I527-290 ESRIF Final Report (WEB).indd - European Commission

120
The conclusions for ESRIA of WG5 are based on three strands of input: a general state-of-the art survey of foresight
(Section 5.2), a survey of foresight exercises in the security domain (Section 5.3), and the experience of developing and exploiting
a set of context scenarios with the other ESRIF WGs (Section 5.3). These inputs convinced us of the general usefulness – not
to say necessity – of security analysis approaches based on foresight and scenarios. But we also found considerable need
for developing new knowledge fusing this with risk analysis. For this new knowledge domain we suggest the heading of
strategic foresight and risk analysis. A particularly important focus area cutting across strategic foresight and risk analysis is
better understanding of the continuum of perspectives on societal risks and threats ranging from consequence orientation
(only magnitude of consequences matter) through to probabilistic risk analysis (consequences are always weighted by their
probabilities). Our knowledge and competence agenda for strategic foresight and risk analysis identifi es the following six key
areas included in ESRIA:
It still represents a major diffi culty to fully grasp and model the interplay of human behaviour with new scientifi c and
technological opportunities, both in terms of generating new threat potentials and in terms of new preventive or reactive
measures.
Creativity is an essential pre-requisite for imagining future context scenarios and mission scenarios, but it is diffi cult to
cultivate and mobilize.
The monitoring and assessment of threats and options is a challenging task, in particular in view of the diversity and the
lack of consensus about the goals and objectives against which to assess them, e.g. against the dimensions of a European
concept of security.
As a pre-requisite for conducting systematic risk assessment, it is essential to better understand the complex
interdependencies of an increasingly broad range of factors of infl uence.
While participatory cultures diff er largely across Europe, security is an area that tends to have a rather limited tradition of broader
societal debate. With the broadening of the security concept, however, this seems to be an important component.
However, independently of the specifi c participatory cultures, there is a need to make the pros and cons of potential
alternatives for security investment (broadly understood) transparent in order to be able to establish priorities in an informed
way.
5.2 Foresight for research and innovation policy:
Rationales and state-of-the-art
This section discusses Foresight for policy in general but with a focus on research and innovation policy 1
5.2.1 Rationales for conducting Foresight
Foresight as a methodology for dealing with emerging future challenges has acquired quite some prominence in policy circles
over the past fi fteen years. As captured in the subsequent defi nition, it is not about predicting the future – in contrast to earlier
approaches typically labelled ’forecasting’ – but about acting consciously to prepare for the contingencies and uncertainties
resulting from the inter-play of future developments in science, technology, economy and society:
Foresight covers activities aiming at thinking, debating and shaping the future. It can be defined as a systematic,
participatory, future intelligence gathering and medium-to-long-term vision-building process aimed at present
day decisions and mobilising joint actions (EC, 2002). This is even more essential today because the complexity
of science, technology and society interrelationships, the limitation of financial resources, the increasing rate of
scientific and technological change impose on governments and the actors in the research and innovation system
to make choices.‘ (EC, 2009).
Foresight thus stresses the possibility of diff erent futures (or future states) to emerge, as opposed to the assumption that
there is an already given, pre-determined future, and hence highlights the opportunity of shaping our futures. This is very well
compatible with the perception that the origins and forms of future security threats are becoming more diverse. Furthermore,
1 Section 5.2 draws extensively on Havas et al, (forthcoming).
ESRIF FINAL REPORT - PART 2 • Working Group: Foresight and Scenarios