risk governance : defining a better process for risk communication and stakeholder participation :...
TRANSCRIPT
Risk Governance: Defining a Better Process for Risk
Communication and Stakeholder Participation:
Ortwin Renn
IRGCStuttgart University and
DIALOGIK gGmbH
The Basic Fabrics of Risk Governance
The Five Components of Risk Governance
Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception and socio-
cultural processing of riskAvoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social constructions of
risksLink between risk assessment, management and communication
Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial, economic and social risk;Explore social amplification pathwaysConsider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications
Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity building and management competencySystematic use of management sciences and decision aidingEmphasis on risk communication between and among agencies and
professionals
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 4
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
New Challenge: Systemic Emerging Risks
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 5
There is a need for improvedRISK 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
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 6
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 7
Deciding
Management Communication Appraisal
CONVENTIONAL RISK HANDLING
Most risk handling processes do not go beyond these steps
Who needs to do what, when?
Who needs to know what,
when?
The knowledge needed for
judgements and decisions
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 8
DecidingUnderstandingPre-assessment
ManagementCommunication
Characterisation and evaluation
Appraisal
IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Who needs to do what, when?
Who needs to know what,
when?
Is the risk tolerable,
acceptable or unacceptable?
Getting a broad picture
of the risk
The knowledge needed for
judgements and decisions
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 9
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: linear complex uncertain ambiguous
4. The characterisation and evaluation phase is the risk acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable?
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 10
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
11 34
ESSENTIAL DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CORE PROCESS
Assessment Sphere:Generation of Knowledge
Management Sphere:Decision on & Implementation of Actions
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
Pre-Assessment:• Problem Framing• Early Warning• Screening• Determination of Scientific Conventions
Pre-Assessment
Risk Appraisal:Risk Assessment• Hazard Identification & Estimation• Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment• Risk Estimation
Concern Assessment• Risk Perceptions• Social Concerns• Socio-Economic Impacts
Risk AppraisalRisk ManagementImplementation• Option Realisation• Monitoring & Control• Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice
Decision Making• Option Identification & Generation• Option Assessment• Option Evaluation & Selection
Risk Management
Communication
1 Knowledge Challenge: Complexity Uncertainty Ambiguity
2 Risk judged: acceptable tolerable intolerable
3 Risk Management Strategy: routine-based risk-informed/robustness-
focussed precaution-based/resilience-
focussed discourse-based
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 12
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 processes are done in this context only
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 13
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• 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
Details of each phase
Integrating Disciplines and Perspectives in Risk Governance
The interplay between the five components
Phase 1
PREASSESSMENT
16 34
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
Establishing a procedure for screening hazards and risks and determining assessment and management route
definition of NOAEL validity of methods and techniques for
risk assessments methodological rules for assessing
concerns
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…)
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 18
NOVELTY AND PRECAUTION: THE IMPACT OF FRAMING ON THE RISK-HANDLING OF GMOs
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”
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).
Phase 2
APPRAISAL
20 34
RISK APPRAISAL
Risk AssessmentHazard identification and estimationExposure assessmentRisk estimation
Concern AssessmentSocio-economic impactsEconomic benefitsPublic concerns (stakeholders and individuals)
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 21
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?
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 22
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 £60-100 million, mostly from lost sales across northern Europe; petrol stations were fire-bombed in Germany.
Phase 3
Tolerability and Acceptability Judgment
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 24
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.
Acceptance
Reduction
Prohibition or Substitution
No formal intervention necessary
Benefit is worth the risk, but risk reduction measures are necessary
Risk so much greater than benefit that it cannot be taken on
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 25
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?
Phase 4
RISK MANAGEMENT
27 34
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
28 34
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)
29 34
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 /acceptabilityjudgement)
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
30 34
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
Complementary Phase
Risk Communication
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 32
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
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)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (1)
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)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (2)
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)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (3)
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)
Risk Communication at Different Stages (4)
Beyond communication
Stakeholder and PublicInvolvement
Crucial Questions for Involvement Inclusion
Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferencesScope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)Scale: space, time period, future generations
ClosureWhat counts: acceptable evidenceWhat is more convincing: competition of argumentsWhat option is selected: decision making rule
(consensus, compromise, voting)
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 measuresPragmatic Discourse (for low ambiguity)
Participative Discourse (for high ambiguity)
Stakeholder Involvement at Different Stages
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 40
Complexity
Epistemic
Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk
Uncertainty
Reflective
Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward
Ambiguity
Participative
Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences
Simple
Instrumental
Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable
Agency Staff
Dominant risk characteristic
Type of participation
Actors
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
« Civil society »
Scientists/ Researchers
Scientists/ Researchers
Affected stakeholders
As the level of knowledge changes, so alsowill the type of participation need to change
The wider context
Organizational Capacity
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 42
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 43
ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY (2)
Capabilities
Relations – links between the actors to create the basis for collaborative learning and decision making
Networks – enhanced links between key actorsRegimes – the structures that create and oversee the
overall process and how all the actors interact
August 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 44
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?)
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 45
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
46 34
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
Part V: Conclusions
Oct 2007 Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework 47
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
48 34
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
49 34
EXTRA SLIDES
Transition towards Governance
Evolution of Risk Research
Four stages of development
Stage 1: Engineered Safety
CharacteristicsDeterministic Safety AnalysisRisk = What happens if?Probability exposure over losses (at best)Clear focus on human lives and health
ProblemsMechanical conception of risks and accidentsUncertainties are “ignored”Risk communication only among experts and between
experts and politicians
Stage 2: The New Monarch: PRA
CharacteristicsProbabilistic Safety AnalysisRisk = Function of probability times damageProbability assessment over events and exposureClear focus on human lives, health, capital assets and
environmental damage
ProblemsProbability distribution often intelligent guessesUncertainties are confined to statistical confidence
intervalsRisk communication is designed to bridge the gap
between risk assessments and (biased) perceptions
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
Stage 3: The Rise of Cultural Relativism
CharacteristicsProbability theory is one instrument among othersRisk = social construction of the human mindAll knowledge is created equalFocus on everything that human value
ProblemsDanger of solipsism due to constructivist conceptsUncertainties 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
Stage 4: Towards Systemic Integration
CharacteristicsAcknowledgement of prospects and limitations of
probability theoryRisk = integration of technical and social conceptsCoping with uncertainty by applying precautionExplicit system boundaries of what is covered
Problems Incompatibility between technical and social approaches
to riskUncertainties are subdivided in aleatory, epistemic, and
indeterminateRisk communication is designed to combine rational
policies with social perceptions and concerns
Requirements for Integrated Risk Concepts Concepts that link risk assessment with risk perception and socio-
cultural processing of riskAvoiding relativist view of knowledge but including social constructions of
risksLink between risk assessment, management and communication
Concepts that link physical risk analysis with financial, economic and social risk;Explore social amplification pathwaysConsider trans-sectoral and trans-boundary ramifications
Concepts that link risk theory with organizational capacity building and management competencySystematic use of management sciences and decision aidingEmphasis on risk communication between and among agencies and
professionals
05-12-06 RISK GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 57 34
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
Annex: Back-up Slides
05-12-06 RISK GOVERNANCE - TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 58 34
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
Annex: Back-up Slides