World German Advisory Council on Global Change in Transition (WBGU) Annual Report StrategiesStrategies 1998 forfor ManagingManaging Executive Summary GlobalGlobal EnvironmentalEnvironmental RisksRisks The Council members (as on 1.6.1998) Prof. Dr. Friedrich O. Beese Agronomist: Director of the Institute for Soil Science and Forest Nutrition in Göttingen Prof. Dr. Klaus Fraedrich Meteorologist: Professor of Meteorology at the University of Hamburg Prof. Dr. Paul Klemmer Economist: President of the Rhine-Westphalian Institute for Economic Research in Essen Prof. Dr. Dr. Juliane Kokott (vice chairperson) Lawyer: Professor of German and International Comparative Public Law, European and International Law at the University of Düsseldorf Prof. Dr. Lenelis Kruse-Graumann Psychologist: Professor of Psychology (specialist in environmental psychology) at the University of Hagen Prof. Dr. Christine Neumann Physician: Professor of Dermatology at the University of Göttingen Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn Sociologist: Academy for Technology Impact Assessment in Baden-Württemberg, Professor of Socio- logy at the University of Stuttgart Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (chairperson) Physicist: Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of Theo- retical Physics at the University of Potsdam Prof. Dr. Ernst-Detlef Schulze Botanist: Director of the Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena Prof. Dr. Max Tilzer Limnologist: Professor of Limnology at the University of Konstanz Prof. Dr. Paul Velsinger Economist: Professor of Political Economy at the University of Dortmund, specializing in regional eco- nomics Prof. Dr. Horst Zimmermann Economist: Professor of Political Economy at the University of Marburg, specializing in public finance German Advisory Council on Global Change Executive Summary World in Transition: Strategies for Managing Global Environmental Risks Annual Report 1998 The full Report will be published by Springer Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg - New York in autumn 1999. ISBN 3-9806309-3-5 Imprint: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) Secretariat at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar und Marine Research P.O. Box 12 01 61 D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany Phone: ++49 471/4831-723/733 Fax: ++49 471/4831-218 Email: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.wbgu.de This Report can be downloaded through the Internet from the homepage. Translation: Christopher Hay, Darmstadt Cover design: Erich Kirchner, Heidelberg using the following illustrations Satellite image of a thunderstorm. Source: Pure Vision Photo Disc Deutschland GmbH House destruction by a hurricane. Source: Pure Vision Photo Disc Deutschland GmbH Mother with child, South Africa. Source: Meinhard Schulz-Baldes Flood tide, Bremerhaven, Germany. Source: Meinhard Schulz-Baldes Street sign in water. Source: Meinhard Schulz-Baldes Pine seedling. Source: BMBF Copy deadline: 20.11.1998 © 1999, WBGU 5 Contents 1 Global change: A fresh approach to new risks 1 2 Localizing risks in normal, transitional and prohibited areas 4 3 Categorization according to risk classes 8 4 Class-specific strategies and tools for action 11 4.1 A dynamic perspective 15 5 Prime recommendations for action 19 5.1 Extending strict liability 19 5.2 Precautionary knowledge production 19 5.3 International mechanism for risk detection and assessment 20 5.4 Building effective capacities for dealing with risk 21 5.5 Ecological criteria in development cooperation 23 5.6 Promoting risk awareness 23 Global change: A fresh approach to new risks 1 Global risk potentials and their interplay with eco- the probability of these events occurring is slight – nomic, social and ecological processes of change have timely counterstrategies are essential. The more far- emerged as a novel challenge to the international reaching the possible effects and the fewer avenues community. Never before has human intervention in for compensation there are, the more important a nature assumed global dimensions.This has been dri- risk policy centered on precautionary measures be- ven on the one hand by a growing global population, comes, in order to prevent global disasters as far as particularly in developing countries, and on the other possible. hand by rising human aspirations in conjunction with At the same time, however, it is impossible to safe- specific patterns of production and consumption guard against all global risks, particularly as opportu- (throughput growth), above all in industrialized nities will always entail risks. The American sociolo- countries. By presenting this report, the Council gist Aaron Wildavsky has fittingly characterized this hopes to contribute constructively to an effective, ef- dilemma: “No risk is the highest risk at all”. This is ficient and objective management of the risks of why a further hope placed by the Council in the pre- global change. The approach taken by the Council is sent report is that it may contribute to an approach in to: which the expedient combination of licensing proce- • identify a taxonomy of globally relevant risks and dures, state regulation, liability rules and the applica- highlight the particularly relevant classes of risk; tion of state-enforced precautionary principles may • link both established and innovative risk assess- enhance confidence in the management capacities of ment strategies and corresponding risk manage- modern societies and may thus help to make the in- ment tools to these classes, in order to define man- ternational risk debate more rational and objective. agement priorities. By ‘rational’ we do not mean blaming the potential The approach taken to generate and apply knowl- victims for their understandable aversion to tolerate edge relating to the identification and management risks. Still less do we wish to play down the severity of of risks is a decisive element in the quest for ways to global risks. By an objective approach the Council deal with global risks. It is plain enough that it is es- rather means the urgent necessity to face real haz- sential to depart from the principle of ‘trial and error’ ards – with all the associated uncertainties and ambi- that has until now dominated in empirical science.An guities – in a manner that is targeted, rational and ef- error with global consequences can lead to unaccept- ficient, while at the same time exploiting the oppor- able damage. In a globally intermeshed world, in tunities associated with taking risks. Without a will- which disasters can assume global proportions more ingness to venture upon risks, there will be no rapidly than ever before, letting events run their innovation. Without innovations, in turn, the eco- course and mitigating any damage that may arise is nomic and ecological problems of the world will re- not an ethically acceptable principle. In the past, en- main unsolved. We need to steer a prudent middle vironmental risks were generally restricted to the re- course between boldness and caution. gional level. For instance, while the deforestation of Charting this middle course is hampered by the ancient Greece has significantly impaired the utiliza- circumstance that empirically oriented research is tion potentials of the soil there through erosion and not in a position to prove experimentally – not to karstification, these environmental impairments mention predict – the consequences of global envi- have remained locally contained. By contrast, many ronmental risks. Although partial aspects of global of today’s environmental risks are global by nature. If risks can indeed be analyzed in model experiments, the Gulf Stream ceases, sea levels rise or a new Span- opportunities to carry out empirical experiments on ish Influenza pandemic afflicts the world, then the global effects are limited for obvious reasons. For ex- consequences for the whole of humanity will be so in- ample, no one will wish to try out whether an event in cisive and conceivably also irreversible that – even if a nuclear power plant that slightly exceeds the most 2 Executive Summary WBGU Annual Report 1998 credible accident scenario really leads to the predict- tional stability and credibility) also play a crucial role ed impacts upon human health and the environment. here. Geophysical risks place even greater constraints As a matter of principle, the risks of global change upon empirical testing. should be tackled as closely as possible to the indi- For the first time in human history, anthropogenic vidual generators of risk, i.e. where possible at the lo- emissions account for a substantial proportion of cal or regional level. In this respect, the Council en- geochemical cycles in nature. Measurements can re- dorses a management philosophy that initially large- flect the dynamics and distribution of concentrations, ly relies on the liability principle. However, this re- but tell us little about long-term consequences. At- quires appropriate structural conditions in the tempts to model these consequences in the laborato- individual countries. Where these are not given, they ry at a smaller, scaled-down level soon meet the lim- would need to be created. Particularly where the its of transferability. Here science is largely depen- severity of their effects is largely uncertain, many dent upon analogies (for instance in the sphere of global risks further require a supraregional and state medical risks) or computer simulation (for instance or international regulation (Section H 2). in the sphere of climate risks). As yet, however, non- It is not only the inherent characteristics