Resource information
Investment decision making is already
difficult for any diverse group of actors with different
priorities and views. But the presence of deep uncertainties
linked to climate change and other future conditions further
challenges decision making by questioning the robustness of
all purportedly optimal solutions. While decision makers can
continue to use the decision metrics they have used in the
past (such as net present value), alternative methodologies
can improve decision processes, especially those that lead
with analysis and end in agreement on decisions. Such
"Agree-on-Decision" methods start by
stress-testing options under a wide range of plausible
conditions, without requiring us to agree ex ante on which
conditions are more or less likely, and against a set of
objectives or success metrics, without requiring us to agree
ex ante on how to aggregate or weight them. As a result,
these methods are easier to apply to contexts of large
uncertainty or disagreement on values and objectives. This
inverted process promotes consensus around better decisions
and can help in managing uncertainty. Analyses performed in
this way let decision makers make the decision and inform
them on (1) the conditions under which an option or project
is vulnerable; (2) the tradeoffs between robustness and
cost, or between various objectives; and (3) the flexibility
of various options to respond to changes in the future. In
doing so, they put decision makers back in the driver's
seat. A growing set of case studies shows that these methods
can be applied in real-world contexts and do not need to be
more costly or complicated than traditional approaches.
Finally, while this paper focuses on climate change, a
better treatment of uncertainties and disagreement would in
general improve decision making and development outcomes.
