Identifying and analysing climate risks is a necessary function of governments, but researchers at Adelaide University's Environment Institute argue such processes will not lead to effective action without taking additional steps to understand which risks are considered unacceptable by the community and prioritising responses accordingly.
"Australia is getting better at identifying climate risks, but we are far worse at deciding which risks we are willing to accept and who should bear them," said Associate Professor Ania Kotarba-Morley, from Adelaide University's Environment Institute and School of Humanities.
"Without clearer rules for evaluating climate risk, it is possible that national assessments could just become a list of problems rather than drivers of real action."
In a study published in Nature Sustainability , Associate Professor Kotarba-Morley and her co-authors outline that introducing evaluative governance would help shift climate risk assessments toward longer term thinking.
"We rely on ways of thinking that have dominated for a long time – responding to risk with insurance or making minor adjustments in our systems – rather than implementing changes that grapple with the profound, systemic and deeply uncertain risk society is facing," said co-author Associate Professor Douglas Bardsley, from Adelaide University's Environment Institute and School of Society and Culture.
The paper's authors argue evaluative governance into climate risk assessments would follow four sequential steps:
- Establish evidence bases through the science-informed assessment of system condition, drivers, consequences and likelihoods.
- Consult with stakeholders, including Traditional Owners, to define what matters, balance values and consider trade-offs and competing interests transparently, and define tolerability thresholds and non-negotiables.
- Align executive decision-making with political objectives, programs, legislation and resourcing.
- Assess effectiveness, equity and unintended consequences, and recalibrate policy in light of new evidence and conditions.
"In practice, most climate frameworks – including Australia's National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan – complete the first step, rarely achieve the second step, gesture towards the third step, and rarely embed the fourth step," said lead author Associate Professor Kotarba-Morley.
Co-author Professor Seth Westra, from the Environment Institute and One Basin CRC, noted that the governmental response to South Australia's harmful algal bloom (HAB) highlights where this framework could lead to improvements.
"The HAB experience shows that while science catalogues risks – measuring toxicity, species decline and exposure pathways – it cannot, on its own, dictate which risks are socially tolerable, or how competing public values should be weighed," he said.
"While scientists and authorities can monitor ecological danger, governments still struggle to decide when stronger intervention is required and what trade-offs are acceptable."
Associate Professor Kotarba-Morley highlighted that decisions about acceptability of risks and responses requires consideration beyond scientific evidence.
"Decisions about protecting ecosystems, cultural heritage, public health, or livelihoods should be informed by social values and political choices, as well as the science," she said.
"Without a new governance framework that takes this into account, responsibility and action for responding will default to individuals, emergency responses and only encourage short-term fixes to long-term problems."
