Risk governance and CCS: methodological approaches for integrating experts, stakeholders and the public

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Risk governance and CCS: methodological approaches for integrating experts, stakeholders and the public"

Elijah Malone
5 years ago
Views:

6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting 14-17 IEAGHG» June 2005 1 Towards Environmental Risk INTERNATIONAL Governance: and SUMMER The CCS Case ACADEMY of

1 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk INTERNATIONAL Governance: and SUMMER The CCS Case ACADEMY of IPP1 Risk governance and CCS: methodological approaches for integrating experts, stakeholders and the public Dirk Scheer Interdisciplinary Research Unit on Risk Governance and Sustainable Technology Development (ZIRN) University of Stuttgart Co-authors: Ortwin Renn, Sandra Wassermann, Marlen Schulz «2 nd Social Research Network Meeting» November 17-18, 2010 / Yokohama - Japan Dirk Scheer & Wilfried Konrad (IÖW) 1

2 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP2 Overview 1. IRGC Risk Governance Framework 2. Integration methodologies: examples 3. Conclusions

3 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP IRGC risk governance framework

Characterisation and Evaluation Appraisal

4 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Risk Governance Process 4 Deciding Getting a broad picture of the risk Pre-Assessment Understanding The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions Who needs to do what, when? Mangagement Communication Characterisation and Evaluation Appraisal Who needs to know what, when? Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable?

5 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP5 Step 1: Pre-assessment Importance of Frames They represent social, economic and cultural perspectives They determine boundaries what is included and excluded (such as time duration, space restrictions, targets) Three major frames in the public debate CSS as a bridging technology (buying time before renewables take over) CSS as a partial solution to climate change and a viable long-term option for the future use of fossil fuel CSS as an excuse for rich countries and the fossil fuel industry to resist change and delay the transformation into a post-carbon era

6 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 6 Step 2: Risk Appraisal I risk assessment Risk Assessment Hazard identification and estimation Exposure assessment Risk estimation CCS-main fields the storage stage Capacity estimates (what is needed to be effective) Site investigation & selection (suitability, economic & environmental) CO2 injection (risk of release) CO2 behavior (risk of geo-mechanical/chemical/physical reactions) CO2 leakage (risk of being ineffective)

7 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 7 Risk Appraisal II concern assessment Concern Assessment Socio-economic impacts Economic benefits Public concerns (stakeholders and individuals) Risk perception crucial Human behavior depends on perceptions, not on facts Perceptions are a well-studied subject of social science research: they differ from expert assessments, but they follow consistent patterns and rationales

8 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP8 CCS Risk Perception and Conflicts Acceptance Factor Results of studies Leads to.. Knowledge Very limited Cognitive conflicts Risk Profiling Perception of high uncertainty and ambiguity Interpretative ambiguity conflicts Trust in regulators Limited Intentional conflicts Equity issues Perceived as important Distributional conflicts Alternative solutions..available? Many think yes Normative conflicts Associations with Nuclear waste disposal Affective conflicts Acceptance of CSS an on-going challenge

6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting 14-17 IEAGHG» June 2005 9 Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS

Based on both the evidence from the risk appraisal and evaluation of broader value-based choices and the trade-offs involved, decide whether or not to take on the

9 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP9 Step 3: Risk characterization & evaluation What are the broader, value-based questions to consider? Based on both the evidence from the risk appraisal and evaluation of broader value-based choices and the trade-offs involved, decide whether or not to take on the risk. Prohibition or Substitution Risk so much greater than benefit that it cannot be taken on Reduction Benefit is worth the risk, but risk reduction measures are necessary Acceptance No formal intervention necessary

10 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 10 Step 4: Risk management dealing with complex & sophisticated risks risk-informed strategy: expanded risk assessments; seeking expert consensus and epistemic clarification dealing with highly uncertain risks precaution-resilience-based strategy: negotiated safety level under uncertainty; seeking stakeholder consensus and relying on containment and resilience dealing with highly ambiguous risks discourse-based strategy: value-based orientation; seeking more public input and stakeholder involvement for interpretative variability and normative controversy

11 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Integration methodologies: examples

12 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 12 CCS projects at ZIRN/Uni Stuttgart Ex. 1: CCS-Delphi study (Ministry of Research/DE) Eliciting the state-of-the-art of German CCS expert knowledge Ex. 2: Simulations and science-policy interface (NSF/DE) Communication about prospects and limitation of simulation results towards policy-maker Ex. 3: Participatory Modelling integrating stakeholders & decision-makers in the modelling process Ex. 4: Prioritizing future energy mixes (Foundation Mercator/DE) CCS acceptance study among lay people - CCS and alternatives

13 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Summary: Core Processes of IRGC s Risk Governance Framework 13 Management Sphere: Decision on & Implementation of Actions Assessment Sphere: Generation of Knowledge Risk Management Strategy: routine-based risk-informed/robustness precaution-based/resilience discourse-based Risk Risk Management Management Implementation Option Realisation Monitoring & Control Feedback from Risk Mgmt. Practice Decision Making Option Identification & Generation Option Assessment Option Evaluation & Selection Pre-Assessment: Problem Framing Early Warning Screening Determination of Scientific Conventions Ex. 2 & 3 Communication Risk Appraisal: Risk Appraisal Risk Assessment Hazard Identification & Estimation Exposure & Vulnerability Assessment Risk Estimation Concern Assessment Risk Perceptions Social Concerns Socio-Economic Impacts Knowledge challenge Complexity uncertainty ambiguity Ex. 1 Tolerability & Acceptability Judgement Risk Evaluation Judging the Tolerability & Acceptability Need for Risk Reduction Measures Risk Characterisation Risk Profile Judgement of the Seriousness of Risk Conclusions & Risk Reduction Options Ex. 4 Risk judged: tolarable acceptable intolarable

6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting 14-17 IEAGHG» June 2005 14 Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 14 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

1 Scientists/ Researchers Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers «Civil society» Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Instrumental

14 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 14 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Ex. 4 Actors Ex. 1 Scientists/ Researchers Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers «Civil society» Affected stakeholders Scientists/ Researchers Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Agency Staff Instrumental Epistemic Reflective Participative Type of participation Dominant risk characteristic Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable Simple Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk Complexity Ex. 2 & 3 Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward Uncertainty Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences Ambiguity As the level of knowledge changes, so also will the type of participation need to change

15 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 15 Ex. 1: Delphi on expert knowledge of CO 2 storage Research need: No clear picture of current level of agreement among expert knowledge Clear picture necessary for communication strategies beyond experts. Starting point: Advancing the communication and common understanding of the relevant scientific, technological, social and economic issues among experts themselves (establishing expert dialogues). Key question to clearly identify consensus and dissent, agreement and disagreement on CO2 storage issues among experts.

16 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP The group-based Delphi 16 the group-based Delphi approach Developed during the 1980s and 90s by Webler, Renn et al. to cope with classical Delphi disadvantages (judgment without reasoning) identifying consensus and consensus on dissent among experts Core elements: Workshop-based (face-to-face communication) Need for judgment reasoning Expert survey open responding Elaboration of statistic based group judgment Iterative survey rounds for judgment revision Elicit expert knowledge & level of certainty

6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting 14-17 IEAGHG» June 2005 17 Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 17 Examples: Eliciting

17 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 17 Examples: Eliciting knowledge & level of certainty Characteristics of questionnaire Eliciting expertise: How do you judge? Rating 1 10 (importance) Ranking Iterative process turn 1-2 Level of certainty How confident do you feel when judging Rating 1 4 (confidence)

18 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 18 Ex. 2: Simualtions and the science-policy interface Project: Communication of computer simulation results towards policy makers elicit dominant expectation s and requirements from the policy side and match this input with the specific performance and reliability of the simulation processes. Case study approach Simulation in the field of carbon capture and storage Methodology Literature review explorative survey with scientists & policy decision-makers (15-20 interviews)

19 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 19 Simulations and scientific policy advice Science-policy interface Ideal-type approach support role of science science politics/policy truth vs. power theory vs. practice cognition logic vs. action logic facts vs. values complex language vs. simplifying language long-term time horizon vs. short-term time horizon Communication of models & simulation credibility crisis, communication problems lack of acceptance Hypothesis 1: Black-Box-Character of simulation 2 lacks of understanding (model conceptualisation & model translation) Hypothesis 2: Certainty-Uncertainty-Paradoxon uncertainty: meassuring, extrapolation, stochastic patterns, system boundaries, ignorance certainty: trust in numbers perception of results

20 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June 2005 Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 20 policy impact matrix of simulation simulation types policy impact criteria Natural events Technologicial impact chains Consequences of human action instrumental technology suppor & regulation control & evaluation conceptual Problem perception; Objectification innovation policy tactical/strategic Party competition Windows of opportunities & playing for time Legitimize general orientations Procedural Technology development Technology acceptance

21 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Field work: perception & use of pressure simulation study among policy-makers 21 Perception & use of specific simulation results Study: regional pressure development whith CO2 injection in salinare aquivers Focus on the specifics of simulation: What is (can be) simulated, and what not? Dealing with uncertainties? (model, data, parameters, algorithms) How to deal with different interpretations? Knowledge production: Simulation vs. experiment & theory? Methodology Ca. 15 explorative interviews with policy-makers All interviewees shall know the study Inclusion of all layers of DE CCS political decision-making system

22 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 22 Ex. 3: Participatory modelling approach Project idea proposal stage Multi-stage and regional-scale characterisation of potential CO2 storage formations with particular focus on brine migration risks an integrated natural and social science approach Technical part: develop and test a multi-stage characterisation procedure for potential storage regions in the North German Basin Non-technical part: A conceptual study on prospects and limitations of participatory modelling in the field of research on CCS Development, implementation and evaluation of a participatory modelling approach along the modelling exercise Approach: integrating stakeholders & decision-makers in the modelling process

23 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 23 Participatory modelling approch Participatory modelling open up to non-scientists what has conventionally been the exclusive domain of expert modellers direct/indirect involvement of model users or stakeholders in the modelling process (model construction & use & interpretation) involvement topics real-world cause-effect relationship model design data liability Parameters single events

24 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Overview involvement 24 Direct Involvement Indirect Involvement Model construction Model evaluation Model use Provide inputs (data, conceptual considerations) for model construction Review choices, assumptions and priorities underlying model construction (extended peer review) either only after the model has been built, or at each sub-step of the main modelling process Provide inputs for model use (scenarios and/or policies) Make decisions on model design Interpret outputs from simulation runs Co-decide on policy/ management measures Source: Dreyer, Renn, Drakeford, Borodzicz 2009

25 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 25 Ex. 4: Prioritizing future energy mixes Project idea Stability of public preferences of CCS before and after group discussion DE country study according to US Lauren Fleishman study international research Concept Eliciting informed public prefernces based on Technology sheets Cost & emission comparison sheets Energy mix sheets Methodology Focus groups: survey based on homework & groups discussion

26 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 26 US results (Source: Fleishman et al 2010) Results technology ranking Results energy mix ranking Moderate dynamics within a consistant preference framework

27 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP Conclusions

28 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk Governance: andthe CCS Case of IPP 28 Conclusions & Challenges CCS specifics Plural values and knowledge claims in this arena Expert dissent on risk and benefits depending on frame Global nature of risks and benefits Social amplification via perception and social mobilization Challenge of monitoring across borders Lack of public support Methodological issues All qualitative approaches Technology acceptance vs. technology acceptability From single results to generic statements Towards a box of topics and tools?

29 6th international «2 nd social Conference research of network ESEE, Lisbon, meeting IEAGHG» June Towards Environmental Risk INTERNATIONAL Governance: and SUMMER The CCS Case ACADEMY of IPP 29 Thank you very much! Tel: ++49 (0) Dirk Scheer University of Stuttgart Konrad / Scheer (IÖW) 29

Technology Assessment. Global challenges and European prospects. Ortwin Renn June, 18, 2012 Copenhagen

Technology Assessment. Global challenges and European prospects. Ortwin Renn June, 18, 2012 Copenhagen Technology Assessment Global challenges and European prospects Ortwin Renn June, 18, 2012 Copenhagen Technology Assessment: Definition Systematic and comprehensive exploration and evaluation of technological,