OiRA: Online interactive Risk Assessment, a free web application to assess workplace risks

Developed by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, OiRA – Online interactive Risk Assessment – is an easy-to-use and cost-free web application that can help micro and small organisations to put in place a step-by-step risk assessment process – starting with the identification and evaluation of workplace risks, through to the decision making and implementation of preventative actions, to monitoring and reporting.

The development of an OiRA tool consists of 3 steps:
• Step 1: Preparation and development of an OiRA tool
A good project plan drawn up together with the relevant parties (trade associations, trade unions, national authorities, etc.) will help in the development of the OiRA tool.
• Step 2: Implementation of an OiRA tool
A correct implementation of the OiRA tool will ensure that it will be used by employers/employees and applied on the shop floor.
• Step 3: Maintenance and updating of an OiRA tool
An OiRA tool has to be maintained and updated periodically.

Find out more here: http://www.oiraproject.eu/#mainContent#title

La pagina Progetto HIA21 e` online

Nella strategia generale sui rifiuti dell'Unione (1996) si stabilisce la gerarchia preferenziale delle operazioni di gestione. Al terzo gradino di tale gerarchia è previsto lo “smaltimento finale ottimale e il migliore monitoraggio”. La strategia sottolinea anche la necessità di prevedere nuovi e migliori strumenti di gestione del ciclo dei rifiuti. Nello stesso documento la DG Ambiente dell'UE sostiene che il cittadino può, e deve, chiedere costantemente all'amministrazione locale quali interventi essa compie per migliorare la situazione dei rifiuti a livello locale.

Da qui nace il Progetto HIA21

Toscana e Abruzzo, le regioni nelle quali sono ubicati i due impianti pilota del progetto HIA21, hanno una produzione annuale di RSU di circa 2.545.014 e 699.265 tonnellate, con una produzione procapite rispettivamente di 686 e 524 chilogrammi per abitante.

Le azioni di HIA21
• monitoraggi sulle varie matrici ambientali come aria, acqua, suolo e agenti fisici, indagini epidemiologiche sui principali indicatori sanitari, indagini di carattere economico e sociale.
• consultazioni periodiche e costanti con i portatori d'interesse (stakeholders) e con le popolazioni locali.
• incontri con la popolazione per discutere gli stati di avanzamento dei lavori, per pianificare insieme le azioni da intraprendere per la valutazione degli impatti e recepire suggerimenti e istanze da parte delle popolazioni locali.

HIA in the Atlantic

There's a great piece on health impact assessment on the Atlantic Cities website: How to Measure a Project's Health

Participate in a Survey on HIA for a PhD research

In 2009 a Danish Disease Prevention Committee published a report on potential governmental initiatives for ensuring the population a longer and healthier life. One of their conclusions was that it was recommended to “Perform Health Impact Assessments on political decisions on a national level where a decision is presumed to have DIRECT and DOCUMENTED effects on the health and sickness of the public”. This survey is intended to uncover your understanding of a policy having a direct and documented effect on health outcomes.

You find the survey here: http://www.survey-xact.dk/LinkCollector?key=A77ZCHZ21JCJ

If you have problems with the survey please contact Stella Rebecca Johnsdatter Kræmer at: skraemer@health.sdu.dk

They're world leaders in health impact assessment. Find out more about HIA in Thailand.

Thailand is a world leader in health impact assessment. I've learned a lot from colleagues in the National Health Commission Office and the Healthy Public Policy Foundation over the eight years that we've worked together. They have a sophisticated and nuanced approach to HIA that recognises that there's more than one way to undertake HIA and that HIA is rarely an end in itself.

As I've spoken to colleagues elsewhere I've been dismayed about how little they've engaged with the work that's happened in Thailand. Often this is due to language barriers (few people read Thai outside Thailand), assumptions that little can be learned outside western countries (this is flat-out wrong), or a view that Thailand is a "special case" (it is, but we can still learn from its unique circumstances).

Ignorance is no longer an excuse however! The National Health Commission Office for Thailand has put together an excellent series of English language publications on their experiences with HIA. I urge you to take a look. The books and reports chronicle the details and experiences of HIA in Thailand. There's a lot to learn from these publications.

The NHCO website also includes publications on healthy public policy, Thailand's incredible and inspirational system of Health Assemblies, and their National Health Act.

CONCLUSIONE DEL PROGETTO “VALUTAZIONE DI IMPATTO SULLA SALUTE PER LA PUBBLICA AMMINISTRAZIONE (VISPA)

NUOVI STRUMENTI DI SANITA’ PUBBLICA: CONCLUSIONE DEL PROGETTO “VALUTAZIONE DI IMPATTO SULLA SALUTE PER LA PUBBLICA AMMINISTRAZIONE (VISPA)”

Mercoledì 28 Marzo 2012 presso la SALA Conferenze A della III Torre a Bologna (Viale della Fiera 8) si svolgerà il convegno conclusivo del progetto CCM-Regione Emilia-Romagna VISPA dal titolo "Nuovi strumenti di Sanità Pubblica" dove verranno presentati gli esiti del progetto CCM–Regione Emilia-Romagna "Sperimentazione dell’utilizzo della Valutazione degli Impatti sulla Salute (VIS) a supporto dell’espressione dei pareri di sanità pubblica in Conferenza dei servizi".
Il progetto VISPA, finanziato dal Ministero della Salute e coordinato dal Servizio di Sanità Pubblica della Regione Emilia-Romagna in collaborazione con l’Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia, ha coinvolto i territori di sei diverse regioni italiane con l’obiettivo di testare un modello di VIS Rapida da utilizzare per l’espressione dei pareri in sede di Conferenza dei Servizi.
Una importante ricaduta del progetto è la creazione di una rete di esperti per facilitare la diffusione di pratiche e lo scambio di conoscenze sulla VIS. Sarà un’occasione per riunire la comunità di tecnici ed esperti di VIS in Italia e fare il punto sull’integrazione degli aspetti sanitari nelle pratiche di valutazione degli impatti di politiche e progetti.

Info: aballarini@regione.emilia-romagna.it

Consultation and cooperation with Indigenous People

Health Impact Assessment is always concerned with community involvement and participation. And many practitioners can agree that ”community participation is intuitively appealing but practically difficult (Parry and Wright 2003).
Even more so when one deals with indigenous people. I had an interesting exchange on this with some colleagues dealing with Social Impact Assessment in Greenland. They were surprised that “experts” and “companies” did not realize that Greenlandic population might be Inuit and inhabit the arctic, but it does not mean that they share the same culture of Canadians and Americans or Russians Inuits
The right of local communities and indigenous people to make informed and voluntary decisions about the transformation happening in their local environments should be the essence of Impact Assessment. There is a recent article written by Paul Klein summarizing some ideas to help corporations have better, more inclusive relationships with indigenous people and communities. And mainly:
1. Spend time learning the history and culture of local indigenous people with the goal of building relationships and trust.
2. Acknowledge the right of indigenous people to informed consent; engage third party experts, chosen in consultation with affected communities, to assess and verify local conditions.
3. Ensure communities have timely access to all relevant information about any proposal affecting indigenous territories and offer resources in formats that are culturally appropriate, available in indigenous languages, and easy to understand.
4. Recognize that indigenous people are seeking the same community goals as corporations: better education, more employment and improved economic opportunities.
5. Understand that indigenous people look at time horizons and development differently and that actions taken must benefit future generations.
6. Remember that there are unique rights that are protected and advanced by indigenous people. Indigenous people have a stewardship relationship with the land; they support development but they must also care for the land.
7. Be realistic. It takes time for communities to respond to employment and business opportunities that are presented by extraction projects. Mining companies need to spend time working with communities to understand and act on those opportunities well in advance of the approval stages.
8. Establish co-management and co-responsibility. Accountability begins with shared responsibility for targets and outcomes.
9. Support local economic development. During the course of a mine’s operations, indigenous communities need to diversify and develop their own economies so that once the mine leaves, there are sustainable gains.
10. Ensure that the community has a consent process in place prior to initiating environmental and social impact assessments.
To the above some readers have added:
11. No two indigenous communities should be considered the same (which caught my attentions about the discussion on Greenland).
12. The right to say no to the proposed development

Do you have any other ideas or recommendations to add?

Health Impact Assessment in the ASEAN Community

Some really interesting presentations and information from the first ASEAN Meeting on Health Impact Assessment held in Thailand in February.

HIA Gateway Resource Update

Reports:
HIA of Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan: US
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111832

Guides:
Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC): update January 2012
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111910

Tools:
HIA Toolkit for Cities (WHO). Document 2:Training Module
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111834

Current Use:
New incinerator study - HPA
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=114977

Senior Officer, Health Impact Project, US
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=114911

MWIA Newsletter: January 2012
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111947

HIA in Ireland and the role of local government
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111886

Theory Issues:
Recognising the potential of cities (BMJ article)
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=114963

Influencing land use planning: paper
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=114920

HIA: A Tool to Benefit Health in all Policies
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111851

Training Courses:
Social Impact Assessment Training, 27-28th May, Porto
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111831

Events:
Web seminar: housing in the new agenda for health and wellbeing, 9th February
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=111909

The HIA Bibliography is updated quarterly. It was recently updated in November 2011 and has 49 new references.

New Spanish HIA Portal

From Carlos Artundo, CEO of the Andalusian School of Public Health:

I’m pleased to inform you that the new HIA portal in Spanish, the CREIS, Centro de Recursos de Evaluación de Impacto en Salud is already on line at http://www.creis.es

The CREIS provides key information and resources in Spanish, as well as links to relevant documents, tools, evidence and other helpful resources available in other specialised websites and HIA portals. The site was launched last December 2011. It is an ongoing project and its full functionality will evolve throughout this year accordingly to new developments and emerging needs.

It has been created and it is maintained by the Andalusian School of Public Health. Nonetheless, we’re planning to build on partnerships and collaboration with other public health institutions at the regional/national level, as well as with the private sector, as part of a wider strategy to promote HIA development and practice across Spain. The idea is to make it also a useful resource in other Spanish speaking countries interested in HIA.

Please feel free to disseminate this information among your networks. And of course, any comment/suggestion/feedback, are very welcome.

Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts

Researchers at Tyndall Manchester, in partnership with The Co-operative, have updated their assessment of the environmental impact of shale gas in light of new developments in the UK. The report, released in November 2011, updates their January 2011 work. It finds that in the absence of a stringent global emissions cap, large-scale extraction of shale gas cannot be reconciled with the commitments enshrined in the latest international climate change agreement, the Copenhagen Accord (2009).
The report has also an interesting chapter on human health and one of the main findings of this work is that there is a paucity of information on which to base a quantified assessment of environmental and human health risk.
The report provides a list of key risks and impacts of shale gas and shale gas processes and development. Those can be divided as follows:
 contamination of groundwater by fracturing fluids or mobilised contaminants arising from:
o wellbore/casing failure; and/or
o subsurface migration;
 contamination of land and surface water, and potentially groundwater via surface route, arising from:
o spillage of fracturing additives; and
o spillage/tank rupture/storm water overflow from liquid waste storage, lagoons/pits containing cuttings/drilling mud or flowback fluid;
 water consumption/abstraction;
 wastewater storage, transport and treatment;
 land and landscape impacts from;
o drill rig and well pad
o storage ponds or tanks
o access roads
 impacts arising during construction and pre-production:
o noise/light pollution during well drilling/completion;
o local traffic impacts;
 seismic impacts

Health baseline information in impact assessment

The paucity of reliable health baseline information to carry out HIA in developing countries context has always been a key issue within the HIA discussion. There are arguments in favor of collecting and generating new data, but there are also arguments against this approach. The arguments against mainly center around: costs of data collection and ethical issues about invasive data collection mechanisms. The arguments in favor point to the lack of dependable data needed not only to assess the impacts, but also to monitor the recommendations measures and for the early identification of intended impacts.

Malaria offers a very goo example of the difficulties and challenges of using already existing data to estimate burden of disease in a given context.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation published an article on the Lancet last Friday suggesting that 1.24 million people died from the mosquito-borne disease in 2010. This is twice what estimated by WHO and partners for the same year. The research used new data and new computer modeling to build a historical database for malaria between 1980 and 2010. WHO has just issued a communication welcoming the research and the effort, but basically WHO re-confirms the precedent estimate of 655 000 deaths attributable to malaria.

While everybody agrees that the burden is extremely high for both estimates, the difference between the 2 numbers is anyway of concern. The research involved trying to judge the impact of the misclassification of deaths in the affected regions. This readjustment alone generated a rise of 21% in the number of malaria deaths. Beside the effects that the mathematical model chosen has on the final data, the issue of the quality of initial data is essential. In the majority of settings where malaria is a feared killer, diagnosis is done clinically without any form of diagnostic devise. Fever is a symptom of malaria, but it is not necessarily malaria. In such settings the collection of baseline information on the health status and determinants of the population residing in the project foot print is therefore very important and the gathering methods should be designed to satisfy project information requirement and ethical aspects.

This discussion is an ongoing one within the HIA community and for those interested there is a session “Health baseline data within different impact assessments” at the next IAIA conference.

New Report: Working for Equity in Health

Thanks to Adam Coutts.

The Working for Equity in Health context, situation analysis and evidence review presents a comprehensive overview of the evidence linking work, worklessness, social protection and health inequalities in Europe. It is hoped that this report will help stimulate policy makers, practitioners and researchers to think differently about how they might minimise the risks of widening health inequalities and approach the goal of improving the health of communities and populations.

Published 16 January 2012

Is less more? Creating an HIA community of practice online

A terrific guest post from Liz Green, Principal Health Impact Assessment Development Officer at the Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit.

Having read Ben’s posting regarding a more sophisticated use of social media for health impact assessment it struck a chord with me – particularly what Ben’s comments about passive online engagement – and made me think about the subject more.

As someone who actively updates a website and sends out e-updates and newsletters to a number of communities, organisations, networks, practitioners and policy makers I found what Ben said interesting.  The Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) does not have a specific comments section on its website but as the administrator I rarely get feedback – positive or negative.  Yet we know from statistical figures we obtain each month, that 1,000’s of people browse and actively download information, research evidence and HIA Reports from the site each month.  So why is it so hard to get a better sense of the HIA community and to generate networking through social media?

Personally, I think the answer to this question may be found in identifying the barriers to the current use of social media and I have listed them in no particular order:

• Lack of time to contribute or the intention to post later and then not doing it.
• Personal information overload.   Posting on your own Facebook pages etc can be demanding enough (I’ve given up on it now – all that updating, replying, friending and defriending) without having to do it for ‘work’ – unless, of course it is built into your job description and are therefore committed to doing it. 
• Work information overload. HIA forms just a small component of many public health/health improvement/environmental practitioners’ job roles and they may be on several different competing contact lists and networks, health and non-health related – each having websites, sending out mail and updates and but do people really read them?  Are we bombarded now?  How many people honestly just press delete or only skim them because they get so many?  They may only have time to browse other more relevant media for their current work streams.  
• We need to consider that some people are just not technologically savvy on emerging media like Twitter and this could form a barrier.
• Posting and commenting can be seen as a small ‘club’  of a few expert practitioners who post and are highly active and know each other – and dare I say it - men? This can be off putting.
• And this brings me to my final thought - I think the most important barrier to moving the use of social media is FEAR and lack of confidence.  People fear appearing to ask silly questions and/or replying to posts and being dismissed for it by others.  On the one hand, the internet can be a very private place to hide in but on the other, posting a comment into the unknown leaves people very exposed on a global level. If we consider this at the extreme then it could be true to say that professional reputations could be shattered with the press of a button.  The emergence of ‘Trolling’ has also made many sensitive to this.  On Facebook people do know each other and although they may have friends of friends etc it is still seen as a relatively ‘safe’ environment to contribute to.  The very term ‘friend’ makes it appear this way and people like personal interaction and have some semblance of control over their network. In Wales, I am known personally by most of the Public Health and HIA policy makers and practitioners (and many more people know of me) and whenever I send out an e-update I get lots of private replies back.  Even if I state others should be emailed in the first instance.  People know me and they know that they can ask me anything and I will not think that they are silly or stupid or don’t have a clue or whatever. I posted on a network site last week and came into work today to find the person whose post I had replied to had found my work email address and emailed me directly and was asking for lots of info and could I send it to him privately. It is a classic example.

I’m not sure what the answer to Ben’s question is.  In a small country like Wales, we may or may not be able to mobilise a community of practitioners who interact with each other in a more interactive way so it may be unrealistic to assume that it can be done on a global level.  Perhaps, we should be satisfied by the level of social media we have now and the few people who do post?  It may be unrealistic to expect more sophisticated levels at least in the short term.  Anonymity may help but then no-one knows who to approach for assistance, the credibility of the poster and the background to what is being said.

I’m beginning to think that perhaps ‘less is more’ and to just focus on being ‘on trend’ – targeting the most fashionable and usable media at any given time and that as trends come and go the focus will change.  The approach will be a much more fluid and flexible.

WHIASU aims to launch a forum on the WHIASU website this year.  However, we aim to utilise it in an active way – as a ‘drop in’ site discussing relevant pre posted issues for a 2 hour window.  I did one last year with a National Welsh Housing Organisation – and it worked quite well – once I got over the time lag and the queue building up of questions to answer.  It will be interesting to see what kind of response we get.

HIA2012 Call for Abstracts

The scientific committee is launching a call for oral and poster presentations for the 12th International Conference on Health Impact Assessment (HIA).

For its first time in North America, the 2012 HIA International Conference will take place in Québec City from August 29 to 31, 2012. The Conference seeks on one hand to advance HIA practice in light of new knowledge, and on the other to prove its relevance, and to stimulate its use in various decision-making contexts. It is open to everyone whose decisions and actions may have an impact on health.

The Conference will be structured around four major thematic tracks:

1. HIA in the policy-making process
2.  Institutionalization of HIA: Addressing political and administrative issues.
3. Diversity of practices: Developing a common thread, maintaining flexibility.
4. Evaluation, research, and ethics: Advancing HIA practice. 

The deadline to submit a proposal for presentations is February 29, 2012. To submit a proposal, visit the Call for Abstracts page of the Conference Web site

EIS 2012 Appel à communications

Le comité scientifique lance un appel à communications orales et affichées pour la 12e Conférence internationale sur l'évaluation d'impact sur la santé (EIS).

Pour la première fois en Amérique, la Conférence internationale EIS 2012 aura lieu dans la ville de Québec du 29 au 31 août 2012. La Conférence vise d'une part à faire évoluer les pratiques de l'EIS à la lumière des nouvelles connaissances, et d'autre part à faire valoir sa pertinence et à stimuler son utilisation dans différents contextes de prise de décision. Elle s'adresse à l'ensemble des personnes dont les décisions et les actions peuvent avoir un impact sur la santé.

La Conférence sera articulée autour de ces quatre grands axes thématiques :

1. La place de l'EIS dans le développement des politiques publiques.
2. L'institutionnalisation de l'EIS : faire face aux enjeux politico-administratifs.
3. La diversité des pratiques : une trame commune à dégager, une flexibilité à préserver.
4. L'évaluation, la recherche et l'éthique : pour faire évoluer la pratique de l'EIS.
5. La date limite pour soumettre une proposition est le 29 février 2012.

Pour soumettre une proposition, visitez la section Appel à communications du site Web de la Conférence