1. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Managing Uncertainty in science for suSTainability future research challenges for Europe Jeroen van der Sluijs (UU Copernicus Institute) j.p.vandersluijs@chem.uu.nl

2. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Uncertainty in knowledge based society: the problem 1984 Keepin & Wynne: “Despite the appearance of analytical rigour, IIASA’s widely acclaimed global energy projections are highly unstable and based on informal guesswork. This results from inadequate peer review and quality control, raising questions about political bias in scientific analysis.”

3. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels RIVM / De Kwaadsteniet (1999) “RIVM over-exact prognoses based on virtual reality of computer models” Newspaper headlines: Environmental institute lies and deceits Fuss in parliament after criticism on environmental numbers The bankruptcy of the environmental numbers Society has a right on fair information, RIVM does not provide it

4. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Harremoes et al. 2001 EEA report Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 12 lessons, amongst which: Acknowledge and respond to ignorance, as well as uncertainty and risk Identify and work to reduce blind spots and gaps in scientific knowledge Ensure use of 'lay' and local knowledge Take full account of the assumptions and values of different social groups

5. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Once environmental numbers are thrown over the disciplinary fence, important caveats tend to be ignored, uncertainties compressed and numbers used at face value e.g. Climate Sensitivity, see Van der Sluijs, Wynne, Shackley, 1998: 1.5-4.5 °C ? ! Crossing the disciplinary boundaries Resulting misconception: Worst case = 4.5°C

6. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels The certainty trough (McKenzie, 1990)

7. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Developments Funtowicz and Ravetz book (1990) / Morgan and Henrion book (1990) Good Practice Guidance (IPCC, 1999; CLRTAP, 2001) RIVM Leidraad uncertainty management (2001-2002) www.nusap.net MUST-EoI Ph.D. theses devoted to uncertainty management –Jeroen van der Sluijs (1997) –Serafin Corral (2000) –Marjolein van Asselt (2000) –John van Aardenne (2002) –Jos Olivier (2002) –Penny Kloprogge (2003) –Simône Huijs (2003) –Matthieu Craye (2004)

8. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Conferences and workshops EFIEA Uncertainty workshop (Baden, 10-18 July 1999) NUSAP-TIMER workshop (Loosdrecht, June 2001) Expert workshop RIVM leidraad Uncertainty Management (Utrecht, 25-10-2001) & User workshop (Bilthoven, 22-11-2001) UN/ECE Uncertainty Treatment in Integrated Assessment Modelling (Laxenburg, January 24, 2002) FP6-MUST workshop (Brussels, November 11, 2002) JRC IPSC & EEA workshop “Interfaces between science & society” (Autumn 2003) International Symposium: Uncertainty and Precaution in Environmental Management (Copenhagen, June 7-9, 2004: Poul Harremoës, DTU)

9. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Insights on uncertainty Uncertainty is partly socially constructed and its assessment always involves subjective judgement Omitting uncertainty management leads to scandals and crisis More research does not necessarily reduce uncertainty –may reveal unforeseen complexities –irreducible uncertainty (intrinsic or practically) Quality relates to fitness for function High quality  low uncertainty Shift in focus needed from reducing uncertainty towards a systematic management of uncertainty

10. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Sorts of uncertainty Technical (inexactness) Methodological (unreliability) Epistemological (ignorance) NUSAP: Qualified Quantities (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990)

11. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Locations of uncertainty Sociopolitical and institutional context System boundary & problem framing –System boundary –Problem framing –Scenario framing (storylines) Model/instrument –Indicators –Conceptual model structure / assumptions –Technical model structure –Parameters Inputs –Scenarios –Data

12. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Aim of a FP6 MUST Network of Excellence Increase Europe's capacity to manage and surmount uncertainties surrounding knowledge production and use in designing and implementing precautionary policies and sustainable development.

13. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Challenges for MUST Dissemination of state of the art Facilitate fruitful utilisation of complementarity of formal, participatory, deliberative and institutional approaches to assess and manage uncertainty towards a new strategy for uncertainty management Enhanced conceptualisation of uncertainty Analysis of knowledge utilisation under uncertainty Address institutional changes required for full fledged uncertainty management

14. Copernicus Institute FP6 MUST workshop, 11 November 2002, Brussels Workshop Program 14:30 Jeroen van der Sluijs MUST research challenges 14:50 Jerry Ravetz Policy critical ignorance 15:10 Andrea Saltelli Quantitative methods 15:30 Jacquie BurgessDeliberative methods 15:50 Break 16:00 Joachim Spangenberg Extended peer processes 16:20 Penny Kloprogge Coping with value-ladenness 16:40 Ângela Pereira Communication of uncertainty 17:00 Matthias Kaiser Uncertainty and precaution 17:20 Discussion 18.00 End