What is a risk?

A frighteningly long time ago, I subscribed to a weekly newsletter that provided updates on the latest science and innovations in the food safety space. One issue reported new research confirming the potential exposure risk of Campylobacter from raw eggs as 1 in 20,000. Given how dangerous I thought raw eggs were at the time, the information was a revelation. My immediate reaction was, “I’d have to eat 20,000 eggs before I got sick, therefore eggs are safe.”

Then my boss said, “You wouldn’t think that if you were McDonald’s.”

It got me thinking about how our experience and context influence our perception of risk and the actions needed to mitigate it. As we move into a world of national risk-based freshwater farm plans, we need a way to objectively assess environmental risk and determine appropriate mitigations. Otherwise, we risk leaving too much open to individual interpretation.

The key benefit of a risk-based approach is that it creates an opportunity to really look under the ‘lid’ of a farm and ensure time and resources are invested for maximum bang for buck. It targets effort towards those activities most likely to have the greatest impact. An iterative plan–do–check–act–review system provides the structure to implement improvements over time while also holding farmers accountable. It is easy to see why the farming community promotes these farm plans as a practical way to support improved environmental outcomes.

The challenge is that this approach is hard.

It is hard for paper-pushing bureaucrats to wrap their heads around a biological system managed by variables no one can control, such as the weather. It is hard for farmers to understand what is enough and not feel as though they are chasing shifting goalposts. It is hard for experienced and knowledgeable advisors not to focus on the areas they know best while overlooking the parts they are less familiar with.

The process requires more time, labour, skills, and experience than will likely be available when it is rolled out on a national scale.

Inevitably, users of the system will want consistency, direction, and guidance. Communities want assurance that environmental outcomes are being achieved, and regulators will respond by creating checklists and minimum standards that can be universally applied. It will look like action is being taken. Farm plans and audits will become tick-box exercises. Minimum standards will become inflexible and, in many cases, require people to do either too much or too little to achieve the outcomes the process was designed to deliver.

And no meaningful improvements will actually be made.

The conflict is not about what we want to achieve, but how we achieve it at scale. We want the flexibility to make day-to-day farming decisions that address environmental risk in ways that fit our individual circumstances. At the same time, we want a system that is cost effective, simple, consistent, and fair.

In reality, nuance and choice within a regulatory framework require good systems, capable people, and trust from regulators who understand that meaningful change takes time. If we want to go down that pathway, we need to demonstrate the hard way can work effectively in practice. If we want a simple system instead, we need to accept the rules created will inevitably disadvantage someone.

Eva Harris is  Principal Environmental Advisor, Enviro Collective