The Role of Environmental
Assessment in Risk
Governance
Improving How We Assess
and Manage Systemic Risk
“Risk” vs
“Significance”
The determination of “significant residual adverse
effects” has a strong tendency to reduce the
assessment to a series of individual judgements
which deal with one stressor at a time.
The concept of “risk” can open doors to more
comprehensive analyses which encompass multiple
stressors and cumulative effects.
The Framing
Argument
Risk governance is the system of informal and formal processes and
institutions that guide and restrain human activities is order that risk is
regulated, reduced and controlled.
Decisions arising from environmental assessments often pose
substantial risk governance challenges because the EA process lacks
adequate policy and methodology to address systemic risk
The assessment and management of systemic risk requires broad
discourse, accountability and policy coherence
Some risks will never be tolerable to the majority of people. These
risks should be identified early.
What is Systemic Risk?
Risk which is complex, uncertain and ambiguous.
• Complexity – interdependencies and interactions
among ecological, economic and social relationships
creating ripple effects, spill-over effects, and impact
cascades.
• Uncertainty – natural variability, random or chaotic
events, large spatial and temporal scales, ignorance
• Ambiguity - different legitimate viewpoints
Good Science is Not Enough
Systemic risk cannot be captured by classic EA methods
nor by the classic risk equation of likelihood x
consequence
People intuitively understand that classic analyses
cannot deal with ambiguity, nor is there usually the time
to produce sufficient science to understand complexity
and uncertainty
Scientists are not the only legitimate interpreters of risk
Governance of
Systemic Risk
TRUST
Engagement
Accountability
Transparency
Effective Science
Communication
Policy Coherence
VALUES AND INTERESTS
Values and Interests
The violation of social or cultural
interests and values destroys trust in
a risk governance system (and can
create outrage)
If differences in values systems are “We have no say
and no control”
not understood and recognized,
there can be no meaningful dialogue
about risk tolerance and risk
governance
“We will never accept a project which threatens our sacred lands.”
Engagement and
Communication
Understanding how different values and interests create
ambiguity (e.g. what is viewed as “just” and “fair”)
Effective communication of science, including
transparency regarding uncertainty and complexity and
credibility regarding adaptive management
Collaboration regarding risk tolerance, including open
and honest discussion of risk balancing and trade-offs
Definition of
Tolerable Risk
Tolerable risks are those which can be moved into a
“normal” area of risk through proven risk management
The likelihood and consequences are sufficiently low and the
consequences of being wrong are acceptable
Social and cultural values are maintained at levels acceptable to
communities
Trust and control issues are recognized and dealt with
Costs for risk management do not outweigh the benefits of the
activity
Benefits are equitably distributed
Requirements for
Consensus Regarding
Tolerable Risk
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inclusive discussion
Accessible science
Tangible benefits
Open dialogue about how to deal with uncertainty
Credible adaptive management plans
Clear accountability
Consistent application of government policy
Some risks may never be tolerable because of a strong
consensus that society will not be able to achieve the
appropriate balance between risk and benefit.
It is important to recognize these risks and move on to
alternatives.
Sum-Up
Good science is not enough when dealing with systemic
risk.
Ambiguity regarding what is “just”, “right” and “fair”
requires examination and a search for common ground
regarding tolerable risk
Benchmarks for tolerable risk must address complexity,
uncertainty and ambiguity
Some risks may never be tolerable