Risk Governance
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
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
Problem
Vulnerability
Hazard
Risk
Change
Threshold
Accumulation
Impact
Emerging
Scale
Systemic
Probability Global
Timing
Extent
Risk is an uncertain (generally adverse) consequence of an event or
activity with respect to something that people value
international risk governance council
March 2008
Risk and risk governance
2 | 64
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/or
3.transfer (insurance)
the risk they experience or perceive.
international risk governance council
March 2008
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
4 | 64
AN EXAMPLE OF A SYSTEMIC RISK –
TSUNAMIS AND TROPICAL CYCLONES IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
5 | 64
THE RISK GOVERNANCE PROCESS HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR
CERTAIN SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF THE PARTICULAR RISK
►
Degree of novelty – is the risk:
emerging or re-emerging
increasingly important / current
institutionalised?
►
Scope: is the risk:
local
dispersed
transboundary
global?
►
(topical) or
or
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)
regulation
standards
voluntary guidelines
national/international
…AMONGST MANY OTHER DIMENSIONS
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
6 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
7 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Deciding
Understanding
Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Characterisation
and Evaluation
international risk governance council
March 2008
Appraisal
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
8 | 64
CONVENTIONAL RISK HANDLING
Deciding
Who needs to
know what,
when?
Management
Who needs to
do what, when?
Communication
Understanding
Appraisal
The knowledge
needed for
judgements and
decisions
Conventional risk management is normally based on these three components
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
9 | 64
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?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
10 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Getting a
broad picture
of the risk
Deciding
Management
Is the risk tolerable,
acceptable or
unacceptable?
Pre-Assessment
Communication
Characterisation
and Evaluation
Is the risk simple,
complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Risk
assessment
PLUS
Concern
assessment
Understanding
Appraisal
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
11 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PHASE 1
Getting a
broad picture
of the risk
Management
Pre-Assessment
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
12 | 64
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?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
13 | 64
PRE-ASSESSMENTPOTENTIAL 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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
14 | 64
SCOPE - MATCHING THE SCALE OF A PROBLEM
TO 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.
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
15 | 64
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…)
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
16 | 64
NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION : HOW DIFFERENCES IN FRAMING LED
TO 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.
Copyright: Freakingnews.com
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 pathdependent and evolutionary regulation).
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”
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
17 | 64
REGULATION AND CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY LISTERIA IN RAW MILK SOFT CHEESE
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
18 | 64
LISTERIA IN RAW MILK SOFT CHEESE
 Between 1980 and 1996 there were 16 reported outbreaks of foodborne 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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
19 | 64
LISTERIA: TWO IRRECONCILABLE FRAMES
Consumer sovereignty
 Based on autonomy and freedom of choice by sufficiently wellinformed 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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
20 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
21 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PHASE 2
Risk
assessment
PLUS Pre-Assessment
Concern
assessment
Management
Communication
Scientific Risk Assessment
 Hazard identification and
estimation
 Exposure assessment
 Risk estimation
►
Concern Assessment
 Socio-economic impacts
 Economic benefits
 Public concerns (stakeholders
and individuals)
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
Is the risk simple,
complex, uncertain
or ambiguous?
international risk governance council
►
March 2008
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
22 | 64
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
23 | 64
CONCERN ASSESSMENT
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?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
24 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
25 | 64
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.
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
26 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PHASE 3
Pre-Assessment
Management
Is the risk tolerable,
acceptable or
unacceptable?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
27 | 64
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
Substitution
Reduction
Benefit is worth the risk,
but risk reduction
measures are necessary
No formal intervention
necessary
Acceptance
international risk governance council
Risk so much greater than
benefit that it cannot be
taken on
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
28 | 64
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?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
29 | 64
CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION ARE PART OF
EVERYDAY 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.
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
30 | 64
CHARACTERISATION AND EVALUATION POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS
►
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
31 | 64
INEQUITY - AVIAN INFLUENZA
WHO GETS THE ANTIVIRAL? WHO GETS VACCINATED?
 Health care workers?
 Government leaders?
 Children?
 The aged?
 The logistics industry?
Essential services? Which?
Health care workers?
Water industry?
Energy industry?
Farmers?
If the outbreak begins in another country without stocks, will any country
that has adequate antivirals or vaccine release its stocks to that country?
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
32 | 64
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?

international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
33 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK PHASE 4
Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Appraisal
Who needs to
do what, when?
Characterisation
and Evaluation
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
34| 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
35 | 64
HOW CATEGORISING THE KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP
Simple
Complex
Uncertain
Ambiguous
international risk governance council
 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 ‘precautionbased’ 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.
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
36 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
37 | 64
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



international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
38 | 64
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 risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
39 | 64
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.htm
Text derived from “Policies to change the world” published by the World Future Council
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
40 | 64
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.
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
41 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK COMPLEMENTARY PHASE 5
Who needs to
know what,
when?Pre-Assessment
Management
Communication
Appraisal
Characterisation
and Evaluation
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
42 | 64
RISK COMMUNICATION ESSENTIAL THROUGHOUT THE RISK HANDLING PROCESS
►
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
43 | 64
RISK COMMUNICATION POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS
►
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
44 | 64
COMMUNICATIONS - WHERE TRUST IN THE RISK
GOVERNANCE PROCESS CAN BE WON AND LOST
Fema official regrets fake press conference
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday October 31, 2007
The 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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
45 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
46 | 64
COMPLEMENTARY PHASE
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
47 | 64
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
• communication
Organisational Capacity
• assets
• skills
• capabilities
Most risk management is done in this context only
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
48 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
49 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
50 | 64
DO OTHER CITIES HAVE
BETTER 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?”
© 2006 The Flood Productions Limited / Moonlighting Flood Productions
(Pty) Ltd / London Flood Productions (Muse) Inc.
Mel Gosling on www.continuitycentral.com,
1 September 2006
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
51 | 64
RISK GOVERNANCE GOES MUCH FURTHER
Core Risk Governance Process
• pre-assessment
• risk appraisal
-- risk assessment
-- concern assessment
• evaluation: tolerability /
acceptability judgement
• risk management
• communication
Organisational Capacity
• assets
• skills
• capabilities
Actor Network
• politicians
• regulators
• industry/business
• NGOs
• media
• public at large
Political & Regulatory Culture
• different regulatory styles
Social Climate
• trust in regulatory institutions
• perceived authority of science
• degree of civil society involvement
• risk culture
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
52 | 64
CONTEXT CAN CHANGE
Evolution of environmental risk management in the US
1.
Principle of non-malfeasance : do no readily avoidable harm to
persons or nature
•
•
2.
Cost-benefit analysis: weighing (or balancing) of aggregate risks and
benefits
•
•
3.
Principles of corporate responsibility
Regulatory framework 1970+
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
Equity, fairness and social justice
•
•
Environmental justice movement
Precautionary approach
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
53 | 64
COMPLEMENTARY PHASE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
54 | 64
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Civil society
Affected
stakeholders
Affected
stakeholders
External
Scientists/
Researchers
External
Scientists/
Researchers
External
Scientists/
Researchers
Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts
Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts
Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts
Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts
Type of participation
Use existing
routines to
assess risks
and possible
reduction
measures
Maximise the
scientific
knowledge of
the risk and
mitigation
options
Involve all
affected
stakeholders to
collectively
decide best
way forward
Societal debate
about the risk
and its
underlying
implications
Dominant risk
characteristic
Simple
Complexity
Uncertainty
Ambiguity
Actors
As the dominant characteristic changes, so also
will the type of stakeholder involvement need to change
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
55 | 64
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)
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
56 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
57 | 64
GETTING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT RIGHT VIENNA AIRPORT
Source: presentation by Friedrich Lehr, Vice President Airline and Terminal Services, Vienna Airport, October 2006
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
58 | 64
UNCERTAINTY, AMBIGUITY, NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION NANOTECHNOLOGY


Over 500 applications already on the market
Enormous market potential
$3 000 000
$2 500 000
$ millions
$2 000 000
$1 500 000
$1 000 000
$500 000
$0
2004
Source: (Purdue University)
2005
2006
Manufacturing and materials

2007
2008
2009
Electronics and IT
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Healthcare and life sciences
Some extremely valuable opportunities
– Diagnostics and drug delivery
– Environmental remediation
– Energy generation and storage, etc…
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
59 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
60 | 64
FOUR NANOTECHNOLOGY GENERATIONS,
AND IRGC’S TWO FRAMES
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
61 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
62 | 64
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
international risk governance council
March 2008
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
63 | 64
IRGC’S RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Deciding
Understanding
Pre-Assessment
Thank you
Management
Communication
Characterisation
and Evaluation
international risk governance council
March 2008
Appraisal
Categorising
the
knowledge
about the risk
Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework
64 | 64