Comments on the IRGC Framework for Risk Governance

Abstract

At the Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida in December of 2005, I delivered prepared comments on the IRGC White Paper on Risk Governance (hereafter, the White Paper) at a session in which it was presented and discussed. I have since become a member of the IRGC Science and Technology Council. My thinking on the White Paper has continued to evolve since December. This version of my comments was written prior to attending my first S&T Council meeting May 19–20, 2006. Some of these comments may become outdated as I learn more about IRGC and the risk governance problems that IRGC is addressing in its activities. But I suspect much of what I am writing here will not change, as the words reflect my deeply-held beliefs about the role of analysis and how it can help decision making. It is my hope that these comments will promote useful discussion within IRGC of the issues involved and will assist IRGC in making further revisions to the risk governance framework. My overall reaction to the IRGC risk governance framework is extremely positive. However, I have concerns that it may be misinterpreted as a ‘how-to-do-it’ manual, a check list, or a catalogue of what IRGC considers the ‘approved’ set of analytical tools and methodology. Such interpretations could be restrictive and impede progress in improving risk analysis and risk governance. The IRGC framework should be viewed as a broad summary of what risk analysis is, and why risk analysis is needed in support of improving risk governance. It provides a useful taxonomy and an overview of how risk analysis can be effectively accomplished and communicated, through an iterative process of work by trained analysts and dialogue with political leaders and the interested/affected parties on risk issues. The framework should not be regarded as rigid, that is, defining a set of methods for risk analysis practice, but rather it should be regarded as an overview of the potential for risk analysis to assist in improving risk governance. In particular, it should not be interpreted as restricting methods and analytical tools for dealing with uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Selection of such methods should be consistent with best practices from the scientific and engineering disciplines supporting risk analysis, as these practices evolve through further research and further experience.