Is it ethical?

 A while ago a fellow researcher (from Denmark) asked me whether it is ethical to ‘just observe’ how stakeholders interact and develop plans for climate change adaptation, when you suspect they are not addressing possible risks and vulnerabilities? In his view, it is also a task of the researcher to inform stakeholders about possible risks and vulnerabilities when addressing climate change adaptation. This question has been on my mind, and I do have a definite answer yet. I do have some thoughts about it. What if you would inform stakeholders with information about risks and vulnerabilities that later turns out to be wrong, is that ethical? What if you would inform stakeholders with information about risks and vulnerabilities, which is used by some stakeholders in their advantage and used to disadvantage other stakeholders? Is that ethical? And what if, what you want to find out is, why certain information on risks and vulnerabilities is not used and brought into a discussion on climate change adaptation? Is it practical then to interfere in a policy making process and actively present information on risks and vulnerabilities? Perhaps to monitor afterwards which information is being picked up and by who, and which information is being neglected, and try to discover the motives of the actors to use certain information or not? Anyhow, advocating that a researcher should actively present information on risks and vulnerabilities to trigger or assist in discussions on climate change adaptation, refers to the assumption that this information will be used in a more or less ‘neutral’ way, and that actors will discuss and consider this information, and will strive to find a solution to address such risks and vulnerabilities.

However, I wonder whether in practice that will always be the case. For example, I am thinking of the South Devon Case around Dawlish, where the railway has collapsed due to the February storms. A lot of information and studies are available about the possible impacts of climate change on that area of the coast and on the railway line, but that information didn’t function as an incentive to adapt that area of the coast and railway, in order to prevent the recent severe damages and disruptions. And now, after the impacts of the February storms, the discussion has sparked again in the media about the future of Dawlish railway. This recent discussion mostly focuses on different options of rerouting the rail line more inlands, or repairing and maintaining the current line. If the railway would be rerouted, would the sea wall be reinforced to protect Dawlish from possible flood risks and erosion? Or would other adaption options be considered to do so? Strikingly, the current rerouting discussion does not refer to consequences for increased possible flood risks and erosion in Dawlish, when the railway would be rerouted.

So, I do wonder whether in a case such as the Dawlish case, actively presenting information on risks and vulnerabilities (which is already available for those interested in getting it) would assist actors in identifying which adaptation actions would be promising to apply to address those risks and vulnerabilities, because there so many actors are involved with different priorities and with different ideas of ‘what the problem is’.