Search

Policy makers and regulators are charged with the daunting task of comparing incommensurate environmental risks to inform strategic decisions on interventions. Here we present a policy-level framework intended to support strategic decision processes concerning environmental risks within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The framework provides the structure by which risk-based evidence may be collated and by assessing the value of harm expressed by different environmental policy areas against a consistent objective (e.g., sustainable development), we begin to form a basis for relative comparison. This research integrates the prior art, examples of best practice, and intimate end-user input to build a qualitative assessment informed by expert judgment. Supported by contextual narratives, the framework has proven successful in securing organizational support and stimulating debate about proportionate mitigation activity, resource allocation, and shifts in current risk thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Risk-based regulation assumes that risk assessment can evaluate risks against policy objectives. However, policy goals are often ambiguous and require risk assessors to interpret them for use in risk assessment. This risk assessment-policy gap stems partly from normative and imprecise policy language but is rooted more fundamentally in society''s uncertain expectations for the environment. Until this uncertainty is resolved, the democratic and regulatory effectiveness of risk regulation will be undermined by ad hoc policy decisions abdicated to risk assessors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]