Risks and
side-effects are non-intended effects of our actions.
Side-effects
happen, whether we like it or not. Normally this term is preferred for those that
hurt us, not for the indifferent or desired ones. The task is to find a way to
keep those undesirable side-effects within acceptable limits. To that end, we
must improve our system or run a new system selection.
Contrary to
side effects, risks may happen but are not inevitable. If they happen, they
often cause heavy damage. If, e.g., we a damage that will cost 1000 € - if it
happens. If we estimate that this damage will occur in 5 % of all cases, the
risk is 1000 € x 0,05 = 50 €.
But be careful
with the word damage, because not every change is a damage. To category any
result as a damage is an anthropocentric decision:
To be a
damage, the change must be is caused by a singular incident, that we can undoubtedly
address.
But not all
changes disturb the needs of human beings. So, the decision to be a damage is an
anthropocentric one. A damage only happens to things that have a certain value
for us. This may not be expressed in terms of money: it can also be ecological
value, social value or emotional value… the fundamental thing is that value is
being lost.
And of
course, only those consequences that are not desirable from the human point of
view are a damage.
The system,
will it be able to reverse it in a reasonable time? If so, we can accept it.
But if not, it really is a damage. But what is a reasonable time? In Technodiversity,
as a practical approach we have defined reasonable time as the time span
between two interventions – like “return time”. For example, for thinning operations
5-10 years, for systems with permanent cover (tropics) 25-40 years. If recovery
needs longer than that time span, we may consider the damage as permanent.
When we
want to know who is responsible for a damage, we should be careful. In
forestry, very often people have the tendency to blame the machines if
something goes wrong, because they look strange and aggressive in the nature.
But a lot of negative changes have their root cause in a wrong decision. In
such case, the machine is not to blame, but the manager, who has taken the
decision. But in the case that the machine has caused the damage, we should address
it clearly to avoid the same incident in the future.
