WRC Research Project K5/1965 Activity 3:

1. LETSEMA CIRCLE TRUST WRC Research Project K5/1965 Activity 3: Social perspectives on understanding and managing incertitude (risks, uncertainties) John Colvin

2. Focus for reporting against TOR 2&3: Aim 2: Update the knowledge on climate change impacts in South Africa through a choice of multiple GCMs including different IPCC 4th AR emission scenarios, comparing these and showing differences of possible futures TOR3: An analysis of climate change related risks facing water related development investments Aim 3: By choosing multiple GCMs and future projections, knowledge will be created to clarify and where possible reduce uncertainties related to adaptation options. TOR2: A report on monitoring and climate change information updating needs that can assist with reducing uncertainties Methods: A first step will be to clarify why uncertainties are relevant and what these are: This component will focus on scale issues, and scenario assumptions.

3. ‘Social appraisal’: Looking at risks and uncertainties through a social lens ‘Social appraisal’ refers to the social processesthrough which knowledges are gathered and produced in order to inform decision making It always needs to relate to two things: The nature of the systems of concern – which may include social, technological and ecological processes; The nature of the institutional and governance processes which it aims to inform and within which it is embedded

4. Risk assessment Multi-attribute utility theory Cost-benefit, decision analysis Monte-Carlo modelling Aggregative Bayesian methods Statistical errors, levels of proof Some examples of (deliberately designed) social appraisal processes Burden of evidence Onus of persuasion Uncertainty factors Decision heuristics Interval analysis Sensitivity analysis Participatory deliberation Stakeholder negotiation Q-method, repertory grid Scenario workshops Multi-criteria mapping Interactive modelling Targeted research & horizon scanning Transdisciplinary and institutional learning Open-ended surveillance & monitoring ‘Evidentiary presumptions’: ubiquity, mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation Adaptive management: flexibility, diversity, resilience

5. These tend to be framed and interpreted through use of probabilistic and statistical procedures often as part of wider forms of cost-benefit, risk, decision or logframe analysis. Criticismsinclude the following: • They are reductive-aggregative, in the sense that they decompose complex dynamic systems under appraisal, and their contexts, into a small number of discrete conceptual elements, analyse these, then re-aggregate to yield a particular determinate picture of the system state • For example, in risk and cost-benefit analysis, all systems and their contexts are structured according to • Possible outcomes (hazards, benefits, costs) • Risk – the likelihood or probability of these outcomes • These methods typically privilege prevailing values in existing markets, attributing greater value to powerful, incumbent interests (e.g. men’s economic activities may be valued more highly than women’s; or irrigated land valued more highly than common property land) • It is often impossible to put a discrete monetary cost on intangibles Conventional expert-analytic methods remain the dominant influence on appraisal in most contexts

6. Contrasting states of incomplete knowledge, with examples (based on: Stirling & Scoones, 2009) UNCERTAINTY • Complex, nonlinear, open systems • Human elements in causal models • Specific effects beyond boundaries • Flood (under climate change) IGNORANCE • Unanticipated effects • Unexpected conditions • Gaps, surprises, unknowns • Novel agents (like TSEs) • Novel chemistry (like CFCs) • Novel mechanisms (like endocrine disruption) Poor Knowledge about likelihoods AMBIGUITY • Contested framings, assumptions, methods • Disagreements between specialists • Incommensurables (apples & oranges) • Issues of behaviour, trust, compliance RISK • Familiar systems • Controlled conditions • Engineering failure • Known epidemics • Transport safety • Flood (under normal conditions) Good Good Knowledge about outcomes Poor or contested

7. A number of forces are shrinking the known world of ‘risk’ and expanding the range of ‘wicked situations’ characterised by uncertainty, ambiguity & ignorance A range of forces act to lower the predictability ceiling: • High rate of change in biophysical and human environments • High rates of stress on known/unknown limit conditions (e.g. macro environmental changes) • Low probability, high impact situations become increasingly likely UNCERTAINTY e.g. high ratio of water use: availability pushes catchment close to threshold conditions Poor Knowledge about likelihoods PredictabilityCeiling RISK e.g. low ratio of water use: availability Good

8. A number of forces are shrinking the known world of ‘risk’ and expanding the range of ‘wicked situations’ characterised by uncertainty, ambiguity & ignorance TrustCeiling A range of forces act to lower the trust ceiling: • External rules diverge from local rules • Increasingly perceived as unfair • Local and regional groups cannot easily monitor and control availability and use • …cannot control external users • Violent explosions of unrest become increasingly likely • Relational logic comes into play, individualistic logic is not sufficient AMBIGUITY e.g. experts no longer trusted; high levels of cooperation are required RISK e.g. experts are trusted; low levels of cooperation are required Good Knowledge about outcomes Poor or contested

9. Contrasting states of incomplete knowledge, with examples (based on: Stirling & Scoones, 2009) UNCERTAINTY • Complex, nonlinear, open systems • Human elements in causal models • Specific effects beyond boundaries • Flood (under climate change) IGNORANCE • Unanticipated effects • Unexpected conditions • Gaps, surprises, unknowns • Novel agents (like TSEs) • Novel chemistry (like CFCs) • Novel mechanisms (like endocrine disruption) Poor Knowledge about likelihoods AMBIGUITY • Contested framings, assumptions, methods • Disagreements between specialists • Incommensurables (apples & oranges) • Issues of behaviour, trust, compliance RISK • Familiar systems • Controlled conditions • Engineering failure • Known epidemics • Transport safety • Flood (under normal conditions) Good Good Knowledge about outcomes Poor or contested

10. Each of these situations requires a different development approach supported through a different policy framework EXTENDING DEVELOPMENT • Interrelated issues require system wide technical capabilities • Policy framework: fiscal instruments and market mechanisms DISRUPTIVE DEVELOPMENT • Requires system-wide transformational capacity (multi-stakeholder dialogue and innovation) • Policy framework: social learning Poor Knowledge about likelihoods SUSTAINING DEVELOPMENT – focus onmaintenance and increased efficiency • Single issues soluble with isolated skills • Policy Framework: hierarchical regulation is viable INSTITUTIONAL ADAPTATION • Effort is directed to maintain reputation & legitimacy among stakeholders and to influence them • Policy framework: voluntary measures, campaigns & social marketing Good Good Knowledge about outcomes Poor or contested

11. Thinking about vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the context of climate change