Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:44:07.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Risk Governance Principles in Practice: Lessons from a Dutch Public Institute for Risk Research and Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

Lucien HANSSEN ,
Jeroen DEVILEE ,
Marijke HERMANS ,
Maaike VAN ZIJVERDEN  and
Marjolein VAN ASSELT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

I. introduction: risk governance principles

The technical, natural science-based approach, with a focus on the likelihood of possible consequences and damage potential, has been adapted to deal with risks, such as genetically modified organisms, or newly synthesised materials, which cannot be managed merely by existing technocratic procedures. For a number of years already, professional risk assessment and management communities have advocated for a change, claiming that major controversies, crises and scandals around food, environmental health and technological innovations have necessitated a reshaping of traditional risk regulation towards a more integrative risk governance.1 In this approach risk experts, policy-makers, stakeholders and civil society organisations (CSOs) are working together towards identifying risks, generating and evaluating options, and coming to a strategy. This is reflected, for example, in the analytic-deliberative approach embodied in the modified IRGC Risk Governance Framework2 that includes concern assessment in parallel with the more conventional risk assessment. Decision-makers need to understand the nature and strengths of societal concerns and consider them alongside more technical recommendations for action. The ideas by the IRGC have a social science basis, but more or less at the same time in the natural science oriented risk assessment community comparable ideas and concepts have been developed. From the 1990s onwards, the US-based National Research Council (NRC) published several reports on how risk assessments should remain credible and authoritative in times of scientific uncertainty and strong competing interests.3 In 2005, the “European” International Risk Governance Council published their white paper, which addressed similar challenges. In this article we focus on the IRGC risk governance framework.4

Despite the popularity of risk governance frameworks amongst scholars and policy-makers, there has been little research done that shows how major institutes for risk research and assessment try to implement the underlying risk governance principles. This is surprising, since such institutes are necessary actors in this process. New technologies show opportunities, but also raise a number of risk-related social, economic and political issues. The governance of these risks is a challenge: the stakeholders and public involved hold vested positions; values are at stake; and the science is complex, uncertain or even incomplete. Yet, the expectations of policy-makers that institutes for risk research and assessment can adequately deal with these risks are often high. On the one hand, it is acknowledged that these risks can be complex, uncertain or ambiguous and need approaches in line with risk governance principles; on the other hand these institutes are also expected to deliver clear and unambiguous answers.5 Operating within this precarious field of tension, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has become an important actor in the implementation of risk governance principles in the Netherlands. The institute has an open attitude towards risk governance principles and new approaches, and has been at the forefront in supporting the Dutch government in developing its national risk governance strategy.6 Moreover, RIVM has its own strategic research budget, from which projects can be funded in which risk researchers and staff members can experiment in ways to translate risk governance principles into practice.

In this article, we want to shed more light on the process of applying risk governance principles in an institutional setting like the RIVM. The importance of the institutional context has already been addressed by Renn and Walker,7 but only in conceptual terms. Boholm, Corvellec, and Karlsson8 have given a more descriptive perspective on day-to-day risk governance in institutional settings. In a similar way, we investigate actual dealings with risk issues as they unfold in the RIVM context.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 632 - 640
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Deining Societal Communication & Governance.

**

Rijkinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu.

***

Vertelpunt Digital Communication & Consultancy.

****

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu.

*****

Maastricht University, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

References

1 Klinke, A and Renn, O, “Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty” (2012) 15(3) Journal of Risk Research 273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; van Asselt, M and Renn, O, “Risk Governance” (2011) 14(4) Journal of Risk Research 431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

2 International Risk Governance Council, An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, Report (Geneva: International Risk Governance 2008)Google Scholar .

3 National Research Council, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1996)Google Scholar ; National Research Council, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (Washington, DC: National Academy Press 2009)Google Scholar .

4 International Risk Governance Council, Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper (Geneva: International Risk Governance Council 2005); An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, supra, note 2.

5 van Asselt, M and Vos, Ellen, “The precautionary principle and the uncertainty paradox” (2006) 9(4) Journal of Risk Research 313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

6 Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Bewust Omgaan met Veiligheid: Rode Draden. Een Proeve van een IenM Breed Afwegingskader Veiligheid [Consciously Dealing with Safety: Common Thread. A Proof of an IenM Broad Assessment Framework for Safety], Report (The Hague: Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment 2014).

7 Renn, O and Walker, K, “Lessons learned: a re-assessment of the IRGC framework on risk governance” in O Renn and K Walker (eds) Global Risk Governance. Concept and Practice using the IRGC Risk Governance Framework (Geneva: International Risk Governance Council 2008)Google Scholar .

8 Å Boholm, H Corvellec and M Karlsson, “The Practice of Risk Governance: Lessons from the Field” (2012) 15(1) Journal of Risk Research 1.

9 Risk Governance. Towards an Integrative Approach, supra, note 4; An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, supra, note 2.

10 Renn, O, Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (London: Earthscan 2008)Google Scholar .

11 See eg Renn and Walker, supra, note 7. See also J Roodenrijs et al, “Risk Governance for Infectious Diseases: Exploring the Feasibility and Added Value of the IRGC-Framework for Dutch Infectious Disease Control” (2014) 17(9) Journal of Risk Research 1161.

12 Health Council, Meewegen van Gezondheid in Omgevingsbeleid. Evenwichtig en Rechtvaardig Omgaan met Risico’s en Kansen [Taking Health into Account in Environmental Policies. Balancing and Fair Dealing with Risks and Opportunities], Report (The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands 2016); R Löfstedt and M Van Asselt, “A framework for risk governance revisited” in Renn and Walker, Global Risk Governance, supra, note 7; Roodenrijs et al, supra, note 11.

13 Boholm, Corvellec and Karlsson, supra, note 8.

14 ibid.

15 Lave, J and Wenger, E, Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

16 van Dijk, H et al, “The Role of Scientific Advisory Bodies in Precaution-Based Risk Governance Illustrated with the Issue of Uncertain Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields” (2011) 14(4) Journal of Risk Research 451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

17 J Bolte et al, Vooronderzoek naar Bezorgdheid over Basisstations voor Mobiele Telefonie [People’s Concern about Base Stations for Mobile Telecommunication: An exploratory study], Report (Bilthoven: RIVM 2005); M Hermans, Engaging with Risks. Citizens, Science and Policy in Mobile Phone Mast Siting Controversies, PhD thesis (Maastricht: Maastricht University 2015).

18 G Kelfkens and M Pruppers, Verkenning Jaargemiddelde Belasting van Bovengrondse Hoogspanningslijnen in 2011 en 2013 [Exploration Annual Average Load on Above-ground Power Lines in 2011 and 2013], Report (Bilthoven: RIVM 2015); R Stam, M Pruppers and J Bolte, Bronnen van Elektromagnetische Velden en Blootstelling van Burgers [Sources of Electromagnetic Fields and Exposure of Citizens], Report (Bilthoven: RIVM 2014).

19 M Blankesteijn, G Munnichs and L van Drooge, Contested Science. Public Controversies about Science and Policy, Report (The Hague: Rathenau Instituut 2014).

20 Dekkers, S et al, “Presence and Risks of Nanosilica in Food Products” (2011) 5(3) Nanotoxicology 393 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed .

21 Dekkers, S et al, “Knowledge Gaps in Risk Assessment of Nanosilica in Food: Evaluation of the Dissolution and Toxicity of Different Forms of Silica” (2013) 7(4) Nanotoxicology 367 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed .

22 van Kesteren, P et al, “Novel insights into the risk assessment of the nanomaterial synthetic amorphous silica, additive E551, in food” (2015) 9(4) Nanotoxicology 442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

23 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Maatwerk in Risicobeoordeling [Customisation in Risk Assessment], Report (Bilthoven: RIVM 2014).

24 An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, supra, note 2; Renn, supra, note 10.

25 International Risk Governance Council, Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, revised version (Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center 2017).

26 Boholm, Corvellec and Karlsson, supra, note 8.

27 Spruijt, P et al, “Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review” (2014) 40 Environmental Science and Policy 16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

28 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, supra, note 23.