Christina Benighaus

Integrated risk assessment and risk governance as socio-political phenomena: a synthetic view of the challenges.

To call for integration in risk assessment and governance as a self-evident goal is deceptively easy. For more insight, we ask: what level and kind of integration and for what purposes is needed and sufficient? What opportunities and obstacles can be identified for integrative treatment of risks? What causes and impacts are there of developments in risk integration? To answer these questions we investigate the socio-political processes and factors surrounding integrated risk assessment and risk governance through a combination of literature reviews and original research. We emphasize regulatory assessment and governance of risks associated with chemicals in the EU, but we link them with other areas to better grasp options and problems in integration. We relate the problems to political factors and barriers in sector and vertical integration, including deviating interests, and further to conflicting information, concepts and mindsets. Risk assessment and risk governance involve varying notions of risks and knowledge, with tensions between stressor- or impact-oriented, exclusive or inclusive, positivist or relativist, and fixed or reflexive notions and approaches. These tensions influence the trajectories of integration between sectors, actors and regions, constraining the fulfillment of ideals of integrated governance. We conclude that risk assessment and governance can be integrated, harmonized and innovated to a limit only, but this limit is variable and flexible, and provides opportunities especially if attention is paid to the socio-political contexts, value choices and decision structures in each case. Generally, the results underline a reflexive approach whereby the meanings, framings and implications of risk integration are probed in open processes of deliberation and negotiation, as a learning process to transcend the formal and prescriptive modes of regulation and knowledge generation.

Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management

Technology has become a familiar companion in all areas of life. Production consumption, administration, education, communication, and leisure activities are all shaped by the use of technologies. However, people often associate with the term ‘technology’ attributes, such as catastrophic and potentially dangerous, and tend to take the benefits of technological products for granted. This asymmetry in risk–benefit perception is one of the main reasons why many consumers are concerned about ‘hidden’ risks of technologies and why they demand stringent regulatory actions when they feel unduly exposed to potential emissions or waste products associated with the lifecycle of technologies. This situation is often aggravated by social amplification processes, by which even small risks receive high media attention and are blown out of proportion in the public arena. At the same time, however, one needs to acknowledge that many technologies have the potential to harm the human health and the environment. The purpose of this article is to review our knowledge about risk perception with respect to technologies, in particular emerging technologies, and to suggest possible strategies to use this knowledge for improving our risk management practice. Technological risk perception is defined in this article as the processing of physical signals and/or information about a potentially harmful impact of using technology and the formation of a judgment about seriousness, likelihood, and acceptability of the respective technology. Based on the review of psychological, social, and cultural factors that shape individual and social risk perceptions, we have attempted to develop a structured framework that provides an integrative and systematic perspective on technological risk perception and that may assist risk management and regulation in taking perceptions into account.

Big pictures, close-ups, roadmaps and mind-maps: perspectives on integrated treatment of multiple risks

Integrated risk assessment is an attempt to deal with the management challenge of a multitude of risks or risk consequences. We studied perspectives of regulators, stakeholders and experts on cumulative risks from multiple stressors and on their integrated assessment in relation to environmental chemicals. We developed conceptual models of risk framing and risk information in policy contexts, and applied these models in empirical studies. These focused on internet surveys of expert views on cumulative risks and on the information needed for their regulatory management and for public debate; interviews with EU regulators and stakeholders regarding integrated regulatory risk assessment and management, specifically with REACH legislation; communication experiments at stakeholder meetings on participatory governance of multiple risks. The paper reports and discusses key findings, emphasising interactions of assessment and management, relationships between deliberation and precaution and the potential of integrated assessments to guide them, and roles of communication herein. On the basis of these findings we present recommendations for the development of risk assessment and governance.

Moderation, Gesprächsaufbau und Dynamik in Fokusgruppen

Fokusgruppen arbeiten Argumente und deren Standfestigkeit in einem Diskussionsprozess innerhalb einer Gruppe heraus. Sie bieten damit deutlich umgangreichere Argumentationsstrange als das Einzelinterview. Um so wichtiger ist aber die Begleitung und Interaktion im Gruppenprozess. Die Moderation einer Fokusgruppe sollte daher die Interaktion und Dynamik der Gruppe aufgreifen, steuern und einbinden. Ein Gesprachsleitfaden, der verschiedene Phasen der Gruppenprozesse berucksichtigt, gilt als Erfolgskriterium fur aussagekraftige Ergebnisse.

Transatlantic Patterns of Risk Regulation: Implications for International Trade and Cooperation

This report presents a study commissioned by the European Parliament to compare regulatory standards in the EU and the US in four key sectors (food safety, automobiles, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals), chosen for their relevance both to consumer protection and transatlantic trade, and focusing on whether different approaches to risk regulation may lead to different levels of protection. How risks are regulated in the US and the EU can affect domestic outcomes (such as the benefits and costs of protecting consumers, health and environment), and can also foster or limit the opportunities for international trade.

Group Delphi Workshop on In Silico Methods : successful communication of scientific content on the example of testing chemical substances

The REACH Regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) contains the commitment to minimize the amount of animal testing necessary to achieve its aims. To do this, industry is providing justifications to waive animal tests in preference for in vitro or in silico methods. In silico methods rely on computer simulation or modeling and use results from existing tests to model the ways in which a chemical may be hazardous in the body and/or in the environment. Therefore the toxicity of chemicals can be assessed without further tests on animals. In the REACH context, ORCHESTRA was an EU funded project with the aim of disseminating recent research on in silico methods for evaluating the toxicity of chemicals such as quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs). The project aimed to promote a wider understanding, awareness and appropriate use of in silico methods. It communicated and exploited the findings of nine previous EU-funded projects relating to several areas, including food, environment and health. More information is found on the website www.in-silico-methods.eu/ or www.orchestra-qsar.eu/. The coordinator of the project was Dr. Emilio Benfenati, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche MARIO NEGRI, Milano, Italy. The interdisciplinary research unit on risk governance and sustainable technology development (ZIRN) that was part of Stuttgart University‘s International Center on Culture and Technology conducted the examination of responses and reactions of various stakeholders to successful communication strategies in the context of ORCHESTRA. This led ZIRN to conduct the one-day-workshop “Successful Com-munication of scientific Content on the Example of testing Chemical Substances” using the Delphi Method. The workshop was held on December 13th, 2011 in the GENO-Haus, in Stuttgart Germany. 14 experts plus four staff members have participated. The workshop aimed at investigating how complex scientific content, in this case, the use of computer models (in silico methods) in chemical research can be communicated in the “right way” through different communication channels to individual stakeholders as well as to a broad public. This report documents the procedure as well as the results of the workshop. First, the Method of the Group Delphi and the corres-ponding process and agenda of the workshop are described. The following chapter demonstrates particular results. The final chapter summarizes the outcomes of the workshop. Der Gruppendelphi Workshop (“Erfolgreiche Kommunikation wissenschaftlicher Inhalte am Beispiel von Testverfahren fur Chemikalien”) wurde im Rahmen des EU-Projektes ORCHESTRA durchgefuhrt. Er sollte mit Hilfe von Expertenurteilen Kommunikationsstrategien und -wege erortern und aufzeigen, wie das Verstandnis und die Akzeptanz von In Silico Methoden erhoht werden kann. Dabei wurden die in der Fachwelt diskutierte Bandbreite an unterschiedlichen Auffassungen und Losungsansatzen diskutiert. Der Band dokumentiert das Vorgehen und die Ergebnisse des Workshops und stellt damit exemplarisch das Verfahren des Gruppen-Delphis vor. Die Teilnehmenden empfehlen einen koordinierten Fachdiskurs, der Stakeholder, Regulatoren und Behorden gleichermasen anspricht und intensiv beteiligt. Ein groses Potenzial sehen die Teilnehmer in spezifischen Lehrgangen und Fortbildungen, um den Akteuren das komplexe Thema In Silico naher zu bringen. Die Kommunikation mit den Medien nimmt eine untergeordnete Rolle ein, da das Thema nach Ansicht der Experten zu speziell ist. Die Offentlichkeit kann mit gezielten Formaten und praktischen Fallbeispielen mit dem Thema In Silico Modelle erreicht werden. Die Strategie „Acceptance on a case by case basis“ kann der Fachcommunity vorgestellt werden, ohne eine generelle Akzeptanz der In Silico Verfahren zu verlangen. Dies hat den Vorteil, dass an ausgewahlten Beispielen, das Fur und Wider der In Silico Verfahren mit Industrie- und Behordenvertreter diskutiert werden kann und dass die Moglichkeiten und Bedingungen des Einsatzes von In Silico Testverfahren jetzt und zukunftig aufgezeigt werden konnen. Da die Akzeptanz vor allem von der Anwendung im REACH-Prozess abhangt, sollten alle Akteure auf die Bedingungen der REACH-Regularien eingehen. Insgesamt waren sich die Experten des Workshops einig, dass man erst langfristig mit einem starkeren Einsatz der In Silico Verfahren rechnen kann. Der Einsatz von Computermodellen und In Silico Methoden ist noch auf sehr geringem Niveau angesiedelt. Sie werden bisher kaum genutzt. Die Grunde liegen vor allem in der Sorge um die Akkreditierung im REACH-Prozess, dem hohen Aufwand der Dokumentation und dem geringen Vertrauen der Anerkennung als alternative Methode.

Kooperatives Konfliktmanagement für Mobilfunksendeanlagen

Das mobile Telefonieren wird nicht nur im geschaftlichen, sondern auch im privaten Bereich immer mehr zum Bestandteil des taglichen Lebens. Bereits im Jahr 2000 hat die Zahl der Mobilfunkteilnehmer die Zahl der Festnetzanschlusse ubertroffen. Die standig wachsende Zahl der Mobilfunknutzer macht allerdings auch einen steten Ausbau des Netzes notwendig. Derzeit gibt es rund 50.000 Mobilfunksendeanlagen in Deutschland. Mit dem Erwerb der UMTS-Lizenzen haben sich die Netzbetreiber verpflichtet, bis Ende 2003 fur mindestens 25 Prozent der Bevolkerung und bis 2005 fur 50 Prozent einen Empfang mit UMTS-Netz zu ermoglichen. Fur den UMTS-Ausbau ist mittelfristig eine Verdoppelung der Sendestandorte zu erwarten. Tendenziell ist der Widerstand gegen die Errichtung von Mobilfunkanlagen in den letzten Jahren trotz nachweisbar verbesserter Kommunikationsprozesse nicht wesentlich zuruckgegangen (Deutsches Institut fur Urbanistik 2005).