1. Mountain Risks: 2007-2010 A Marie Curie Research & Training Network Fig. 1: An example of unadjusted risk governance in Iceland where an oil station is built at the termination of a debris-flow gully. T. Glade (1), S. Greiving (2), R. McInnes (3) and the ‘Mountain-Risks’ research team (1) Department of Geography and Regional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria (2) Faculty of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany (3) Isle of Wight Center for the Coastal Environment, Ventnor, United-Kingdom Contact: Thomas Glade, Stefan Greiving, Email: thomas.glade@univie.ac.at stefan.greiving@unido.de Risk governance can be defined as process by which risk information is collected, analysed and communicated and management decisions are taken. The term “governance” refers to the capacity of actors, social groups and institutions to build an organisational consensus, to agree on the contribution of each partner and on a common vision. Risk governance seems to be most important for those risks which are related with a high uncertainty of probability/magnitude or a serious level of ambiguity, such as mountain processes. Consensus and acceptability of decision-making has to be seen as crucial for success of any risk management strategy. Measures based on mandatory decisions of public administration as well as measures private stakeholders are responsible for, need to be accepted for their implementation. These measures imply evacuation orders, building protection works or risk awareness. A socially widely accepted development path should be pursued in order to resolve value conflicts and assure fair treatment of concerns and visions. In particular the management of risks has become increasingly politicised and contentious. Importantly, it is definitions of risk that affect risk policy and moreover, defining risk is an exercise in power in view of existing ambiguity. Trust, or better the lack of it, has to be understood as central how disparities between "real" and "perceived" risk might engender public discourse. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, socio-political nature of risk call for a new approach. More public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision-making is needed for more legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions and consequent actions. Uncertainty and ambiguity are the main challenges that characterise the dealing with risks in society. Risk is a multi-faceted term which may be interpreted differently according to individual and social contexts. Risk can be divided into two distinct dimensions: Within the Mountain-Risks project, risk governance principles will be considered in order to create resilient communities facing mountain risks.  The applicability of governance principles will be tested for different risk settings in mountain areas (avalanches, landslides, rock falls, flash floods). Access to real risk management measures will be analysed by involving provincial and local planners.  Stakeholders will be empowered to the project via training courses (stakeholder workshops, intensive courses in each case study area with participants from all social groups + local administration) in order to: - The “factual” dimension which comprises physically measurable outcomes. This factual dimension is represented by the assessment of hazards – and often expressed as a monetary value, e.g. €/m 2 /year. - The “socio-cultural” dimension, which includes how a particular risk is viewed when values and emotions come into play (e.g. whether a risk is judged acceptable, tolerable or intolerable by society, how vulnerable a society is). - improve effectiveness and efficiency; - minimize side-effects; - improve inter- and intra-generational justice; - guarantee legal and political implementability.  THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF RISK  THE RISK GOVERNANCE APPROACH  RISK GOVERNANCE & MOUNTAIN-RISKS The following themes will be addresses by the project:  Incorporate the lessons learnt from past disasters in the management;  Identify legal aspects, risk cultures and insurance possibilities;  Communicate the information, educate the practitioners and the population, and involve all stakeholders in decision-making;  Establish practical thresholds for acceptable and tolerable risks;  Provide a framework for the use of geo-information at all levels and define the potentiality of modern visualization tools. Fig. 2: Example of advice for homeowners in areas of instability (from McInnes, Life-EC Project). Fig. 3: Example of some of the physical impacts of climate change on a developed coastal zone that can be easily understand by stakeholders (McInnes, 2006). Fig. 4: Example of risk governance (Planning policy) in a coastal area affected by landslide hazards (McInnes, 2006). Fig. 5: Example of a legal risk map in France using the PPR Methodology (Plan de Prevention des Risques Naturels). Map are respectively the inventory of the major stakes, the hazard map and the regulation measures map. THE MOUNTAIN-RISKS RESEARCH PROJECT: CHALLENGES IN RISK GOVERNANCE - Uncertainty reduces the strength of confidence in an estimated cause and effect chain. Uncertainty may be related to the occurrence, to the magnitude as well as the consequences of a hazardous effect. In social contexts, resiliency is an appropriate objective to deal with uncertainty. - Ambiguity denotes the variability of legitimate interpretations based on identical observations. Ambiguity exists due to differences in criteria or norms to interpret or judge a given situation.  THE RISK GOVERNANCE APPROACH More effective risk management measures and advances in knowledge transfer are required and those must incorporate lessons from past disasters. The legal framework in general and the planning system in particular of each country will be considered as relevant for risk governance. Attention has also to be paid to the given differences in characteristics of the several risk types. The message has to be still in scientific accurate terms, but in an understandable manner to the target group. Results will be presented applying modern visualization tools such as web-based applications, fly-through imagery and scenario modelling procedures. The geo-information will be adapted to these needs without loosing scientific accuracy. It is envisaged to deliver not only final results, but also accompanied by uncertainty and reliability measures. In particular this information is needed by responsible target groups in order to support their decision making progress. R2: Area with low restrictions R3: Area with specific restrictions R1: Area without specific restrictions G2: moderate hazard G3: high hazard G1: low hazard Fig. 6: Example of symbols used in France for the prevention of major risks, and the communication to the public.