Page 1
From Risk Regulation to Innovation Democracy:
precaution, participation and the pluralising of progress
www.steps-centre.org/www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/www.multicriteria-mapping.org www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/people/peoplelists/person/7513
Andy StirlingSPRU & STEPS Centre
University of Sussex
presentation to workshop on ‘responding to risks ‐ a key to dealing with socio‐ecological challenges’, Institut für Regional- und Umweltwirtschaft,
Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 23rd June 2014
Page 2
‘Sound Science’ in ‘Risk Management’
chemicals: “ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…”
Philippe Busquin
GM food “… this government's approach is to make decisions … on the basis of sound science”
Tony Blair
energy: “cool-headed, evidence based assessment … sweep away
historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science”Malcolm Wicks
Pressures for ‘justification’ (Collingridge) and ‘blame management’ (Hood)
‘Risk’ ‘decisions’ need ‘objective science’ and ‘evidence based policy’
nuclear “needs ... a properly objective and science-weapons: based decision” Peter Kilfoyle
Page 3
The Precautionary Principle
“Where an activity raises threats of
harm to the environment or human health,
precautionary measures should be taken
even if some cause and effect relationships are
not fully established scientifically.”
Wingspread, 1998
“The precautionary principle applies where
scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive
or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation
indicates that there are reasonable grounds for
concern that the potentially dangerous effects
on the environment, human, animal or plant
health may be inconsistent with the high level
of protection chosen by the EU” EU, 2000
Ambiguous as a definitive prescriptive ‘decision rule’ threat? seriousness? irreversibility? full scientific certainty? cost-effective?
Arbitrary in global legal processes: climate, chemicals, GMOs, biodiversity, trade
Non-operational and incapable of meeting political needs for justification (eg: simple neat numerical values given by for risk and cost-benefit, analysis)
Compared with ‘science based’ risk assessment, seems
“ … Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental degradation ”
Principle 15, 1992 Rio Declaration
Page 4
The Precautionary Principle
Causes much anxiety, many strident critiques in ostensible name of reason…
- stifles discovery (Holm), limits innovation (Sunstein); “kills green revolution” (AEI)
- quest for “zero risk” (Majone) is irrational (Sunstein) sign of “unreason" (Taverne)
- “arbitrary & capricious” (Marchant); ;“spreads fear” (O’Neill); like “chemophobia” (AEI)
“ … Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental degradation ”
Principle 15, 1992 Rio Declaration
Page 5
The Precautionary Principle
Causes much anxiety, many strident critiques in ostensible name of reason…
- ‘no basis’ for policy (Peterson); “dangerous” (Graham); “harms society” (O’Neill)
- “battle between science and ideology”…about “religion” (Charnley)
- needs countering by new “proactionary” (More) and “innovation” principles (Bayer)
“ … Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental degradation ”
Principle 15, 1992 Rio Declaration
Page 6
“ … Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental degradation ”
Principle 15, 1992 Rio Declaration
The Precautionary Principle
“If there is a threat of harm,
which is uncertain,
then some kind of action
should be taken.” Aldred, 2013
…or
uncertainty requires deliberation about action
- Reminds that ‘science based’ methods don’t reduce intractability of uncertainty
- Rejects ‘evidence based policy’ as unique basis for action under uncertainty
- Affirms essential need for deliberation, participation, accountability, democracy
Like any principle, not in itself a definitive decision rule, but a key to a process:
Page 7
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
Page 8
0.001 0.1 10 1000externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)low RISK high
nuclear
power
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
Conventional regulatory risk analysis asks simply: - is this safe?
- safe enough? - tolerable?
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Page 9
0.001 0.1 10 1000externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)low RISK high
nuclear
power
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
Where comparisons made, selective and circumscribed
Appear to deliver clear, objective distinctions
Contrast emotive subjectivity of precaution or participation?
coal
power
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Page 10
0.001 0.1 10 1000externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)low RISK high
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
biomass
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
In a single particular study: ‘sound scientific’,
‘evidence based’ risk discourse implies clear
orderings of choices by simple scalar numbers
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Page 11
0.001 0.1 10 1000
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
21
wind
solar
biomass
n =
‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)
minimum maximum25% 75%
low RISK high
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
but ‘objective’ peer-reviewed data
typically varies radically
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Page 12
coal
oil
gas
nuclear
hydro
36
20
wind 18
solar 11
biomass 22
31
21
16
n =
The Poverty of Risk Discourse
…‘evidence based’ risk literatures can be used to justify any choice
Tho’ concealed, the same is often
true for all options
Energy regulation: most mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…
Page 13
transportmaterialscomputingmilitaryroboticssynthetic biology
“we'll restore science to its rightful place”…
“Our hope … relies on scientific and technological progress”
“One can not impede scientific progress.””
…“history is a race to advance technology”
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE
Lisbon Strategy: “pro-innovation action” for
“Innovation Union”
“… the Government’s strategy is pro-innovation”
“strives to stay in the race””“give technology the
status it deserves”
The Myth of One-Track Progress
Why are do we tolerate such
narrow understandings
of risk?
Page 14
PROGRESS
TECHNOLOGY
SCIENCE
synthetic biology
“we'll restore science to its rightful place”…
“Our hope … relies on scientific and technological progress”
“One can not impede scientific progress.””
Innovation studies alsoemphasises linearity:
- advance (Nelson)
- diffusion (Rogers)
- early movers (Teece)
- first moving (Lieberman)
- catching up (Santangelo)
- latecomers (Tellis)
- forging ahead (Abramowicz)
- leapfrogging (Brezis)
- falling behind (Aho)
So even academic analysis restricts attention to:
how much? how fast? what risk? who leads?
Misses out:
which way? what alternatives? says who ? why?
The Myth of One-Track Progress
Page 15
carbon capture
grassroots innovation
behaviour change
distributed renewables
market reform nuclear power
new eco-cities
centralised renewables
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
History, economics, social science, philosophy, politics, show divergent branching infrastructure innovation trajectories
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
… alternatives are matters for political, not managerial, institutions
Page 16
social shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03)
studies: expectations (Brown, 03) imaginations (Jasanoff, 05)
Social choices get politically closed down
carbon capture behaviour change
distributed renewables
market reform nuclear power
centralised renewables
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
Page 17
history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83)path-dependence (David, 85) path creation (Karnoe,
01)
carbon capture behaviour change nuclear power
centralised renewables
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
Social choices get politically closed down
Page 18
philosophy: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91)/politics entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02)
carbon capture nuclear power
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
Social choices get politically closed down
Page 19
economics: homeostasis (Sahal, 85) lock-in (Arthur, 89) regimes (Nelson & Winter, 77) trajectories (Dosi, 82)
nuclear power
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
Social choices get politically closed down
Page 20
Politics reduced to risk: from ends: strategic choices between visionsto means: detailed regulation of modalities
Not all that is scientifically realistic, technically practicable, economically feasible, socially viable, will be historically realisable
eg: alternative infrastructures for ‘the’ zero carbon transition …
nuclear power
Pathways to ‘Sustainable Energy’
Page 21
Politics reduced to risk: from ends: strategic choices between visionsto means: detailed regulation of modalities
“We have no alternative to nuclear power …
Nuclear because: “We need to do everything…
“We need to keep the nuclear option open”
‘Elite’ ‘green’ “no alternatives” rhetoric
also miss the politics of direction
focus on “tolerability” of incumbent path… not uncertain choice
Risk Debate Closes Down Social Choice
nuclear power
Page 22
Politics reduced to risk: from ends: strategic choices between visionsto means: detailed regulation of modalities
increasing visible in high-level ‘planetary management’ discourse
“…the non-negotiable planetary preconditions that
humanity needs to respect…
‘Anthropocene’ ‘planetary boundaries’ and
‘control variables’ define:
…fear of “catastrophe” …is “non negotiable” …with “absolutely no uncertainty” …
brooking “no compromise”
“Sustainability” as an ‘Apolitical’ Control Agenda
But … gravity and urgency do not negate uncertainty, politics, democratic choice
Page 23
unproblematic
knowledge about likelihoods
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
open dynamic systems low frequency events human factors changing contexts
problematic
Sustainability increasingly uses language of ‘evidence based policy’
Deliberating about Uncertainty
- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Dovers, Ravetz, Wynne ...
Page 24
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
INCERTITUDE
Sustainability increasingly uses language of ‘evidence based policy’
Deliberating about Uncertainty
what is benefit or harm? how fair? which alternatives?whose values and societies?
- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Dovers, Ravetz, Wynne ...
Page 25
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
novel agents or vectors surprising conditions new alternatives
wilful blinkers
INCERTITUDE
Sustainability increasingly uses language of ‘evidence based policy’
Deliberating about Uncertainty
- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Dovers, Ravetz, Wynne ...
Page 26
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY aggregative analysis patronage, pressure political closure
insurance limitsreductive modelsstochastic reasoning
` science-based policy
institutional remits
political culture
liability protectionharm definitions indicators / metrics
IGNORANCE
risk focus is shaped by power – Beck’s “organised irresponsibility”
Power Closes Down Risk Discourse
Page 27
CONTROL RISK
`
Climate Change fixations with risk and control easily lead to geoengineering…
ACKNOWLEDGE INCERTITUDE
‘Anthropocene domination’
‘fear of catastrophe’
‘planetary management’
‘non-negotiable’
‘control variables’
‘absolutely no uncertainty’
‘no compromise’
Page 28
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
knowledge about possibilities
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
precautionary appraisal ‘opens up’ appreciations of incertitude
Practical Cinderella Methods
Page 29
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
knowledge about possibilities
precautionary appraisal ‘opens up’ appreciations of incertitude
Practical Cinderella Methods
Page 30
scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling
mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation
democratic procedures
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
knowledge about possibilities
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
precautionary appraisal ‘opens up’ appreciations of incertitude
Practical Cinderella Methods
Page 31
unproblematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
RISK
knowledge about possibilities
responsive civic research curiosity monitoring,
evidentiary presumptions flexibility, reversibility
diversity, resilience, agility, adaptability
scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling
mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation
democratic procedures
problematic UNCERTAINTY
aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling
precautionary appraisal ‘opens up’ appreciations of incertitude
burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing
Practical Cinderella Methods
Page 32
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge about likelihoods
precautionary appraisal
participatory deliberation
definitive prevention
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
knowledge about possibilities
Op
tion
s
Op
tion
s
humility
adaptive learning
sustainability
safety
‘opening up’: options, issues, approaches, possibilities, perspectives
reflexivity
politics
Practical Cinderella Methods
Page 33
Mapping Discursive Diversity
Multicriteria Mapping ‘opens up’ politics and power in expertise
Analysis of 12 UK government GM advisors (2001)
organicslow input intensive
GM 1GM 2GM 3
organicslow input intensive
GM 1GM 2GM 3
Page 34
UK Governmentecology chair
organicslow input intensive
GM 1GM 2GM 3
organicslow input intensive
GM 1GM 2GM 3
UK Governmentsafety chair
GM industry research executive
Green NGO scientist
Acknowledging assumptions, values, uncertainties ‘plural & conditional’ approach is rigorous & democraticoffers basis for Dryzek and Niemeyer’s ‘meta-consensus’
Multicriteria Mapping ‘opens up’ politics and power in expertise
Mapping Discursive Diversity
Page 35
temporality of dynamics – are ‘disturbances’ envisaged as:
shocks
(transitory disturbance to otherwise continuous trajectory) time
driver of change
quality level
food: - supply bottlenecks- price spikes
floods - severe rain episodes
magnitude
From Knowledge to Action(Precaution: ‘uncertainty requires deliberation about action’)
Page 36
shocks
food: - market trends- resource depletion
floods: - higher rainfall climate
temporality of dynamics – are ‘disturbances’ envisaged as:
driver of change
quality level
stresses
(pressure for enduring disturbance to orientation of trajectory)
From Knowledge to Action
Page 37
shockscontrol
food: - mandate supply chains - regulate prices
floods: - water flow management
style of action – do interventions aim at:
driver of changequality level
From Knowledge to Action
Page 38
shockscontrol
food: - market structuring- resource substitutions
floods: - engineered defence
style of action – do interventions aim at:
driver of changequality level
stresses
From Knowledge to Action
Page 39
response
food: - agile supply chains - price elasticity
floods: - retrofit flood resistance
driver of changequality level
2: style of action – do interventions aim at:
shocks
From Knowledge to Action
Page 40
response
food: - foresighted institutions- diverse dependencies
floods: - managed retreat
driver of changequality level
shocks
stresses
2: style of action – do interventions aim at:
From Knowledge to Action
Page 41
shock (transitory
disturbance)
stress (enduring
disturbance)
control (tractable drivers)
respond (intractable drivers)
temporality of change
style of action
Distinguishing Properties of Sustainability
Page 42
shock (transitory
disturbance)
stress (enduring
disturbance)
control (tractable drivers)
respond (intractable drivers)
temporality of change
style of action
STABILITY
DURABILITY
RESILIENCE
ROBUSTNESS
Distinguishing Properties of Sustainability
Page 43
STABILITY
DURABILITY
RESILIENCE
ROBUSTNESS
SUSTAINABILITYtemporality of change
style of action
Distinguishing Properties of Sustainability
shock (transitory
disturbance)
stress (enduring
disturbance)
control (tractable drivers)
respond (intractable drivers)
Page 44
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
clear conditions
for diverse strategies
From Sustaining …
Page 45
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
shock
stress
control response
sustain
change
clear conditions
for diverse strategies
From Sustaining … to transforming
Page 46
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
sustain
change
transruption
shock
stress
control response
take advantage of shock to control a specific change
eg: UK government and coal power in 1980s; UK nuclear and renewables in 2010s
From Sustaining … to transforming
Page 47
transition
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
shock
stress
control response
harness stress as an opportunity for controlling towards a particular change
eg: Netherlands Energie Transitie to low carbon in 2000s
transruption
sustain
change
From Knowledge to Action
Page 48
transition
transilience
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
shock
stress
control response
shocks present a chance for responsive actions to steer
away from status quo
eg: Greenpeace et al move to campaign against nuclear
power after Chernobyl, 1986
transruption
sustain
change
From Knowledge to Action
Page 49
transition
transilience
transformation
stability
durability
resilienceshock
stress
control response
stress offers a pressure to help responsive actions steer away
from status quo
eg: grassroots civil society mobilisation on climate change
‘peak oil’, 2000s
transruption
sustain
change
From Knowledge to Action
Page 50
transition
transilience
transformation
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
shock
stress
control response
transruption
sustain
change
clear conditions for diverse policy repertoiresfor maintaining sustainability
and transforming unsustainabiltiy
From Knowledge to Action
Page 51
transition
transilience
transformation
stability
durability
resilience
robustness
shock
stress
control response
transruption
sustain
change
Sustainability governance:civil society is crucialpathways are political
quality through democracy
From Knowledge to Action
Page 52
technological ‘lock-in’
institutionalised technical risk assessment
multiple feasible
Innovation trajectories
restricted appreciation
knowledge economy
‘closed down’ politics
POSSIBLE PATHWAYS
presumed benefits case-by-case focus narrow remits aggregated attention regulatory capture technocratic procedures
risk
narrow practices
Op
tion
s$IIIIII
privileged trajectories
single ‘best’ / ‘optimal’ / most ‘legitimate’
decisions
€
Towards Innovation Democracyprevailing ‘risk regulation’ or ‘transition management’ model
Page 53
reconciles: science and democracy: neither ‘no alternative’ nor
‘anything goes’
IIIIII
$IIIIII
$IIIIIIIIIIII
$
POSSIBLE PATHWAYS
diverse pathways
innovation democracy
“broaden out” inputs to appraisal
“open up” space for politics
“plural conditionality”
“meta-consensus”
accountability
robustnessSustainability
O
ptio
ns
choice discourse
more options, issues, uncertainties, perspectives
“letting go” diversity experiment
tools and practices for ‘broadening out’ , ‘opening up’ and ‘letting go’
Towards Innovation Democracy