Volume 2

Government policy on the management of risk / House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affaris.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on Economic Affairs.
Date:
2006
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Government policy on the management of risk / House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affaris. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    223/260 (page 217)
    From an external perspective there is a lack of coherence in the application of risk management in government. However risk, as constructed by different parts of government, has a meaning derived from the terms of reference of that department, the historical roots of risk concepts with in that arena, the legal structures and powers governing that risk area, and the policy tools and approaches used within specific domains. The application of a “one size fits all” approach, particularly if that approach is based on an economic rationality will prove difficult to implement, and have very little practical benefits. If the tools of risk management do not fit the culture of where those tools are used, they will become irrelevant and become part of the formulaic “tick box” approach to analysis and assessment. This will have negative repercussions for the management of risk. How should policy deal with cases where public perceptions of risks diverge significantly from expert assessments? There are several ways of addressing this issue discussed in the risk literature. One method advocated by certain bodies is that in such cases all one needs to do is to “educate” the public(s) so that they become more “rational”. This is a rather simple way of looking at the conundrum and will in most cases fail as the public(s) do not want to be talked down to. Another way advocated by certain stakeholders is to have a broad decision making process where the public and stakeholders can help formulate the agenda (even the up front scientific agenda which the policy may originate from). Such a strategy is highly likely to fail as well, for two reasons— self selection bias as identified in paragraph | and secondly, it would cause major conflicts between the advocates (NGOs) and the science community: something that is already occurring in some instances in this country, leading arguably to greater public distrust of science. One further way would be via the risk-ranking approach advocated by a number of US researchers, most notably a group at Carnegie Mellon University. Such an approach would encourage both experts and publics rank risks and where there are agreements in the ranking processes then those risks in question can be regulated. How should policy deal with risk issues that are unknown or poorly understood, such as those associated with new technologies? Integrated risk management strategies Where ever possible policy makers should make their decisions on (peer reviewed) science. When such science is not available, some form of risk assessment should be advocated but this should not be based on expert judgement and quantitative probabilities alone, but wherever possible incorporate social and environmental values. Such methodologies have been successfully put forward by a number of bodies most notably Canada (Q850), United States (National Research Council) as well as the Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution here. Precautionary principle Some regulators and policy makers advocate the use of the precautionary principle. This is on the whole difficult to refute as we all want to be better safe than sorry. What the precautionary principle actually means, however, is difficult to pinpoint as past studies indicate up to 19 formulations, although suffice it to say that the most common usage of it is that one needs to take action when an activity raises threats to the environment or human health. Many member state countries, most notably Germany and Sweden, have used the precautionary principle with some degree of success for thirty years, a recent study by the European Environment Agency espoused the virtue of it. Even the European Commission has become involved with regard to the meaning of the precautionary principle, and in 2000 published a communication to clarify its meaning, concluding that the principle should be placed within an existing framework of risk management. On the whole, most policy makers are pleased with the Commission’s communication. In the Communication itself argues when applying the precautionary principle one needs to take into account the following: — Proportionality: “Measures must make it possible to achieve appropriate levels of protection”; — Non-discrimination: “Comparable situations should not be treated differently and different situations should be treated the same way”; — Consistency; — Examination of benefits and costs: “A comparison must be made between the most likely positive and negative consequences of the envisaged action and those of inaction in terms of overall costs to the community”;