Date(s) - 16/06/2018 - 21/06/2018
Vancouver Convention Centre
.Riskope is proud to announce that we got invited to present at Resources for Future Generations 2018 a Keynote Lecture
Geoethical consensus building through independent risk assessments
It is common that consultants hired by the “proponents of new projects” and the public strongly disagree in their analysis of significant adverse impacts. One of the components allowing to determine potential adverse impacts should be the risk assessment. However, risk assessments are oftentimes the source of conflict, rather that of consensus.
Indeed, numerous voices are raising around the world to show how misleading and fuzzy commonly used risk assessments methods are. Misleading and fuzzy risk assessment are contrary to geoethics principle and cause public rejection.
This keynote lecture presents a case where, as shown by public records, after two iterations between proponent and the Environmental Impact Review Board consensus was not possible. Thus the latter decided to ask a third party external risk advisor to develop a risk assessment.
The goal was to help the different parties to form a balanced opinion on the significant adverse impacts of the project. Indeed, that balanced and informed opinion constitutes the backbone of a geoethical consensus.
A well documented case history
This keynote lecture delves into the peculiarity of the case study. In particular it shows how to deliver a transparent risk assessment by analyzing various steps. They go from the definition of the system, the assumptions, and limitations to the delivery of the final results.
Interestingly, documents on this case are entirely available on the Environmental Impact Review Board public record. This offers scholars and interested party a rare occasion to see how to use and discuss a quantitative risk assessment to reach consensus.
This keynote lecture also showcases how we define the risk metric, we evaluate probabilities and how we define of consequences. This enables a rational discussion going beyond gut feelings and emotions.
In the case history, this enabled a consensus-seeking discussion. The subject were possible mitigation of the project for a safer and more resilient society. As a matter of fact, after a fierce, healthy public hearing, the proponent updated his views on risk. The study identified stretches of road which may require additional mitigation. The proponent proposed additional mitigation for risk exposing people and the environment. Thus conditions set by the Board were finally met.