Informal synopsis of meeting with Federal Councilor Guy Parmelin (BRGP) on 10.10.

2019
Notes by J.G. Hering (JGH), prepared on 11.10.2019, revised based on comment from BK (19.10.2019)
Other participants: Beth Krasna (ETH Rat President), Nathalie Goumaz (WBF, secretary general), Zippora Segessemann
(BLW)

Prefatory notes
BRGP spoke (mainly) in French. I hope that I understood his meaning, but I may have missed (or
misinterpreted) some points.

A "note jaune" was submitted to BRGP's office before the meeting. This was based on a "one-pager"
prepared by Eawag (D/F) and submitted by the ETH Board Stab to BRGP's office after minor
modifications to the format (F only).

Key points
(1) BRGP stated that he respects and values Eawag's scientific independence and Eawag's role in
providing scientific input to decision makers. There seems to be no concern about Eawag's
publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. There also did not seem to be any concern
regarding Eawag's publications for professionals (e.g., trade magazines such as Aqua und
Gas).
(2) BRGP did, however, express concern regarding what he considered to be political statements
made by Eawag (i.e., in the document "Wasser ist durch Nitrat und Pestizide aus der
Landwirtschaft belastet" that Eawag delivered to members ofthe WAK-NR on 08.05.2019 at
their request). He also expressed concern over opinions expressed in the media by Eawag
employees and/or ETH Zurich employees affiliated with Eawag even though these opinions
were not expressed on behalf of either Ea wag or ETH Zurich. Specifically, these concerns
involved the issue of whether or not the measures in the Pesticide Action Plan are sufficient
to achieve the goals stated in the plan. (See also the section "Issues" below.) BRGP explicitly
stated his position that employees of the Federal Government (including all employees in the
ETH Domain) should not publically criticize decisions made by the Federal Council.1
(3) BRGP also expressed some concern that the way in which information (even scientific
information) is conveyed has some influence on how it perceived by the public and that
Eawag's statements could be more neutral in this regard. (Note that I did try to point out
that the way in which information is picked up by the media is not usually under Eawag's
control.)
(4) BRGP also made reference to some "methods" used by Eawag that differ from those used by
others. (Note that I interpreted this as analytical methods but I am really not sure if this is
what was meant. I will try to clarify this with the Ea wag experts.)

Other points
(a) I pointed out that the issue of pesticides in drinking water has also been raised by the
Verband der Kantonschemiker der Schweiz. The VKCS is a group with vastly more political
influence than Eawag.
(https://www.kantonschemiker.ch/mm/VKCS%20Kampagne%202019%20Bericht 2019 09
09 D.pdf)

1 Note that I tried to point out that some Federal employees, especially ETH Zurich professors, might not agree

with this position. I did not make a big deal of this, but my own opinion is published in a letter to the editor of
ES&T (DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05825).
 (b) At the end of the meeting, I was able to interject (very briefly) that a narrow focus on
pesticides was unlikely to get us past the conflict between the use of such substances in
agriculture and their impacts on the environment. An alternative would be to take a "triple
bottom line" approach that addresses the broader goal of "sustainable Swiss agriculture".
This would include the economic viability of agriculture, a healthy environment, and healthy
people. It could also take advantage oftechnological advances in precision agriculture (e.g.,
spot application of pesticides using drones). Note that I have conveyed this interest to
colleagues in the Institute of Agricultural Sciences {IAS) at ETH Zurich. I hope that they will
pick this up. If so, Kathrin Fenner would be the contact for Eawag.

Issues

It seemed that BRGP (and/or his staff) took issue with one statement in the "note jaune", specifically
"Ein Differenz zwischen den im Gesetz festgelegten Zielen und dem status quo ist ein Zeichen, dass
die Massnahmen nicht ausreichend sind." ("L'écart entre les objectifs fixés par la loi et l'état actuel
est révélateur d'une insuffisance des mesures prises.") This concern stemmed from the failure to
include the time dimension in the (otherwise true) statement. It could be that the measures would
be sufficient if there had been enough time for them to take effect. In this case, they could be
expected to have the desired effect and only time is needed (not additional measures). I have to
admit that this reading of the statement did not occur to me, nor was it flagged by the
communications specialists on the ETH Board Stab. I am not sure how to avoid such
misunderstandings in the future.

Consequences

I. Eawag needs to treat its communications on this topic with more care, specifically,
a. Being (more) sensitive to potential unintended interpretations of statements
(including their tone and/or (unstated) assumptions). Note that consultation with
the ETH Board Stab communications team may or may not be sufficient for this (cf.
the section "Issues").
b. Ensuring that statements of scientific facts are made so that potential bias is
minimized. This would include being explicit about constraints on possible
interpretations of results.
II. Eawag needs to ensure that its staff members realize the potential consequences of
statements of opinion that they might make to the media. In particular, Eawag staff
should avoid making any impression that they are speaking on behalf of Eawag.