International risk governance council March 2008 Chemin de Balexert 9, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva,...

international risk governance council March 2008 Chemin de Balexert 9, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva , Switzerland | Tel: +41 (0)22 795 17 30 Fax: +41 (0)22 795 17 39

Risk Governance

Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

international risk governance council March 2008

RISK

Risk is an uncertain (generally adverse) consequence of an event or activity with respect to something that people value

Risk Hazard

Threshold

VulnerabilityProblem

Change

Accumulation Scale

Global

Systemic

Emerging

Probability

Timing

Extent

Risk and risk governance 2 | 64

Impact


OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF RISK IS CHANGING, SO MUST OUR HANDLING OF THE RISK

► Innovations in science, technology and communication have caused societies to experience both an increase in knowledge and a greater awareness of a lack of knowledge

► Emergence of systemic risks that are: transboundary socially amplified via perception and social mobilisation subject to expert dissent regarding risks and benefits unmanageable by single organisations difficult to communicate

► With a heightened perception of risk and needing trust in decision makers, people must:

1.accept (adapt to…)2.manage (reduce, regulate, build resilience…) and/or3.transfer (insurance)

the risk they experience or perceive.

Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 3 | 64


WHAT IS RISK GOVERNANCE?

Risk is an uncertain consequence (positive or negative) of an event or activity with respect to something that people value

Governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and institutions by which authority is exercised and decisions are taken and implemented

Risk governance refers to the identification, assessment, management and communication of risks in a broad, governance, context

Good practice in risk governance integrates the principles of good governance within the traditional risk-handling process of risk identification, assessment, management and communication


The challenge of better risk governance lies in enabling societies to benefit from change while minimising the negative consequences of the associated risks


AN EXAMPLE OF A SYSTEMIC RISK – TSUNAMIS AND TROPICAL CYCLONES IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA



THE RISK GOVERNANCE PROCESS HAS TO ACCOUNT FORCERTAIN SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF THE PARTICULAR RISK

► Degree of novelty – is the risk:emerging or re-emergingincreasingly important / current (topical) orinstitutionalised?

► Scope: is the risk:localdispersedtransboundary orglobal?

► If related to new technology, is the change:incremental or Breakthrough?

► The possibility or not for transfer or insurability► Level of public concern and stakeholder involvement► Form of regulatory framework (and the level of compliance with it)

regulationstandardsvoluntary guidelinesnational/international

…AMONGST MANY OTHER DIMENSIONS



EXTENDING RISK MANAGEMENT TO RISK GOVERNANCE


►Risk governance incorporates such principles as:

Effectiveness – will the risk management goal be achieved? Efficiency – are the measures cost-effective? Legality – are the measures compatible with national / international law? Legitimacy – do the measures result from accepted procedures? Accountability – are responsibilities for management and liability clear and accepted? Participation – have all those with a stake been consulted? Responsiveness – have stakeholder views been taken into account? Sustainability – will the measures remain appropriate in the long term? Fairness – are risks and benefits distributed equitably? Social / ethical acceptability – do the measures meet moral and ethical standards?

►Whilst “Governmental” decisions are top-down, governance involves all state and non-state actors who, together, make and implement decisions


IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

Pre-Assessment

Characterisationand Evaluation

AppraisalManagement Communication

Categorising the

knowledgeabout the

risk

UnderstandingDeciding



CONVENTIONAL RISK HANDLING




Who needs to know what,

when?

Who needs to do what, when? The knowledge

needed for judgements and

decisions

Conventional risk management is normally based on these three components


INNOVATIONS IN THE IRGC’S FRAMEWORK

1.The pre-assessment phase- extending problem definition

2.Including concern assessment as part of risk appraisal

3.Categorising the knowledge about the risk as:- simple- complex- uncertain- ambiguous

4.The characterisation and evaluation phase- is the risk acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable?




Pre-Assessment



Categorising the

knowledgeabout the

risk



Getting a broad picture

of the risk

Risk assessment

PLUS Concern

assessment

Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?

Is the risk simple, complex, uncertain

or ambiguous?


IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PHASE 1


Pre-Assessment



12 | 64

Getting a broad picture

of the risk


PRE-ASSESSMENT


Establish a broad picture of the risk and how to assess and manage it

►What are the risks and opportunities we are addressing?►What are the various dimensions (causes, targets, scope, scale, etc) of the risk? ►How do we define the limits for our evaluations and decisions?►Do we have indications that there is already a problem? Is there a need to act now…at all?►Who are the stakeholders? How do their views affect the definition and framing of the problem?►What are the scientific/analytical tools and conventions that can be used to assess the risks?►What are the current legal/regulatory systems and how do they potentially affect the problem and how it is handled?►What is the organizational capability of the relevant governments, international organizations, businesses and people involved?


PRE-ASSESSMENT-POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS


► Warning – signals of a known risk have not been detected or recognised

► Scope – a risk perceived as having only local consequences may in fact be much broader (and vice versa)

► Framing – different stakeholders may have conflicting views on the issue

► “Black swans” – no awareness of the hazard or possible risk


SCOPE - MATCHING THE SCALE OF A PROBLEMTO THE RISK MANAGEMENT STUCTURE

The International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine

has an action plan on floods (part of Rhine 2020 programme) The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube

River (ICPDR) has established a long-term Action Programme for

Sustainable Flood Prevention in the Danube River Basin.



IMPORTANCE OF FRAMING


► Frames represent social, economic and cultural perspectives Challenge or problem Opportunity or risk Innovation or intervention

► Frames determine boundaries of what is included and excluded Time and duration (future generations, sustainability) Location and space (the universe, all nation, the Netherlands, Le

Hague) Social class and stratus (vulnerable groups, poor, immigrants) Types of adverse effects (physical, mental, social, cultural) Primary or secondary impacts (ripple effects) Criteria taken into account (risk reduction, cost, benefit, equity,

environmental justice, value violations…)


NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION : HOW DIFFERENCES IN FRAMING LEDTO DIFFERENCES IN THE RISK-HANDLING OF GMOS

Some of the differences between EU and US approaches to the regulation of GM crops can be traced to a very early difference in the framing of the technology for regulatory purposes.

In the EU, GM crops were framed as a radical departure from any previous products and were seen as requiring path-breaking regulatory approaches.

The US, in line with the OECD approach, framed them as inherently similar to existing products developed through conventional plant breeding programmes and therefore not requiring any additional scrutiny beyond existing regulatory systems, for example for pesticides, food for human consumption or animal feeds (i.e. they were seen as requiring path-dependent and evolutionary regulation).

Copyright: Freakingnews.com

Taken from Risk governance of genetically modified crops – European and American perspectives, Joyce Tait, for publication by Springer in 2007 in the book “Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practise Using the IRGC Framework”



REGULATION AND CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY -LISTERIA IN RAW MILK SOFT CHEESE



LISTERIA IN RAW MILK SOFT CHEESE

Between 1980 and 1996 there were 16 reported outbreaks of food-borne illness linked to cheese consumption in the US, Canada and Europe associated with cheese produced using unpasteurised milk

In one of them, there were 284 reported illnesses and 86 deaths

Illegal in the US to produce and sell soft and fresh cheeses (eg brie, camembert) using unpasteurised milk, but practice continues on a small scale (cultural heritage etc); some connoisseurs consider the use of unpasteurised milk as essential for making the “best” cheese

Some US “gourmet” cheese producers use unpasteurised milk – less flavour from pasteurised milk



LISTERIA: TWO IRRECONCILABLE FRAMES

Consumer sovereignty Based on autonomy and freedom of choice by sufficiently well-

informed consumers (eg they are aware of the hazard) Allows consumers to take the more “natural” option, thus supporting

products positioned on basis of “quality” “Listeria Hysteria” – other foods (eg uncooked delicatessen meat)

may be more dangerous Contamination may occur during production, not lie in the milk itself

Illness prevention Based on standardisation of regulation and regulatory practice – no

flexibility to account for susceptibility of certain sub-populations A top-down ban, to protect the public – a necessary function of the

state Views raw milk soft cheese as unsafe per se



THE LESSONS FOR RISK DECISION MAKERS

Even a blanket ban will not lead to 100% compliance when consumers perceive it as disproportionate to the risk – people make their own Tolerability and Acceptance Judgement

The role of culture is important – for example, Hispanic traditions ensure that at least one US sub-population will ignore the FDA’s ruling

A ban in one country (US) when others (eg France) continue to use unpasteurised milk in soft cheese is known by informed consumers (most have never heard of listeria) to be inequitable

Uncertainty within the risk assessment (Does the listeria emanate from the raw milk or the production process?) will, if not made transparent, lead to what may appear a flawed risk management decision





Pre-Assessment



► Scientific Risk Assessment Hazard identification and

estimation Exposure assessment Risk estimation

► Concern Assessment Socio-economic impacts Economic benefits Public concerns (stakeholders and

individuals)

22 | 64

Risk assessment

PLUS Concern

assessment

Categorising the

knowledgeabout the

riskIs the risk simple, complex, uncertain

or ambiguous?


RISK ASSESSMENT


► What are the potential damages or adverse effects?► What is the probability of occurrence,?► How ubiquitous could the damage be? How persistent? Can it

be reversible?► How can we characterize cause-effect relationships?

Do we encounter many intervening variables and a sophisticated pattern of interrelated variables (Complexity)?

How reliable are the outcomes of our assessments for understanding probabilities and damage potential (Uncertainty)?

Are there different ways to interpret the assessment results and do we have controversial views about the tolerability of the risks assessed (Ambiguity)?

► What are related social benefits, opportunities and other potential adverse effects?

international risk governance council March 2008 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 24 | 64

How do values and emotions impact on how the risk is perceived?

► What are the public’s concerns and perceptions?

► What is the social response to the risk? Is there the possibility of political mobilisation or potential conflict?

► What role are existing institutions, governance structures and the media playing in defining public concerns?

► Are risk managers likely to face important controversies (ambiguities) arising from differences in stakeholder objectives and values, or from inequities in the distribution of benefits and risks?

CONCERN ASSESSMENT


RISK APPRAISAL -POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS


► Information: there is scarcity of scientific data about the risk and/or about people’s concerns, or, if there is sufficient information, there is a failure to accept it

► Confidence: there is a low confidence level in the data, the model or the interpretation of it

► Lack of attention to interdependencies and interactions between actors and between actors and the risk target

► Inadequate attention is given to the concerns of stakeholders


BRENT SPAR - OVERSTATING CERTAINTY

© Greenpeace / David Sims

Greenpeace’s campaign included occupation of the platform but did not include calling for a consumer boycott; some of their statements are now acknowledged as having little scientific validity.Nonetheless, as a result of consumer action and public protest, Shell is estimated to have lost between £60-100 million, mostly from lost sales across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany.





Pre-Assessment



27 | 64

Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?


EVALUATION - IS THE RISK ACCEPTABLE, TOLERABLE OR INTOLERABLE / UNACCEPTABLE (TRAFFIC LIGHT MODEL)

Based on both the evidence from the risk appraisal and evaluation of broader value-based choices and the trade-offs involved, decide whether or not to take on the risk.

Prohibition or

SubstitutionRisk so much greater than benefit that it cannot be taken on

Reduction Benefit is worth the risk, but risk reduction measures are necessary

AcceptanceNo formal intervention necessary



CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION


What are the broader, value-based questions to consider?

► Characterization: What are the societal and economic benefits and risks? Are there impacts on individual or social quality of life? Are there ethical issues to consider? Is there a possibility of substitution?

► Evaluation: What are possible options for risk compensation or reduction? How can we assign trade-offs between different risk categories and

between risks and benefits (or opportunities)? What are the societal values and norms for making judgements

about tolerability and acceptability? Do any stakeholders have commitments or other reasons for desiring

a particular outcome of the risk governance process?


CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION ARE PART OFEVERYDAY RISK HANDLING

The scientific evidence from the risk assessment is “simple” – civil aviation emits significant pollutants into the atmosphere. Grounding the fleet would stop those emissions.Modern values – particularly economic and societal – are such that no decision has been or is likely to be made to ban civil aviation.In this instance, the policy judgement is therefore to give greater weight to the values than the scientific evidence.



► Exclusion: when some stakeholders and their views or significant benefits and other consequences are accidentally or deliberately excluded from the evaluation process

► Indecision: when there is indecision or lack of responsiveness, whether voluntary (act of authority) or involuntary (overly inclusive process with stakeholders leads to inertia)

► Transparency: when tradeoffs are not made explicit and hidden agendas seem to determine the outcome of the evaluation process

► Overlooking values – failing to fully consider social needs, environmental impacts, cost-benefit analyses and risk-benefit balances

► Timing: when the timing issues are not properly addressed

CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION -POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS


INEQUITY - AVIAN INFLUENZAWHO GETS THE ANTIVIRAL? WHO GETS VACCINATED?

If the outbreak begins in another country without stocks, will any country that has adequate antivirals or vaccine release its stocks to that country?

Health care workers? Government leaders? Children? The aged? The logistics industry?

Essential services? Which?Health care workers?Water industry?Energy industry?Farmers?



BIOFUELS - WHOSE POLICY IS IT? HOW SUSTAINABLE IS IT?

"The policy on biofuels is currently running ahead of the science.“

UK government climate envoy John Ashton, quoted by BBC News

Are biofuels part of:

Energy security policy? Climate change mitigation? Agricultural policy? Sustainable rural development?





Pre-Assessment



34| 64

Who needs to do what, when?


THE NEED FOR DIFFERENT RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES


► dealing with routine, mundane risks

► dealing with complex and sophisticated risks (high degree of modeling necessary)

► dealing with highly uncertain risks (high degree of second order uncertainty)

► dealing with highly ambiguous risks (high degree of controversy)

► dealing with imminent dangers or crises (need for fast responses)

► adaptive risk governance


HOW CATEGORISING THE KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP


Simple risk problems can be managed using a ‘routine-based’ strategy, such as introducing a law or regulation

Complex risks may be best addressed by accessing and acting on the best available scientific expertise, aiming for a ‘risk-informed’ and ‘robustness-focussed’ strategy

Uncertain risks are better managed using ‘precaution-based’ and ‘resilience-focussed’ strategies, to ensure the reversibility of critical decisions and to increase a system’s capacity to cope with surprises

Ambiguous risk problems require a ‘dialogue-based’ strategy aiming to create tolerance and mutual understanding of conflicting views and values with a view to eventually reconciling them. A precaution approach may be recommended.

Simple

Complex

Uncertain

Ambiguous


RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (I):COPING WITH ROUTINE AND COMPLEXITY


► Routine Risk Management Sufficient knowledge of key parameters Little complexity, clear causal knowledge Standard Assessment sufficient Risk-benefit analysis and risk-risk comparisons as basic tool for

evaluation

► Risk-Informed Management High complexity of causal risk models Little uncertainty and ambiguity Expanded risk assessment / need for knowledge management Emphasis on robust risk management strategies, i.e. risk standards

including safety factors Emphasis on close monitoring of outcomes


RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (II):COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY

► Precaution-Based Management High uncertainty or ignorance Adverse effects plausible but quantification not reliable Appraisal of uncertainty by statistical means Goal of risk management: avoidance of irreversible effects Instruments:

Negotiation between too little and too much precaution classic: ALARA etc. new: containment, diversification, monitoring; substitution

► Discourse-Based Management High ambiguity Goal of risk management : to find consensus or tolerance Instruments:

stakeholder involvement public debate risk communication


RISK MANAGEMENT -POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS


► No entity is responsible for managing the risk, or several are and things “fall between the cracks”

► Regulation: no appropriate regulatory structure or process► Inadequate or ignored information: may lead to inappropriate

decision► Sustainability: short-term decisions lead to further, secondary

problems► Short-term expediency: authority makes decision on knee-jerk

basis to give impression of management► Inflexibility: failure to revisit risk decision in light of new knowledge► Indecision/timeliness: delays or inaction make matters worse► Inequity: decisions allot the risk and benefits unfairly► Accountability: decision makers are isolated from the impact of

their decision► Implementation: decisions are ignored or poorly implemented


INTERNATIONAL ACTION BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE -OZONE DEPLETION AND THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL

“…perhaps the most successful environmental agreement to date” Kofi Annan In 1974 Rowland and Molina (University of

California) linked the decomposition of CFCs and the release of chlorine with the destruction of stratospheric ozone

The Vienna Convention (1985) established mechanisms for international cooperation in research into the effects of ozone-depleting chemicals

In September 1987 24 countries signed the Montreal Convention on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Convention has now been ratified by 191 countries

The Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol provides funds to help developing countries phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals

Picture from http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/ozone_hole.htmText derived from “Policies to change the world” published by the World Future Council



CAN EUROPE’S ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE BE MANAGED UNDER A DISPERSED RESPONSIBILITY STRUCTURE?

The European electricity grid is a critical infrastructure with multiple owners, operators and regulators.

Problems in a single location can rapidly cascade into blackouts affecting several countries and millions of users.

The grid is almost impossible to model – risk assessment is VERY difficult.

The only way risks in such a system can be managed is collaboratively by governments, regulators, industry, scientists and, yes, users.



IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK COMPLEMENTARY PHASE 5


Pre-Assessment



Who needs to know what,

when?

42 | 64


► Pre-assessment► Informing other agencies and assessing who is affected and who is

mandated to take responsibility► Inviting views of affected stakeholders

► Appraisal► Requesting and receiving appropriate scientific advice on the risk► Requesting and receiving scientific advice on people’s concerns

► Evaluation► Communication of appraisal findings (if they are clear)► Involving all affected agencies and stakeholders if risk appraisal findings are

uncertain or ambiguous► Deliberations concerning values / perspectives and to evaluate trade-offs

► Management► Inclusion of appropriate stakeholders in the decision making process► Communication of the decision / regulation / advice

RISK COMMUNICATION -ESSENTIAL THROUGHOUT THE RISK HANDLING PROCESS


► One-way information instead of two-way communication prevents building a dialogue

► The communication is not adapted to the category of risk (simple, complex, uncertain, ambiguous)

► Certain concerns are treated as irrational and, as a result, those holding them are alienated from the risk handling process (which may cause social mobilisation against the institution)

► The communication does not account for how different stakeholders receive and accept information

► Low level of confidence or trust in the decision-making process, the information given or the communication channel weakens the whole process

RISK COMMUNICATION -POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS


COMMUNICATIONS - WHERE TRUST IN THE RISK GOVERNANCE PROCESS CAN BE WON AND LOST

Fema official regrets fake press conference

Suzanne Goldenberg in WashingtonWednesday October 31, 2007The Guardian

By the standards of Fema, the US government agency that notoriously botched the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina, the attempt at news management following the California wildfires seemed relatively benign. At least it didn't leave thousands of people stranded without food or shelter.When no reporters showed up to a last-minute news conference on the fires last week, agency staff members simply asked the questions themselves.Even those familiar with the Bush administration's efforts to manipulate the media joined the criticism of the fake news conference. The homeland security chief, Michael Chertoff, called it "one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government".

Text and images from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2202051,00.html; bold type added by IRGC



COMMUNICATION - THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL

“Hybrid Toyota Prius Doesn't Pass Georgia Emissions Test”

Heather Abrams, Georgia (US) Environmental Protection:“The 2004 Toyota Prius has an issue with communicating with the analyzers. They still have to get their emissions tested out. That's a requirement under the law…They will actually run an aborted test on these vehicles to get them into the system, which is what's required under the law, and then they can get a waiver so they can still get their tag.” Photo: Toyota; Transcript from CNN April 15 2007



COMPLEMENTARY PHASE


THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT


RISK GOVERNANCE INCLUDES AND IS SENSITIVE TO CONTEXT


Core Risk Governance Process• pre-assessment• risk appraisal

-- risk assessment-- concern assessment

• evaluation: tolerability / acceptability judgement

• risk management• communicationOrganisational Capacity• assets• skills• capabilities

Most risk management is done in this context only


ORGANISATIONAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY

Risk governance relies upon equipping all actors with adequate:

► Assets Laws and regulations that establish rights and obligations Resources – financial and physical – to gather information and act Knowledge – the experience and expertise to best use the resources Integration – with which to access and deploy the other assets

► Skills Flexibility – adapting to change in a dynamic situation Vision – preparedness to think “outside the box” Directivity – being an agent for external change when necessary

► Capabilities Relations – links between the actors to create the basis for collaborative

learning and decision making Networks – enhanced links between key actors Regimes – the structures that create and oversee the overall process

and how all the actors interact



ONE RESULT OF A DEFICIT IN ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY

(AP Photo/Phil Coale)

“The Gulf Coast States have attempted to coordinate contraflow plans with neighboring States that may be affected, but exercises, traffic simulations, and other analyses to evaluate evacuation options for catastrophic incidents on the scale of Hurricane Katrina have not been conducted.”

Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation, A Report to Congress; US Dept of Transportation and Dept of Homeland Security, June 2006



DO OTHER CITIES HAVEBETTER ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITIES THAN NEW ORLEANS?

“London will flood, and flood badly. It’s not a question of if, but when…As far as I am aware there has yet to be a coordinated London wide exercise that really investigates the preparedness of organisations to deal with a ‘New Orleans style’ event. Why is this?”

Mel Gosling on www.continuitycentral.com,1 September 2006

© 2006 The Flood Productions Limited / Moonlighting Flood Productions (Pty) Ltd / London Flood Productions (Muse) Inc.



RISK GOVERNANCE GOES MUCH FURTHER


Core Risk Governance Process• pre-assessment• risk appraisal

-- risk assessment-- concern assessment

• evaluation: tolerability / acceptability judgement

• risk management• communicationOrganisational Capacity• assets• skills• capabilitiesActor Network• politicians• regulators• industry/business• NGOs• media• public at large

Social Climate• trust in regulatory institutions• perceived authority of science• degree of civil society involvement• risk culture

Political & Regulatory Culture• different regulatory styles


CONTEXT CAN CHANGE


1. Principle of non-malfeasance : do no readily avoidable harm to persons or nature

• Principles of corporate responsibility

• Regulatory framework 1970+

2. Cost-benefit analysis: weighing (or balancing) of aggregate risks and benefits

• calculus of “how to optimize” risk reduction for society• US EPA (1990 ) working to bring its own programmes and resources

into closer accord with expert assessment and opportunities in order to more efficiently reduce overall societal risk

3. Equity, fairness and social justice• Environmental justice movement

• Precautionary approach

Evolution of environmental risk management in the US


COMPLEMENTARY PHASE


STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT


STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Complexity

Maximise the scientific knowledge of the risk and mitigation options

Uncertainty

Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward

Ambiguity

Societal debate about the risk and its underlying implications

Simple

Use existing routines to assess risks and possible reduction measures

Dominant risk characteristic

Type of participation

Actors

As the dominant characteristic changes, so alsowill the type of stakeholder involvement need to change

Regulatory bodies/industry experts

External Scientists/ Researchers

Affected stakeholders

Civil society






Affected stakeholders



CRUCIAL QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Inclusion

Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s) What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferences Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal) Scale: space, time period, future generations

Closure

What counts: acceptable evidence What is more convincing: competition amongst arguments What option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting)



GETTING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT RIGHT -VIENNA AIRPORT

Opposition to the increase in aircraft traffic and associated noise around Vienna Airport came to a head in 2000 when local interest groups were not consulted about plans for a third runway

Anticipating long delays to the Environmental Impact Assessment, the airport operating company decided to address public concerns and set up an Environment Mediation Process

Initiated by Viennese Environmental Legal Office and the airport operating company, 55 parties took part in what became the largest environmental mediation process in Europe

At its conclusion in June 2005, contracts were signed which included a legally binding framework for the extension of the airport and regulation of the number of flight movements



GETTING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT RIGHT -VIENNA AIRPORT

Source: presentation by Friedrich Lehr, Vice President Airline and Terminal Services, Vienna Airport, October 2006



UNCERTAINTY, AMBIGUITY, NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION -NANOTECHNOLOGY

Over 500 applications already on the market Enormous market potential

Some extremely valuable opportunities– Diagnostics and drug delivery– Environmental remediation– Energy generation and storage, etc…

Source: (Purdue University)



BUT THE PUBLIC HAS CONCERNS…

…about who is doing the research, and why:

– “I’m not looking for nanotechnology to provide me with a cleaner bath or with self-cleaning underwear. If research was done by the State, it could seek solutions to our big problems. Industry wants only to make sales and is pushing hard.”

…about transparency

– “To my knowledge, I have never used any of it. But the risk exists that one could know nothing about it. Or, that someone passes off as a nanotechnology product something which is not”

…about the unknown and unseen

– “We have reached a dimension where there is no sight, where we see nothing with our own eyes. And substances with a potential to become active are being manipulated…this is like nuclear fission

From: Les nanotechnologies en Suisse : les défis à relever sont désormais connus. Report of a « Publifocus » project by TA-Swiss, December 2006



FOUR NANOTECHNOLOGY GENERATIONS,AND IRGC’S TWO FRAMES



CONCLUSIONS

► Good risk governance integrates traditional risk analysis with the thorough understanding of how different stakeholders perceive the risk (“framing” and “concern assessment”)

► Understanding and acting on how different stakeholders frame the risk is a key factor in the overall success of the process

► Categorising the knowledge about the risk as simple, complex, uncertain or ambiguous can help: select a risk management strategy design the process for stakeholder involvement

► Using the results of both risk assessment and concern assessment can support a tolerability/acceptability judgement that accounts for both scientific facts and people’s perceptions



DEFICITS OF GOVERNANCE IN THE HANDLING OF RISKS


Ignoring or distorting factual information and/or actionable alternatives Failure to observe or respond to early warnings Failure to monitor consequences of actions Intentional misrepresentation to promote the interests of specific stakeholders Overstating or understating the degree of certainty Overly narrow framing of the decision space

Ignoring, misrepresenting, or failing to address differences in values, interests or perceptions

Lack of knowledge or understanding about values and perceptions Failure to provide inputs from, or standing for, diverse views and interests Failure to address issues of equity

Lack of adequate arrangements to take responsibility, resolve conflicts or take action

No strategy or norms to deal with a commons problem dispersed responsibility, both within and across nations Inadequate strategies for resolving and achieving spatial, temporal, and/or cultural trade-offs Inadequate balance between transparency and other objectives Inadequate balance between costs and economic, social and environmental objectives Lack of institutions and/or human resources and organisational capacity



Pre-Assessment



Categorising the

knowledgeabout the

risk


Thank you


International risk governance council March 2008 Chemin de Balexert 9, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva,...

Documents

Transcript of International risk governance council March 2008 Chemin de Balexert 9, 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva,...