Environmental and Ecological Aspects of Sustainable Risk Management

Abstract

Opportunities and risks are interconnected like effect and side effect. In the Anthropocene era, while we draw huge advantages from extensive technical changes, we need reformed risk understanding and risk management. Risks to or from the environmental changes can become a significant reality for mankind and its offspring. Risks take effect and interact in a complex manner; those that benefit from taking the risk and those exposed to it are very often not the same. This is reflected in paragraph “h” of the general recommendations issued by the participants of the workshop on “Sustainable Risk Management”.

Annex 1

Explanation of individual entries into the matrix in Table 5.4: Draft sketch of a risk matrix as part of the proposed dynamic risk inventory—completed for the topic “agricultural production of protein”.

NORMATIVE RISKS (Table 5.4, row 1)

Violation of good practice (Table 5.4, row 1, column 1)

Normative risks can be summed up as the “known knowns”. Examples of normative risks in the present system for the agricultural production of protein are therefore given as the risks deriving from the violation of existing norms such as the so-called “Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)”. The GAP comprise a wide range of specific methods and measures that are only partially legally binding and whose implementation is often insufficiently monitored (UBA 2015a).

Violation of the Water Framework Directive, violation of current standards (Table 5.4, row 1, column 1)

The situation is comparable for some areas of the Water Framework Directive, notably regarding the closely related Nitrates and Groundwater Directives, where legally binding, nationally harmonized standards are repeatedly violated. For example, the binding 50-mg/l threshold for nitrates is exceeded at more than one in ten German groundwater monitoring stations (UBA 2015b), and despite the regulations, some farmers still spread manure on frozen fields or too close to river banks (personal communication 2016, undisclosed source).

Transparency, knowledge transfer (Table 5.4, row 1, column 2)

Greater transparency in the form of publicly available and easily comprehensible data on the voluntary implementation of good practice measures can be motivation in itself. Raising awareness among professionals in the agricultural industry and providing practical guidance, not only about the risks of “bad” practice but also about the advantages of, for example, modern agricultural measures such as no-till farming (TOPPS Prowadis 2014), can also be highly effective.

Changes in consumer behavior (Table 5.4, row 1, column 2)

It is a well-known fact that the choices made by consumers can also contribute to encouraging good practice and improving environmental protection in the production chain. A case in point is an innovative project in northern Bavaria that encourages farmers to voluntarily refrain from reapplying nutrients at the end of the growing season to reduce nitrogen transfer into the groundwater system. Flour produced from these crops cannot reliably satisfy market requirements for high protein content, but the bread baked from this flour is successfully marketed locally as a contribution to groundwater protection (Regierung von Unterfranken 2015 ).

Public disapproval (Table 5.4, row 1, column 2)

Whilst sustainable consumer choices can drive the market, public disapproval, or even outrage, can be a valuable force for change at the political level by putting important but neglected issues onto the agenda.

Lack of acceptance (Table 5.4, row 1, column 3)

The ambiguous role of science and expert knowledge was demonstrated in the recent debate on the herbicide glyphosate. Two reports presented by different scientific advisory bodies came to different conclusions on the likelihood of a cancer risk to humans (Cressey 2015). Faced with contradictory information, the key actors appear to be reluctant to implement precautionary measures.

Short-term advantages (Table 5.4, row 1, column 3)

As Pope Francis explains in his encyclical Laudato Si, this kind of situation is exacerbated further if there are business interests at stake (Laudato Si, 181, Pope Francis 2015).

Lack of knowledge (Table 5.4, row 1, column 3)

Knowledge is the key to risk-appropriate behavior. The recent case of pollution of arable land with PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in southern Germany, caused by mixing de-inking paper sludge into compost (Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe 2016), demonstrates how a lack of knowledge can lead to catastrophic results.

Strengthen implementation and awareness of standards and sanctions (Table 5.4, row 1, column 4)

Public authorities should maintain, or in some cases reinforce, the implementation of existing legislation and standards, including imposing sanctions for non-compliance, and provide practical guidance if there are no legal standards in place (e.g. Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt 2015).

TECHNICAL RISKS (Table 5.4, row 2)
Drying of wetlands (Table 5.4, row 2, column 1)
Technical risks, as illustrated in Fig. 2, are the “known unknowns”. Within the agricultural sector, there are a great many risks relating to technology, health, the weather, market developments, etc. (OECD 2009) that could arguably be described as technical risks. To illustrate how risks with global impacts can result from developments at the local level, the example chosen in the matrix is the loss of wetlands. In Germany, a large proportion of floodplain meadows has been lost, in part due to agricultural land use practices (UBA 2009 as cited in UBA 2015a). Because of their capacity for water retention, wetlands such as floodplain meadows can have a significant positive hydrological impact by improving groundwater recharge and flood dynamics, and their loss, accordingly, poses a risk (though studies imply that major flood events are not significantly affected by this phenomenon (e.g. Asenkerschbaumer 2013).
Reduction of capacity to bind CO 2 (Table 5.4, row 2, column 1)
The analysis and quantification of functions and services provided by wetlands, including their capacity to bind CO2, is the subject of a wide range of recent studies and publications (e.g. TEEB DE 2015, Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2015; Global Nature Fund 2013).
Technically evident events (Table 5.4, row 2, column 2)
Generally speaking, technical risks become evident when the system fails, often triggering a period of intensified risk awareness. For example, political debate about recurring biogas plant leaks into nearby rivers and streams succeeded in raising awareness among the agricultural community, providing strong incentives for risk prevention (personal communication 2016, undisclosed source).
Gaining insight (Table 5.4, row 2, column 2)
With the help of some background knowledge, the hydrological—and even the climatic —impact of drained farmland becomes evident. The group believes that for more abstract technical risks, the process of understanding is a vital step towards active risk management. Unfortunately, not all obstacles can be overcome by knowledge alone.
Additional costs for existing systems (Table 5.4, row 2, column 3)
As with normative risks, the willingness to act can, in the face of technical risks, be fundamentally undermined by financial concerns, often linked to an imbalance between long—and short-term considerations or disagreement about cost distribution. In his unpublished impulse statement for the IESP workshop (unreferenced), Renn explains that such problems can only be solved in a process of continuous risk dialogue.
Setting standards, benchmarking (Table 5.4, row 2, column 4)
Public institutions can make a valuable contribution by defining norms and setting standards—for example, the Bavarian handbook for biogas production (Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt 2016)—and monitoring their implementation in voluntary benchmarking projects (Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft 2013).
State as guarantor (Table 5.4, row 2, column 4)
The contributions of public institutions are not simply optional extras. The State as guarantor (the German term “Staatliche Garantenpflicht” describes the guarantor duty of the State usually regarding issues like public health and security) has an obligation to avert dangers to public security and to guarantee basic health and safety standards.

SUPPRESSED RISKS (Table 5.4, row 3)
Multi-resistant germs from animal husbandry, unbalanced consumption, consumption of terrain (Table 5.4, row 3, column 1)
Suppressed risks are those classed as “unknown knowns” (Fig. 2). The examples relating to agricultural practice given in the risk inventory matrix reflect this wide spectrum: multi-resistant germs encouraged by the frequent use of “broad spectrum” antibiotics in animal husbandry can affect both animal and human health and pose a long-term financial risk for the health system and public funds (Bundesregierung 2015). Similarly, unbalanced consumption (such as eating too much meat) can affect individuals but also society as a whole, whilst land use pressures lead to a loss of biodiversity and other environmental problems (FAO 2013).
Secondary effects in developing countries (Table 5.4, row 3, column 1)
At the global scale, ever increasing product volumes sold on the world markets at relatively low prices have secondary effects in developing countries, undermining local production and increasing the risk of poverty (MISEREOR 2011).
Create concern, public discussion, even “scandal” (Table 5.4, row 3, column 2)
It stands to reason that to overcome suppressed risks it is necessary to raise awareness and to make people care, even to the point of provoking public outrage, which can in turn create favorable conditions for action at the political level.
Visualization (Table 5.4, row 3, column 2)
One effective way this can be achieved is by visualizing the possible impact of the risk (e.g. UNEP 2013 analyses trends in agriculture now and in the future).
Resistance to change (Table 5.4, row 3, column 3)
Nevertheless, there is always the danger of sustained resistance to change. One example is the widespread use of antibiotics in animal agriculture despite the fact that the EU banned the use of antibiotics for ‘growth promotion’ over 10 years ago. The ban appears to be being undermined by non-therapeutic use being disguised as ‘treatment’ (FAO 2011).
Negation of opportunities (Table 5.4, row 3, column 3)
By tolerating the continued overuse, the responsible authorities are giving those still resisting the changes an unfair business advantage over those willing to accept the necessity for, and the advantages of, a wide-reaching ban.
Science, civil society, medicine, the media (Table 5.4, row 3, column 4)
Complex obstacles of this kind can only be overcome if science, civil society, medicine, the media, the education system and the public authorities cooperate successfully.

HYPOTHETICAL RISKS (Table 5.4, row 4)
Emerging chemical substances, synthetic nanoparticles (Fig. 4, row 4, column 1)
Hypothetical risks are, essentially, the “unknown unknowns”. This means that neither definitive proof nor a general, intuitive public awareness of the risk exists. For example, in the long term, emerging chemical substances and synthetic nanoparticles may or may not prove to be detrimental to human health or the environment, but at the moment there is no way of confirming either hypothesis.
Spreading of resistant germs, food scarcity (Table 5.4, row 4, column 1)
Risks such as the spread of resistant germs or food scarcity also have elements that can be classed as “unknown unknowns”, though they also share some of the characteristics of normative, technical and suppressed risks.
Precautionary principle, analysis of scenarios (Table 5.4, row 4, column 2)
Especially for hypothetical risks, adherence to the precautionary principle provides protection and builds trust (e.g. implementation of the first Watch List for emerging water pollutants in the EU (JRC 2015)). Also, the evaluation of scientifically based scenarios is highly recommended. It provides decision makers with information on which to base their actions in the face of uncertainty and allows for transparency and risk dialogue (e.g. climate scenarios in IPCC 2014).
Ideologies, resistance to insights (Table 5.4, row 4, column 3)
Of the four risk types, the hypothetical risk is, arguably, the one most in danger of being ignored or negated by actors in positions of responsibility. For ideological reasons, or simply to distract from incompetence, politicians and decision makers may be tempted to claim ignorance or defend their lack of action by citing the inconclusive evidence.
Violation of the “codes” of science, bias of the large financial backers (Table 5.4, row 4, column 3)
Sadly, science may also prefer to focus on more lucrative areas of research. In exceptional circumstances, researchers will even choose to violate the “codes” of science, for example, by analyzing the business opportunities in catastrophic scenarios rather than working on risk prevention (personal communication 2016, undisclosed source).
Fantasies, fears, hopes, think tanks such as IESP, etc. (Table 5.4, row 4, column 4)
Fantasies, fears and hopes relating these undefined risks need to be explored and discussed persistently and unrelentingly by think tanks such as IESP, but also by governmental bodies, environmental associations and in the wider scientific community.