As part of ASRA's “The ReThink” blog series we spoke to Lorenzo Benini, Sustainability Transitions Expert at the European Environment Agency and ASRA network member, to explore his insights on governing systemic risks in the context of today's interconnected global challenges. On April 1, ASRA’s Executive Director, Ruth Richardson, will participate in a EEA panel event “Governing Systemic Risks at the Time of the Triple Planetary Crisis” – register here.
Q1: The idea of a "triple planetary crisis"—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—presents some tough challenges. What do you think are the biggest governance issues when these three crises overlap?
The biggest governance challenge in dealing with the “triple planetary crisis” is that our current institutions and decision-making processes are poorly equipped to handle systemic risks, which are inherently uncertain and complex. Governance is often fragmented into thematic silos, with policies that rarely communicate or align with each other, limiting the potential for holistic solutions. Moreover, these systems are often built on the techno-scientific ideal of certainty, predictability, and control—ideas that just don’t hold up in today’s tumultuous world.
At the same time, governance systems typically separate humans from nature, reinforcing the idea that human interests should take precedence over the wellbeing of other living beings. This separation fuels the tendency to prioritize human benefits at the expense of the environment and biodiversity. In essence then, the triple planetary crisis is a "wicked problem"—both a consequence of and a stressor on our flawed governance systems. Without a fundamental shift in how we govern, it’s hard to see how we can achieve meaningful, lasting change to address the crises we face.
Q2: The EEA's report, "Late Lessons from Early Warnings," highlights some key risks that were ignored in the past. Which examples from this report do you think are most relevant to our current planetary challenges? How can these examples help us create more effective governance moving forward?
Late Lessons from Early Warnings was a milestone publication for the EEA. Although the latest edition dates back to 2013, its examples remain highly relevant today. Cases such as the decline in pollinators, the persistence of “forever chemicals,” and emerging technological risks illustrate how poor governance of scientific and technological innovation—despite mounting concerns—have led to serious consequences that reverberate today. Indeed, many of these environmental and health impacts could have been anticipated, or even mitigated, had governance frameworks embraced the precautionary principle earlier.
A key message then for today is that when credible signs of ‘early warnings’ are known, the absence of full certainty about their impact levels should not be an excuse for inaction. This is where the practice of anticipatory governance can come into its own. These strategies are not yet widely adopted and often face resistance, particularly when vested interests are at stake, but there can be little doubt that strengthening such governance mechanisms will be crucial in addressing today’s many interconnected challenges.
Q3: You've mentioned that "we can have increased security resilience in Europe by looking at the many nexuses between climate and migration, water resilience, and food systems." Could you elaborate on how these interconnections should shape approaches to systemic risk?
Europe faces growing challenges to security on multiple fronts, making resilience and defence a key political (and spending) priority. However, continuing to ignore the deep interconnections between social and ecological systems and what this means for our safety and resilience is both misguided and short-sighted.
As highlighted in Europe’s Sustainability Transition Outlook, prosperity, competitiveness, security, and fairness all fundamentally depend on a stable climate, and healthy environments and ecosystems. As such, any action to respond to systemic risks must fully account for nature’s role in sustaining our way of life—providing climate stability, clean air and water, fertile soils, and pollination, among other essential services. Failing to recognize these fundamental connections doesn’t just create blind spots, it actively undermines the very foundation of our resilience in both the short- and long-term.
Q4: A lot of decision-makers feel overwhelmed by the complexity and uncertainty of today’s context, leading to paralysis of understanding and action. Have you seen any governance mechanisms or strategies that help break through this paralysis and lead to real, impactful action?
I believe that this sense of overwhelm and paralysis is somewhat a byproduct of our knowledge and governance systems, which are centered around the idea of certainty and, as such, find it hard to offer alternatives to the status quo. In reality, acknowledging and embracing uncertainty and complexity can be, not only liberating, but also full of opportunities for better decision-making.
Indeed, acknowledging that sometimes we do not—and cannot—know (fully) opens up new avenues for engaging with different forms of knowing and with different knowledge holders too. This, in turn, encourages creativity, participation, and empowerment, all of which are essential for building resilient and sustainable communities and societies. In many ways, the only real option we have is to keep trying, experimenting, innovating, engaging, and adapting strategies and tactics as we go!
Q5: Are there any institutional innovations or alternative approaches that show promise for today's world in the face of the polycrisis?
In our recent report on Governance in complexity, we documented governance practices that have been emerging across Europe and its regions in attempting to respond to the challenges brought about by the polycrisis. Initiatives such as the establishment of several citizen-led climate assemblies across European countries, the Conference on the Future of Europe and its citizens involvement, the Strategic Foresight Report series developed by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, and many others, point to an ongoing fundamental change in governance responses and are much more attuned to the nature of the challenges.
The emergence of governance practices revolving around anticipation, system thinking, precaution, experimentation, participation, and care, suggests that meaningful actions are possible, even in the context of uncertainty and complexity. Similarly, building capacity for anticipating and responding to crises and shocks, including transformative capacities, is also a meaningful practice which can foster resilience in the face of the unknown (see also EEA report on Transformative resilience).
Q6: This ReThink blog series is about broadening perspectives on risk. The EEA has emphasized that environmental goals must align with justice and equity. How does this perspective change traditional approaches to risk management?
Inclusive and participatory governance are essential ingredients of systemic risk governance. Multiple legitimate perspectives and concerns voiced by different communities across society need to be taken into account when dealing with systemic risks. This means “rethinking” and addressing both substantive and procedural goals—ensuring not only effective risk management but also meaningful deliberation and societal engagement. By integrating justice and equity into environmental governance, we can strengthen social resilience, support democracy, and create more just and sustainable outcomes for everyone.
