. Next please. Okay, here you can see a graph showing the difference between the traditional concept of extractive economy, the one we are following today toward a regenerative economy, following this just transition pathway. This is one of the key points of the climate justice and it is very important to understand that also a new approach in terms of data could help a lot in doing that. Next please Antonio. Because first of all we have and this is exactly what we are going to do in the decido, we are using data to boost horizontal subsidiarity against the only vertical subsidiarity pathway used in the tradition. Next boosting the co-creation, so involving citizens and asking them data, not providing data in a top-down architecture. Next introduce and let's say grow the community attitude toward the problem and issue solution, for instance those related to climate change. It's so easy to say I'm not able to do something very significant for climate change but if we are addressing this issue at community level it's easier to do something that could affect climate change. Next one. In particular in the decido in this framework we concentrated on the facilitate the use of expiring food through a distribution and through the right communication to citizens in relation to the real expiring data of the food against the commercial expiring date. That is something very important. Last but not least is to activate a sort of deliberative process. So propose to our representative some proposal that are feasible and tested on field so it is easier for them to insert them in the process for let's say to help them in place. Next. As you can see we are addressing at least four of the sustainability goals that are part of the two principles related to climate justice. The first one is the number two, so zero hunger, the 11 sustainable city and communities, the 12 responsible consumption and production and the 16 peace justice and strong institution. This is because at the end what we understood doing the decido is that the level of struggling is going down and we have really reduced the level of struggling between the citizen and institution acting in this way. Please Davide, the floor is yours. Can you see my screen? Yes, yes. We can see. Well actually we have three scenarios in Torino and one of these scenarios is the welcoming of Ukrainian refugees and we started in April of this year about the provision of data regarding difficulties of the Ukrainian refugees coming to Turin. So we gathered all this data in the data catalog as was mentioned for Antonio and we of course invited many representatives of all these institutions, civil protection, pigment region, psychology organization, representative of Ukrainian community, Ukrainian cultural mediators and so on, of course also volunteers for association taking care of the section of migrants. Then we prepared the scenario which is of course how to guarantee the possible, the best possible welcoming of Ukrainian citizens and then we started in May to define the challenge, create a new tool to provide useful information for Ukrainian refugees because we saw that a lot of information for refugees coming to Turino in order to receive important services is one of the most big problems that these asylum seekers have to face when they arrive. So then we started the policy implementation in September and this will continue until January of next year. We have decided to create a website containing useful information that are regularly updated by Ukrainian volunteers in their mother Tongu. And of course in the end of the first phase of the pilot or the experimentation field on the field we will take carry out an analysis of effectiveness of the solution and evaluate of course feedback from people using that website. This way we will see if we have made a good job. Next please. So these are some data we have collected for the scenario of welcoming of Ukrainian refugees. As you can see there are some data coming from the reception and integration system of the Italian Ministry of Interior but also the office for foreign miners of the city of Turin and the data from the Perfection of Turin about the presence of asylum seekers in Binmund. Next please. Then also of course data coming from the Italian National Institutes of Statistics from the Metropolitan City of Turin and from the Binmund region which is in the forefront when welcoming these migrants. In fact there is an extraordinary plan for the reception of population fleeing from war dated April 2022. And so all this data that let me say our official data coming from institution organizations we have handed one degree thesis from Holger Kurs who is a cultural Ukrainian cultural mediator living since many years here in Turin and she made a thesis many years ago actually. So in 2012 about social and cultural aspects in the evolution and integration of Ukrainian immigration. But these created of course the background for our congregation session. So okay so here are some examples of the collected data in the documents we have presented before. So the Ukrainian population in the province of Turin in 2018 was of 1,827 people so it was the 13th largest foreign community in the province of Turin. And about more recent data so after the breakdown of the war in Ukraine we had of course Ukrainian citizens coming to you in general 5.3 million people in Italy about 1,000 and 100,000 people in Piedmont about 10,000 people and in the area of reference of the city project about 2,000 people. So next slide please. Okay so in data collection so all the data we have collected and I showed before were really important in order to learn about the past situation of Ukrainian migrants in Piedmont and this helped us a lot to facilitate the congregation process because there was a basis from which to start. And so during the congregation session emerged the discrepancy between data provided by the authorities and real numbers of Ukrainians who arrived in Piedmont and in Turin in particular according to the local Ukrainian community. So many Ukrainians are coming to Turin and are not registering at the prefecture because they have already family receiving them. So we don't know exactly how many Ukrainians we have on our territory and this is a problem that was highlighted tend to the hackathon without our hackathon without our co-operation session. It was impossible to understand this problem. Another problem was related to the intellectual visibility of some Ukrainian children. This was highlighted by an organization, a voluntary association, and this problem was not known by the municipality. The municipality was thinking that the problem was that of foreign minors are not contained foreign minors but they are very few. So the bigger problem is the problem of these children with intellectual disabilities that had to interact their care in Ukraine and now of course lost all the care they were doing in their home country. Anyway thanks to the co-operation session so authorities take note, can take note of this discrepancy and of this problem but of course a peer review of the data is always needed in order to certify the data reported by city banks. So there is the need of an improved communication and since this problem we decided to create an information portal in Ukrainian language. So last slide. Okay so we leave you with this question that can be probably a part of the debate that will develop later on. We had a methodological doubt. So who can certify the new data set created by the intersection of data provided by the authorities with evidence-based data. So we have some data coming from the authorities. We have seen that they are not always in line with data coming from citizens in this case about a number of Ukrainians. But who can certify that these data coming from citizens are right. So this is our methodological problem and we leave you with this open question for everybody. Thank you so much for your attention. So thanks a lot. Thank you so much. I think you know I have mailed some questions and I will get back to you after IntelCon presents. So the idea here is that what I gathered from your representation is that you rely heavily on co-creation which is part of the citizen you know citizen involvement in decision-making. And think about you know the question is if you can tell us after IntelCon how and if you're using the same kind of methodology used in the in the other cases which are more related to the climate change like the food waste and the fires and stuff. So this is a question for you to think of while I introduce Cecilia. I introduce now IntelCon. So let me start by introducing the coordinator of IntelCon which is Cecilia Cabello. And Cecilia is the director of operations in the Spanish foundations for science and technologies, Pethit, which is an institution dependent on the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. Cecilia has been an open-air partner for a long time in her group and the idea is that what she will present is a methodology where IntelCon is based on big data and AI in order to get this evidence and make the connection. Cecilia, before I give the floor to you, let me introduce also Livia Papabaki. Livia Papabaki is a PhD candidate at the Athens University of Economics and Business. So she has a business and economics background and this is in policy making. This is one of the in evidence policy making I would say. This is one of the very you know hot areas to be in. She's also the co-managers of EIT climate kicker hub in Greece and the researchers at the Alliance of Excellence for Research and Innovation on IFOIA, which is more on sustainability. So this is where I think I think it was Fabio when I do David. I think when he was talking about this regenerative economy, which David, you know, my question is, is it the same as the circular economy, for example? So I will give the floor now to IntelCon, Cecilia and IntelCon so that they can explain what they're doing, the methodologies that they are using, the connection to the climate change and we can come back to the discussion. Cecilia, yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, yes. We can hear you, we can see you, we can see everything fine. Okay, okay, good. Great. Thank you Natalia for this presentation. Yeah, I'm going to present briefly. I'm going to step back a little bit and before we get into the subject of the climate justice and data, I want to talk a little bit one step back and about evidence-based policy making. Let's see if I'm capable of advancing the slide. Is it moved? No. Is the slide moving? No, it's not moving, is it? Okay, let's see if I do it this way. Okay, yes. Perfect. Okay, so first of all, what do we need by evidence-based policies? What are we talking about when we want to talk about evidence-based policies? What we really want to talk, what we're talking about in general is strategic intelligence to improve the formulation, the delivery and the evaluation of STI policy interventions. So evidence is one of the key foundations for policy making, especially for science technology innovation policies. And evidence is data. Now, policy making in science technology innovation is entering a new era. The STI policy makers need to design and to implement a new generation of policies, STI policies, especially because it needs to contribute to sustainable transitions. Now here, the approach is complex because it's not just in the realm of science and technology innovation. We have to also get into the sectoral policies related to this and in particular to the green transition. Obviously, we're talking about environmental policies. So STI policy makers now demand systemic and transdisciplinary knowledge to be able to make their decisions. So to obtain this knowledge, we are seeing there's a reassessment or reevaluation of how evidence is generated. And policy makers are supporting this type of new experimentation when it comes to policy making. So the new STI policy stance and context implies new information needs. Policy makers have specific policy questions about the role of science and innovation in the green transition that call for quantitative evidence. So specific evidence, specific information, and specific knowledge is what they want is what they're demanding for. So the STI policy makers need to know different things. For example, the scientific and technological landscape related to climate change. For instance, the patenting trends in renewable energies, for example, the impacts of STI policies on green transition outcomes are of interest also. So for example, they need to know a little bit more about what's happening in zero carbon emissions. And also they need to know this the social societal needs related to environment. What are the citizens demanding and what's important to the quantitative evidence to answer these questions include the domain specific measurements and indicators and interface of STI and the environment. So we're talking about open data data that's available that has to do with STI, but it has to do also with the environment and new sources of data to feed into these to these indicators. So when I talk about new sources of data, it's before maybe policy makers work with statistics or specific type of data, but now there's much more information out there. So what are we talking about? We're talking about digital tools for STI policy evidence. So at the same time that the policy makers asking for all this information, digitalization provides new opportunities for strategic intelligence to support to support STI policies, the evolving context of STI policies calling for new data sources and tools to support evidence based policies. So we're talking about new sources like administrative data, websites, social media data, and all the information generated by the science and technology community, and new tools to collect, to analyze and to visualize this data. So this is the background and the context in what has drove Intercom to be a project and to be created. So what is Intercom? What is this project? It's a European project to build a digital platform that exploits large volume of data and science, technology and innovation activities with text analytics. Who can benefit from this platform? The platform is mainly aimed at STI policy makers, a platform based on text analysis that will assist policy makers and research funders in specific tasks or workflows at different stages of the policy cycle. So again, like I said, we're talking about large amounts of information. We're talking about evidence based policy making. We're talking about a whole approach. And so this is what we want to try to support different policy, the STI policy makers in the decision making. So for example, in agenda setting or setting priorities, when discussing the context in the landscape of policy intervention with Intercom, we can get a granular information on scientific and technology trends and results. In the evaluation of proposals for funding, that's another way that Intercom can help. Agencies like Vinova, for example, in Sweden, the Swedish innovation industry are already using text analysis to assist evaluated evaluators in the proposal. In Spain and the Secretary of State for Artificial Intelligence, they have some experience with CorpusViewer, which is a previous project that was launched. And it's one of the main pillars also of Intercom. They analyze the different proposals to be able to evaluate. And obviously, monitoring the results of funded project Intercom can also be used. So this platform, Intercom is one of them, and there's obviously many other platforms, can benefit other actors like people from academia, from the science realm, people from industry, or even citizen organizations to get involved in STI policies. Because we know that another issue that's important with the development of science and policies is the co-creation of the STI policies or the engagement of the citizens. So this is really important, especially in the context of environments. So my last slide is that Intercom is an integrated platform that includes innovative services to collect, analyze and visualize large amounts of science, technology, innovation, data, and information so that it can be used by policymakers. To develop the platform, we use open data. For example, open air has the research graph data is that's what we use and we use other information that we feed into our data lake. The platform, what we're doing is testing it in three different domains. So the whole idea is we want to co-create the platform itself and we want to co-create the policies. So we are testing the Intercom platform in three different domains, artificial intelligence, cancer, and climate change. And the platform will be using living labs to be able to co-create these contexts, the policies, and the platform itself. So I'm not going to talk about the living lab environment. I'm going to let my colleague Lydia present that part of the living lab. So Lydia, you can go ahead. The floor is yours. Thank you, Cecilia. Let me share my screen. One second. Yeah, there you go. Can you see my screen? Yes. Awesome. So thank you so much for the introduction and this beautiful session. I'm happy to share with you some information regarding our case study on climate change. So first things first, as Cecilia just mentioned, the Intercom platform is about to develop three main tools. One is the STI Viewer. The second is the STI Policy Participation Portal and finally the Evaluation Wendspence. I would like to start with the Intercom STI Viewer and the Living Labs. As you know, the Intercom seeks to help the decision-making of policymakers and administrators by turning all this huge amount of dynamic and heterogeneous data in actionable insights and evidence-based policy. And this is where the Living Labs are expected to play an important role to co-create these needs and make this platform as useful as possible for the final users. The STI Viewer, a quick revision, will focus on four main areas. It will have the sectors like science, technology, industry, society, the geographical aspects, the research area like the domain, category, and topic, and other facets. All these are very important for us in order to identify through the Living Labs what is most, what is needed. Here you can see a quick overview of how the different work packages work together. You can see that the Living Lab workshops are working very closely with the policy questions which then are interacting with the work packages two and three which are about the data sets and the user stories in order at the end to have the Living Labs feeding back the user stories with all this visualization and the needs of the stakeholders. Here we go in the key elements of the, in principle, the Living Labs. As you can see, the Living Labs are described, defined by three main categories. One is the key elements, the second is about the principles, and then we have also the policy ecosystem. When it comes to the elements, it's Living Lab, it sets its own individual goals and tries to realize them throughout its lifetime. So the planning and implementation of the key elements need to be are tailored specifically by each Living Lab. The Needs Living Lab will set its own policy questions where during the Living Lab operation and planning phase we will collect we will collect and travel to the policy framework from in collaboration with the work package one. Then during the Living Lab implementation, this initial set of policy questions will be expanded and refined depending on the needs and the interests of the engaged stakeholders. The next stage is about the co-development where depending on this policy questions and indicators, we will identify which are the data that should be used, proceed and presented via these user tools. The stakeholder dimension that is mentioned here in the comprises three main elements. First, it includes the mapping of these potential stakeholders, stakeholders, secondary recruitment of the participants, and finally, the ongoing stakeholder engagement which will generate these vision goals and keep the stakeholders emotionally linked to the Living Lab. Then we have the co-creation or co-development process which is closely tied to the technical development of the Intelcom platform tools and services in order to which is why the timeline in the platform in the platform development part is visually represented in the roadmap of each Living Lab and then we have the Living Lab roadmap which is a visual representation of the major events planned for the lab's implementation. These Living Labs are also connected with the development process and its roadmap is then tailored to the Living Lab in terms of number, timing, scope of the event, etc. Then the next question is why climate change which is one of our case study. Climate change as you know is one of the biggest challenges that we're supposed with that we're facing today and here is a quick breakdown of the climate change challenge based on the greenhouse gas emissions as it is defined in the APCC report. As you can see, the energy emits the most and this is why it became a priority for the Intelcom project to start working on the energy sector of the climate change. Also the preparatory Living Labs that occurred from the middle of 2021 until the beginning of 2022 identified also the energy as a key priority. When we talk about how we will work in the Living Labs we try to aspect beyond the science and technology innovation aspect also the sustainable components that are related to the climate change and these are the economy, the environment and the society. When it comes to the purpose, first we talk about the context research. This is where the participants investigate the context and the focus areas of where we will focus our discussion. Then we have the discovery stage where each participant is asked to provide insights into the expected STI policy questions and the new service opportunities that can be provided by the Intelcom platform. Then comes the co-creation stage where the final users of the Intelcom platform are involved into co-creators and together they come to provide suggestions on how the tool can be most useful. Then we have the evaluation stage where the users evaluate and validate all these new solutions and services provided by the technical team of the Intelcom platform and last we have the final users experience the technical testing in a semi-realistic context of use where they can provide again feedback. When it comes to the expected results and outcomes first we have that we want to inform all these future platform users and which are the stakeholders who will participate in the Living Labs about the project and how they can get involved in the development of the platform. Second we want to validate the functionalities of the tools by these stakeholders. Third we want to provide an experimentation space where the selected stakeholders will feel free to think about the limitations and the extensions of the platform in order to be useful in their daily life and finally we want to meet the stakeholders expectations we regard to the update of the system. In regards to the stakeholders and where they're coming from they're coming mainly from the policy sector but also from the academia and the public administration as well as from the business and the NGOs. Here you can see a quick overview of the climate change Living Labs that are coming that have been delivered so far they're not coming in the next couple of months. First we have the preparatory stage where in this stage we discussed overall the challenge of climate change and what could be the main priorities for the stakeholders and based on this we identified the energy as being the most important one and then we have focused workshops on the specific tools of the Intelcom platform. First we start with the STI viewer and then we will go through the participation portal and then evaluation workbench. So what we want to achieve through all these workshops which as you can see they have different targets some of them are with academia and industry while others are with public administrations as citizens we want to take the different perspectives for these tools and to go to deeper discussions in regard to the needs of these specific stakeholders in these sectors. Finally at the close to the end of the project in the June of 2023 should be there and maybe after actually after the June of 2023 we expect to have a big event where we will invite all the co-designers and the interested parties to see the final product of Intelcom and have a discussion with us thank you so much. Thank you thank you Livia so in my understanding is that the living labs in Intelcom are starting or do you have any results because we understand that from the living labs you will include many stakeholders and ask them questions about the various decision-making policy questions and the data. What is the scope of the living labs? Oh thank you so much Livia for the question. So first we have implemented so far the preparatory living labs which finished last February and from these preparatory living labs we got the useful data sets about the work to look on the initial stage of the development of the platform and we also identified our main focus on climate change because climate change is a very wide topic and I wish we could target all of its aspects at once but this is not possible so we had to prioritize. So these are the two main outcomes of the first round of preparatory living labs. Now the second round as I said this is hand in hand with the development of the platform which means that we need to give each other input in order to co-create this tool which means that the official living labs on climate change start in December so in one month and a half more or less and we're very excited to eat and to see how this has come together. Okay so what I want to keep what I want to keep from Intelcom because you know this was this was you know for the outsiders it may not have been easy to understand is that you will be using big data open data AI driven and then you will have the methodology of the living labs in order to include and involve and engage with the stakeholders of different types this is what I'm holding okay. Now okay so now what I would like to do and maybe I will have the chat open for questions but what I would like you know if the people can put their cameras on is to have a discussion you know a real discussion not a presentation of projects like what we've seen but you know open science and climate change and open science is a lot it's not just about open data it's a lot more than open data and an access in open data it's about open methodologies as I said in the beginning it's about involving people or you know stakeholders from various places from the beginning in the process of making science or on how science can be used in order to be to support decision-making like both of the projects will do so before I ask I have three questions but before I ask the questions I would like to go back to the Decido project and ask about you know how the circular economy that you mentioned in the beginning is linked to the food waste use case because you presented the Ukrainian use case which is an excellent use case to show for us the open science part so how you retrieve the data what is the methodological aspect of the data and what are the transparency and trust issues in the data and I will come to this question shortly but because we focused on open science and climate change could you say like you know half a minute or a minute something about the circular economy and how it's linked to this food waste use case because if I may I read from the web you know this you know this on the web the following you know I will read it and it says the connection between food loss and waste and climate change is increasingly recognized as important and so is the link between climate change and agricultural supply chains and resiliency and just in the US the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated a rich year in the US alone food loss and waste and bodies 170 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in gas emissions so those you know those are staggering numbers and so you know this is this is what this is what you know how the circular economy and climate change and you know open data if you want is is just linked together so maybe you you would like to say just you know a couple of things on this on this use case that you have yeah yes absolutely so in Torino we started from the emergency of COVID-19 and many families fell in poverty and they didn't have what to eat so the number of families that fell in poverty and requested food from authorities was really really increased in 2020 and then also in 2021 so we we contacted one member of a widespread network here in Torino that was collecting food to distribute food to families in difficulties in hardship and they had this problem that when they collected products with the levels exploration date to be consumed preferably within a certain date families tend not to accept these products because they consider very harmful for their health so in this case there was a waste was generated the waste of food a big waste of food because families in difficulties didn't know about how about these products they don't trust to to consume these products and so the problem was how to let these families accept these products and we we decided to introduce levels that not only show the best before exploration date but also the time frame on which products can still be consumed after the best before exploration date has passed so there are some not fresh products of course but some kind of products can still be consumed after this best before exploration date and so we decided to introduce levels saying same things so the time frame on which you can still consume products in this case you avoid a big waste of food and now we are trying to implement in this policy through a printer we have already both a printer and now with the cooperation of local associations we are experimenting this this new way for for the packaging yeah okay so i gather so so now you're in this effort so i gather at some point you will be able to gather data okay and you know see see how this this takes forward you know for for for next for next or for others to make decisions so now that we come to data is you know in the beginning i think it was you david that you said that this is you know the power of the data and then somebody else you know is is said about the methodology of the data so what i would like to ask both you know maybe starting from this year and media now is how easy is to find data that you need you know i know about the open air research graph that you said i know about the european patent office data that they make it open and we use in intel con but how easy is to find other data that you know we want to use and not just only how easy it is and what is the quality of the data and where do you think open science and neos you know intervening intervening in this you know in order to say how can we find research data that is open and also how to find public sector information data that is is open and how to combine so so what is what are all the issues that we find and you know where we could intervene okay um before lydia intervenes maybe she can in general what i think is that um you you're fully aware that science and technology innovation produce a lot of data and some of it is open and some of it is not open i think um there's been a transition with respect to the data and how it uh it's available or not or open or not um with this with the pandemic obviously things have changed things have uh it was it there was definitely a need to to use data scientific data to develop to develop um advancement and i think with the with the green transition this is happening too we need we need the information so where to find the data that there's a whole process to that um i think uh the closed data obviously there's a there's a question especially for public administration for like projects that data in in some cases is closed and in some cases open horizon europe obviously is open and the european commission funded data is open and sf is open and ih is open other others are not others are not so i think there's there's a tendency that the data is be there and i think that that these type of um it's a win-win situation where i think the sharing of the sharing of the data and information improves the science and the sharing of the data information is useful for for policymakers now the quality of the data i i understand i fully understand that there's an issue with the quality of data but it's what it is so um how can i say this the quality of the statistics we can also say okay how good is it well the statistic agency certify the data but in the end it's a survey it's a survey that they they take out to the citizens or they take out to the businesses or take out the research data is collected in a different manner so so i wouldn't not not to worry too much about the data but it is what it is and i think that we knowing that the data has the quality it has it's a proxy for information it's a way to it's an input i'm not i don't think that it's a one to one situation where we have this data that shows this so we make this decision i think it's input so this is my general intervention about data i think maybe lydia can talk more about environmental data and what we're using in disacombra what we found with the preliminary living labs which were very useful lydia uh thank you lots of salient basically what you highlighted that uh data are used as a proxy this is a very uh good takeaway on what we do uh coming from the living labs what um what we have observed is this first is the is them is the accessibility of the data open or closed uh in many countries the data are not even are not available in english which makes them the the challenge even greater because you need someone to speak the local language in order to translate which is not always easy when we consider the the number of countries in the world and the second is as you can as you always said the the quality and so the trust on the data which creates uh some challenges on the stakeholder uh management who are not believing what they see as trends and tendencies uh as they don't have trust in um in the data this is something we saw also uh quite uh strongly in the preparatory living labs where we engage stakeholders also beyond greece from the Balkan uh from the Balkan and some uh east western east western asian countries uh that the the trust was even lower to to the to the quality of the data okay i think this this also i think it was either the video or antonio who said about this i think it was the video about the logical you had the same or similar problem with with the with the trust in data right yeah yeah i think that the problem is the availability no and the not the availability but the accessibility to the data no because in a lot of the national or european data portal we have a lot of data but sometimes and uh i saw during the five word summit last month that in spain for example there is a situation of the open data that data set uh the seven percent of data set are unavailable in the national portal no and this is something or for example the rick lack of standardized data model or not open license so we have open data but not open license and there is a lack of geolocalization for example and the data are not updated for example they are updated once per month and our strategy is to exploit what we call hackathons that is our part of our co-creation station so the hackathons is something technological not to develop something a challenge to develop something our hackathon is a challenge to think all together to find a solution to create a better policy focusing each hackathon in a micro needs what mean what does mean it means that during our hackathon we are around the table with the actors of the the that specific phase of policy life cycle and we discuss with them what are the the action we need to undertake in order to to to address the problem we are discussing during this phase and this means that we are creating after a review of the literature on the methodology we are creating an open methodology within the the decision project an open co-creation methodology that allows us to collect needs but also during the co-creation activity collect data and understand what kind of data we need to meet our goal to to create evidence-based policy and during these two months of our activities in the experience in the first experimentation phase we we talking about data coming from citizens for the example of the Ukrainian refugees and data coming from the municipalities because for example in Turin there is a civil servant that are very skilled in the open data that they can exploit and we are looking for also on extra data coming from IOSC for example and this is our strategy to collect data but as Davide said at the end of our presentation from data collected by the crowd let me say we need to certify this new data and we have this problem and maybe we need in general a peer-to-peer you know a peer review of of these new data in order to make them open and accessible. I think Cecilia wants to say something. Yeah thank you Anthony I want to react to that I think that's very important point that you bring up. The whole idea is that this data that we're using is not collected for this purpose okay so normally when you like the statistical agencies they have they collect the data for a purpose that's to feed into policy obviously because they want to provide information and all this data that we're using is collected for different purposes and so it's hard to build on that so besides pressuring evidence-based policy making I think the new thing that we're at least it's being talked about in an international context at the OECD level is policies for data which means we need to talk about the quality the trust the accessibility the periodicity the the if it's valid or not the data if it's interoperatable standards and norms so we need policies for the data so that the data can be used in better way for policy making so it's a circle it's not just yeah let's evidence-based policy making is good and it's important but sometimes we might need to think about the policies needed so when that when data is collected even though it's not for that purpose it's for different purposes so this is food for thought and think something that we have that's beyond the realm of us but but I think it's important I think you brought up some good points there Antonio thank you. Thanks Cecilia we need to create a new policy for data so we can exploit our projects for that. I think I think I think you know it's at least at the European Commission level at the at the at the member state level I think they are kind of creating these policies on PSI so for example you know you mentioned the geo-tagging problem inspired directive you know they they they aspire to do that in all in all the public sector right the the thing is the thing is that I think you know it's it's policy on data but also it's infrastructure for data okay because you know it's also we know the research infrastructures on the data research they are building them but in the in the government section or in the public section I think you know they they are building it but not as let's say as aligned as we're doing in EOSC and I think you know initiatives such as EOSC is is is a really great because they're bringing this alignment but I I want to keep that I want to keep two things is that at one point what Cecilia said is that I think I want to keep two points from Cecilia one is you know that what you said is you know data it is what it is okay so we need to to to use it especially when you talk about big data as we're doing an intercom is we rely we rely on the bigness of the data in order to to remove the the biases and the errors and but having said that we understand that there is you know data for policies are are are good and Cecilia you know I'm not going to say anything about open air but what I could say something is about the EPO data so the European pattern office data they have been doing that for years and they're trying to put the the data into their policies and that we can use and euros that is doing that so so I think there is a lot of going on on this data for policies it's just that you know it's the alignment that I'm missing a bit okay uh now uh second question because I think you know we're over time but I would like to ask this question and I would like an honest response is okay in in intercom we have the living labs in in the studio the studio you have the the co-creation you know that you're doing through various mechanisms one of them could be the you know the hackathons or others so this is something that costs money okay so everyone in open science says okay let's involve citizens let's involve all stakeholders in the processes from design to implementation to uptake to continuation so first of all this is cost money and now the European Commission is is paying through projects how first of all how do you see this going on after the project ends because you know one is data the other is infrastructure but the other is the people involved and and then in reality how effective has this been okay it's good to have you know this this this engagement of people but is it engagement you know has been effective or has it been you know more um more work than you know than the impact that it brings you know this is an honest question from my side because I know how much effort this requires and how sustainable it is I can answer from from the decedo point of view yes and from the touring point of view because by now the touring pilot is the most advanced in terms of engagement and to be honest as you were with us so the the point is we have to find the tricks or solution day by day so for instance in the food distribution what we did is we provided for free to the the process owner a laptop a laptop to motivate him to participate and also to give him to give her the possibility to participate actively in in the platform and we are also providing father support so for instance a label printer to print labels to modify the policy and a tablet so well you have to to work around that it is mandatory that you involve volunteers because you have no money as you said you can count on very small money for instance coming from bank foundation or stuff like that in order to continue the project after the end but to do that you need from the very beginning to involve a volunteer in touring what we are going to do we discuss that with David because David is representing an agency an agency that the national level is dealing with volunteering so it's a second level agency is there is an agency coordinating association but David could say more if we have time and the idea is to create a dedicated association for policy co-creation so trying to engage people participating now in the co-creation process to create between them an association asking money helping them to ask money for projects dedicated to specific policy improvement and create a sort of pathway that could be sustainable after the end of the project it could work it could work because we experimented that mechanism and it could work but it is an artwork more than is more difficult than technologies or data collection this is an experience yes I think I think I think what you have described is true but you know you know what I would like to perhaps you know propose on the table is the volunteer you know the volunteer and the involvement could be smarter in not just to engage and you know they have these hackathons but think about small apps that people can use in order to you know to to to get the data in so this is this is what some associations you know around health patients around you know these are doing so we're gathering data with wearable smart wearable smart you know smart apps and this is implicit so you know you don't have sometimes or many times that have people around the table on the other hand oh go ahead go ahead no no well there is an issue there is an issue I got your point there is an issue we are facing very sensible categories so for instance when we talk about food distribution we we thought about having some implicit sensors or stuff like that but from from some privacy issue it was absolutely impossible so for instance now we have not the right to talk directly with the person receiving the food but we have to talk with the volunteer who is going to to distribute the food because there is a very very sensible because those people they don't like to be recognized they don't want to to to be shown and and for another reason we for instance in the Ukrainian situation we have a lot of children and so we don't want to have any kind of problem they ask us for instance never to film them in the face so it's not so easy when you go in the social let's say in the social issue to to address this point it's very it's more easy when we talk about the floats the third the third team that we are addressing in Turin there with the civil protection is quite easy but with the Ukrainian and the food distribution well it's a challenge okay I see so Livia what about what about you know the living lab and the stakeholders you know so I understand that you know we are gathering everyone around the table and we will be gathering as long as IntelCon is running but what happens afterwards yeah very good point this is something that comes to the business plan of the IntelCon platform and as you say one more reason we want to engage the rights stakeholders and to keep them involved and through all these co-creation approaches because these are the future users and possible future clients many of them so this is part of the sustainability plan of the platform and that's why it's one more reason why it's so important to us. To add to that really quickly Natalia I think it's a matter of how can I say accountability what we're trying to do in general is in the engagement of citizens is is necessary in policymaking and it's good in the end it's going to be more cost-efficient for the policy makers because they're the citizens since they're involved upstream later on when the policies in place or or being evaluated they're it's less questionable because they were involved in their streets so what we're trying to do is change the way things are working so the living lab is also the co-creation process that the policy makers themselves realize that they can use the citizens and use other stakeholders for the design or for their for their policymaking issues so it's a matter of a it's a test bed but it's just to change the way they practice so it's not necessarily how we're going to survive with living labs beyond intercom but we want to change is a way of thinking of the way of doing and intercom the platform itself has its sustainability but we want to also change is the way things the way sti policies are made and and then it's it's a feeding process that downstream will be more efficient which we hope so so i mean i think i i i i think you're right you know in in in general i fully agree with you it's just that you know it's not only about sustainability is it you know as i said before you know what is the impact of involving citizens because you know do we want to involve citizens just to verify decisions that policy makers have already taken you know this is this is something that usually happens uh second is you know at what stage do you involve citizens or you know the the the experts then is what tools are we using in order to involve them in the process because again i think in order for us to be sustainable we need to be smart and and second is you know who is taking over this you know this you know this is this is this on the municipality level is it on the government level is it on the european level this is you know and i think you know from the cedar to the cedar to to intercom we we face two completely different aspects but they both involve co-creation which i consider you know as one of the principles of openness and open science so i i'm not sure if we have any any any any responses but would be very much interested to see at the end of the projects you know how do these communities that we are building during the the the the the projects how do we sustain the mechanism the communities itself you know these are the questions for me and this is you know also part of the openness okay so i don't see any questions and i think you know we're over time i would like to thank everyone in the in in this in this panel for providing the view and then you know in open air now we will we will try to disseminate parts of or the whole webinar or this discussion or coffee coffee section as we as we session as we as we said i think you know we would like to hear more from you from from both projects as we go through and and to see where we could you know better work together especially with the cedar know we have amnesia i know we have other tools but it would be very much of interest to us to see what the problems of the data the data openness the data quality that you have thank you all so much for attending good thanks a lot for inviting you bye bye thanks everyone