Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH

Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH
Risk Governance: Defining a Better Process for Risk Communication and Stakeholder Participation: Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH

The Basic Fabrics of Risk Governance
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 The Basic Fabrics of Risk Governance The Five Components of Risk Governance Draft 1

Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception and socio-cultural processing of risk Avoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social constructions of risks Link between risk assessment, management and communication Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial, economic and social risk; Explore social amplification pathways Consider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity building and management competency Systematic use of management sciences and decision aiding Emphasis on risk communication between and among agencies and professionals Draft 1

New Challenge: Systemic Emerging Risks
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 Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

There is a need for improved RISK GOVERNANCE
Governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and institutions by which authority is exercised and decisions are taken and implemented. Risk is an uncertain (positive or negative) consequence of an event or an activity with respect to something that humans value Risk governance refers to the actions, processes, laws, traditions and institutions by which decisions about risk handling are prepared, taken and implemented Best practice in risk governance integrates the principles of good governance within the processes of risk identification, assessment, management and communication and includes criteria such as effectiveness, accountability, efficiency, fairness and social and ethical acceptability August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

COMMON DEFICITS IN RISK GOVERNANCE
Framing – different stakeholders have conflicting views of the issue Scope – a risk perceived as only local may have global consequences (and vice versa) There is a scarcity of data about the risk or people’s perceptions of it or, if data does exist, there is a failure to accept it Transparency – trade-offs are not made explicit and hidden agendas seem to determine the outcome Inequity – decisions allot the risk and benefits unfairly Accountability – decision makers are isolated from the impact of their decision Alienation – people or organisations are ignored (can lead to social mobilisation) (also “Authority knows best”) Lack of trust in the process or the communication channel “Paralysis by analysis” – overly inclusive process leads to inertia Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

CONVENTIONAL RISK HANDLING
Deciding Who needs to know what, when? The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions Management Communication Appraisal Who needs to do what, when? Most risk handling processes do not go beyond these steps Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Understanding Deciding Getting a broad picture of the risk Who needs to know what, when? Pre-assessment Appraisal Communication Management Who needs to do what, when? The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions Characterisation and evaluation Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable? August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

INNOVATIONS IN THE IRGC’S FRAMEWORK
The pre-assessment phase extending problem definition Including concern assessment as part of risk appraisal Categorising the knowledge about the risk as: linear complex uncertain ambiguous The characterisation and evaluation phase is the risk acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable? Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

HOW CATEGORISING THE KNOWLEDGE CAN HELP
Linear 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 Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS
Management Sphere: Decision on & Implementation of Actions Assessment Sphere: Generation of Knowledge Pre-Assessment: Problem Framing Early Warning Screening Determination of Scientific Conventions Pre-Assessment 3 Risk Management Strategy: routine-based risk-informed/robustness- focussed precaution-based/resilience- focussed discourse-based Risk Management Implementation Option Realisation Monitoring & Control Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice Decision Making Option Identification & Generation Option Assessment Option Evaluation & Selection Risk Appraisal: Risk Assessment Hazard Identification & Estimation Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment Risk Estimation Concern Assessment Risk Perceptions Social Concerns Socio-Economic Impacts Risk Appraisal Communication 1 Knowledge Challenge: Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity Risk Characterisation Risk Profile Judgement of the Seriousness of Risk Conclusions & Risk Reduction Options Risk Evaluation Judging the Tolera- bility & Acceptabiliy Need for Risk Reduction Measures Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement 2 Risk judged: acceptable tolerable intolerable

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 processes are done in this context only August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

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 Social Climate trust in regulatory institutions perceived authority of science degree of civil society involvement Political & Regulatory Culture different regulatory styles August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999
3 May 1999 Details of each phase Integrating Disciplines and Perspectives in Risk Governance The interplay between the five components Draft 1

3 May 1999 Phase 1 PREASSESSMENT Draft 1

COMPONENTS OF PRE-ASSESSMENT
Pre-Assessment Components Definition Indicators 1 Problem framing Different perspectives of how to conceptualize the issue dissent/consent on goals of selection rule dissent/consent on relevance of evidence choice of frame (risk, opportunity, fate) 2 Early warning Systematic search for new hazards unusual events or phenomena systematic comparison between modeled and observed phenomena novel activities or events 3 Screening (risk assessment and concern assessment policy) Establishing a procedure for screening hazards and risks and determining assessment and management route screening in place? criteria for screening: hazard potential, persistence, ubiquity, etc. criteria for selecting risk assessment procedures for: known risks, emergencies, etc. criteria for identifying and measuring social concerns 4 Scientific conventions for risk assessment & concern assessment definition of NOAEL validity of methods and techniques for risk assessments methodological rules for assessing concerns

3 May 1999 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…) Draft 1

NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION: THE IMPACT OF FRAMING ON 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 path-dependent 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” Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

3 May 1999 Phase 2 APPRAISAL Draft 1

RISK APPRAISAL Risk Assessment Concern Assessment
Hazard identification and estimation Exposure assessment Risk estimation Concern Assessment Socio-economic impacts Economic benefits Public concerns (stakeholders and individuals)

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? August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

BRENT SPAR – UNDERESTIMATING STAKEHOLDER CONCERN
© Greenpeace / David Sims Greenpeace’s campaign included occupation of the platform but did not include calling for a consumer boycott. Nonetheless, Shell is estimated to have lost between £ million, mostly from lost sales across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany. Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

3 May 1999 Phase 3 Tolerability and Acceptability Judgment Draft 1

EVALUATION – IS THE RISK ACCEPTABLE, TOLERABLE OR INTOLERABLE / NOT-ACCEPTABLE (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 Risk so much greater than benefit that it cannot be taken on Substitution Reduction Benefit is worth the risk, but risk reduction measures are necessary No formal intervention necessary Acceptance Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

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? August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

3 May 1999 Phase 4 RISK MANAGEMENT Draft 1

COMPONENTS OF RISK MANAGEMENT
Assessment Components Definition Indicators 1 Option generation Identification of potential risk handling options, in particular risk reduction, i.e. prevention, adaptation and mitigation, as well as risk avoidance, transfer and retention standards, voluntary agreements performance rules restrictions on exposure or vulnerability economic incentives compensation insurance and liability labels, information/education 2 Option assessment Investigations of impacts of each option (economic, technical, social, political, cultural) effectiveness and efficiency minimization of side effects sustainability fairness legal and political implementability ethical acceptability public acceptance 3 Option evaluation and selection Evaluation of options (multi-criteria analysis) assignment of trade-offs incorporation of stakeholders & the public 4 Option implementation Realization of the most preferred option accountability consistency effectiveness 5 Monitoring and feedback Observation of effects of imple-mentation (link to early warning) Ex-post evaluation intended impacts non-intended impacts policy impacts

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 crisis (need for fast responses)

RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (I/II)
Knowledge Characterisation Management Strategy Appropriate Instruments Stakeholder Participation 1 ‘Simple’ risk problems Routine-based: (tolerability / acceptability judgement)  Applying ‘traditional’ decision-making Risk-benefit analysis Risk-risk trade-offs Instrumental discourse (risk reduction) Trial and error Technical standards Economic incentives Education, labelling, information Voluntary agreements 2 Complexity-induced risk problems Risk-informed: (risk agent and causal chain)  Characterising available evidence Expert consensus seeking tools, such as Delphi or consensus conferencing, meta analysis, scenario construction Results fed into routine operation Epistemological discourse Robustness-focussed: (risk absorbing system)  Improving buffer capacity of risk target via: Additional safety factors Redundancy and diversity in designing safety devices Improving coping capacity Establishing high reliability organisations

RISK CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT (II/II)
Knowledge Characterisation Management Strategy Appropriate Instruments Stakeholder Participation 3 Uncertainty-induced risk problems Precaution-based: (risk agent)  Using hazard characteristics such as persistence, ubiquity etc. as proxies for risk estimates Tools include: Containment, ALARA, BACT Reflective discourse Resilience-focussed: (risk absorbing system)  Improving capability to cope with surprises Diversity of means to accomplish desired benefits Avoiding high vulnerability Allowing for flexible responses Preparedness for adaptation 4 Ambiguity-induced risk problems Discourse-based:  Application of conflict resolution methods for reaching consensus or tolerance for risk evaluation results and management option selection Integration of stakeholder involvement in reaching closure Emphasis on communication and social discourse Participative discourse

3 May 1999 Complementary Phase Risk Communication Draft 1

RISK COMMUNICATION – POTENTIAL GOVERNANCE DEFICITS
The most important governance gaps are: One-way information instead of two-way communication prevents building a dialogue 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 is not adapted to the category of risks and the stakeholders involved Low level of confidence or trust in the information given and in the decision-making process weakens the whole process August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

Risk Communication at Different Stages (1)
PREASSSSMENT Internal Informing other agencies and getting feedback from them (who is affected and how does it relate to their mandate?) External Media briefing about process to start Inviting stakeholders to provide feedback and framing suggestions (if risk appears to load high on uncertainty and ambiguity)

APPRAISAL Internal Informing the appropriate scientific departments in other agencies and, if necessary, organize workshops External Media briefing and announcement to stakeholders that assessment process is on its way (low complexity) Depending on degree of knowledge, press conferences or press releases on results (high complexity) Conducting hearings, Delphi, or other information gathering techniques with appropriate knowledge carriers (high complexity and uncertainty)

EVALUATION Internal Involving all affected agencies if risk characterisation is either uncertain or evaluation controversial External Press conferences with assessors and managers on evaluation results and protective measures (low uncertainty and ambiguity) Information of stakeholders and invitation for written review (high uncertainty and low ambiguity) Deliberation with stakeholders about values/perspectives and assigning trade-offs (high ambiguity)

Management Internal Involving all affected regulatory or government bodies if risk management measures have impacts on their mandate External Press conferences on selection of management measures (low uncertainty and ambiguity) Information of stakeholders about regulatory impact review and, if needed, organisation of hearings (high uncertainty and low ambiguity) Engaging in formal deliberations with stakeholders and representatives of the public (high ambiguity)

3 May 1999 Beyond communication Stakeholder and Public Involvement Draft 1

Crucial Questions for Involvement
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 Crucial Questions for Involvement 3 May 1999 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 of arguments What option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting) Draft 1

Stakeholder Involvement at Different Stages
PREASSSSMENT Shaping the process (consensus on frames) Design Discourse APPRAISAL Gathering information and knowledge Epistemic Discourse EVALUATION Deliberating around values/perspectives and assigning trade-offs Reflective Discourse MANAGEMENT Weighing pros and cons of management measures Pragmatic Discourse (for low ambiguity) Participative Discourse (for high ambiguity)

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Actors « Civil society » Affected stakeholders Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers Scientists/ Researchers Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Type of participation Instrumental Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Epistemic Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk Reflective Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward Participative Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences Dominant risk characteristic Simple Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

3 May 1999 The wider context Organizational Capacity Draft 1

ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY (1)
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 August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY (2)
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 August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

Criteria for Evaluating Governance Performance
Effectiveness (Were the goals of risk management accomplished or are they likely to be accomplished?) Efficiency (Are the management measures cost/effective?) Legality (Are the risk measurement measures compatible with legal prescriptions and national/international laws?) Legitimacy (Are the management measures based on due process and publicly accepted procedures) Accountability (Are all responsibilities for risk management and liability clear and unambiguous?) Fairness (Is the risk/benefit distribution considered fair and just?) Acceptance (Are the measures approved by the main stakeholders and the public at large?) Acceptability (Are the measures compatible with ethical and moral standards?) Sustainability ( Are the measures in line with the goals of sustainable development?) August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

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 Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

CONCLUSIONS I Problems in handling risks:
Part V: Conclusions CONCLUSIONS I Problems in handling risks: Plural values and knowledge claims Expert dissent on risk and benefits Transboundary nature of risks Social amplification and attenuation via perception and social mobilization Pressure from globalized economy Lack of organizational capacity in many countries Lack of effective governance structures Emergence of systemic risk that cross national and sectoral boundaries (ripple effects) Need for integration of risk analysis and perception

select a risk management strategy
CONCLUSIONS II 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 Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework

QUOTE “What man desires is not knowledge but certainty.” Bertrand Russell Policy makers cannot produce certainty but can help people to develop coping mechanisms to deal prudently with the necessary uncertainty that is required for societies to progress

EXTRA SLIDES

Transition towards Governance
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Transition towards Governance Evolution of Risk Research Four stages of development Draft 1

Stage 1: Engineered Safety
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Stage 1: Engineered Safety Characteristics Deterministic Safety Analysis Risk = What happens if? Probability exposure over losses (at best) Clear focus on human lives and health Problems Mechanical conception of risks and accidents Uncertainties are “ignored” Risk communication only among experts and between experts and politicians Draft 1

Stage 2: The New Monarch: PRA
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Stage 2: The New Monarch: PRA Characteristics Probabilistic Safety Analysis Risk = Function of probability times damage Probability assessment over events and exposure Clear focus on human lives, health, capital assets and environmental damage Problems Probability distribution often intelligent guesses Uncertainties are confined to statistical confidence intervals Risk communication is designed to bridge the gap between risk assessments and (biased) perceptions Draft 1

Stage 2: Probability Theory in Risk Analysis
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Stage 2: Probability Theory in Risk Analysis Actuarial Approach: Statistical extrapolation Causal Modeling: Determining the pathways from emission to effects using models of dispersion and transport, dose-response-relationships, exposure assessment, consequence analysis Probabilistic Risk Assessments: Synthesizing failure rates through fault and event trees Draft 1

Stage 3: The Rise of Cultural Relativism
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Stage 3: The Rise of Cultural Relativism Characteristics Probability theory is one instrument among others Risk = social construction of the human mind All knowledge is created equal Focus on everything that human value Problems Danger of solipsism due to constructivist concepts Uncertainties are confined to beliefs of individuals and groups (for example subcultures) Risk communication is designed to give voice to those who have alternative views on risk Draft 1

Stage 4: Towards Systemic Integration
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Stage 4: Towards Systemic Integration Characteristics Acknowledgement of prospects and limitations of probability theory Risk = integration of technical and social concepts Coping with uncertainty by applying precaution Explicit system boundaries of what is covered Problems Incompatibility between technical and social approaches to risk Uncertainties are subdivided in aleatory, epistemic, and indeterminate Risk communication is designed to combine rational policies with social perceptions and concerns Draft 1

Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception and socio-cultural processing of risk Avoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social constructions of risks Link between risk assessment, management and communication Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial, economic and social risk; Explore social amplification pathways Consider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity building and management competency Systematic use of management sciences and decision aiding Emphasis on risk communication between and among agencies and professionals Draft 1

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (I): COPING WITH ROUTINE AND COMPLEXITY
Annex: Back-up Slides 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 GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (II): COPING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND AMBIGUITY
Annex: Back-up Slides 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 stakeholder involvement public debate risk communication RISK GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH

Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Ortwin Renn IRGC Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gGmbH"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback