By: Inge Sebregts

In 2008 the report Uncertain Safety was published by the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). Chairman of the Board at that time was Professor. Ph.D. Wim van de Donk, now Commissioner of the Queen of the Province of North Brabant in the Netherlands. In this interview Risk Management and Risk Policy from the perspective of Mr. Van de Donk.

The WRR report Uncertain Safety compares the field of physical security management with the chaotic appearance of a modern teenage room. Van de Donk: “In the last few years, both the government as various advisory bodies highlight some generic problems facing the physical security. The focus lies on the management problems which are caused by the traditional risk approach, the approach itself is not questioned. The enormous amount of regulations causes management problems. Also, the burden of these problems – both for the government as for the entrepreneurship – are a point of concern. Consistency is sometimes hard to find. The whole area of problems is characterized by lack of clarity”.

Probability x consequence = damage
PRIMO Europe asked the Commissioner of the Queen Wim van de Donk how important risk management is. According to Mr Van de Donk it depends on the type of risks we speak off. “In the report Uncertain Safety we have asked ourselves what the basis of the Risk Management and Risk Policy of the government is and whether this matches the risks we face?”
“A risk is ‘probability times consequence is damage”. You choose to either manage the effects of the risk or to manage the chance for the risk to occur.  In the report we say that this static method of risk approach still has every reason to be maintained. There is a certain type of management necessary with this approach: managing impacts and reducing opportunities “.
“We live in an uncertain safety, it is necessary to determine whether the approach of the risk is still adequate with all the risks we face. Society faces new problems, which are in many aspects different from the risks we faced 50 years ago. It is important to adapt the risk policy on these new problems rather than to persistently insist on the classical approach of Risk Management “.

Manufactured risks
In his work as Commissioner of the Queen, Mr Van de Donk is dealing with risk management on various fields. Specifically in the province of North-Brabant is the problem Q-fever high on the political agenda. “In managing this risk, you are easily tempted to operate only on expert opinions and forget to look at the pre-assumptions. The whole basis of risk policy should be in my opinion much more focused on the “manufactured risks”. Not the risks caused by external factors, but rather the risks that we cause by our own behaviour. ”
Manufactured risks are a new category of risks, from which we actually know relatively little. “The risk of Q-fever in the Province of North-Brabant is in a sense an example of such a risk. We all knew the risk, but the magnitude of the risk has increased. It is necessary to ask yourself whether this just means that the risk is more dangerous, or that the risk has to be seen as a totally different type of risk”.

 ”Policy is in its essence anticipating potential risks and cushioning the effects of the risks that occurred”.

Uncertainty as a challenge
The report Uncertain Safety talks about uncertainty as a challenge: “In the era in which the industrial world assumed that infectious diseases were manageable, arose serious new problems with the arrival of AIDS and SARS. The BSE crisis arose doubts about the naturalness with which the safety of food appeared to be guaranteed. The climate issue raises new questions in areas which have long seemed manageable, such as flooding. With new technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, politic managers are also repeatedly confronted with the fact that it is not obvious that they know the risks that need their attention. Sometimes this causes fierce public debates to arise. In the current scientific literature on risk governance, these experiences have led to new theories. In these theories it is recognized that in addition to simple and complex risk issues, to which the classic risk approach is used, also uncertain and ambiguous risks arise. These new types of risk are characterized by uncertainties about the opportunities and / or the extent of potential damage, or by the different ratings given to these. They ask, as is increasingly recognized, for a new risk management approach”.

Complex risks
According to Mr Van de Donk the risks in society have increased in complexity. “Managing risks has become more complicated, because the complexity of the risks is growing. Risks are more and more consistent with each other “. “We need to focus on high urgency, high probability and high impact risks”.

The WRR report Uncertain Safety describes a “new risk approach”: “This new risk approach has been given its shape over the past few years. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that the concept ‘risk’ is a considerably more complex concept than it was long believed to be. The new risk approach is therefore not dealing with known risks, but uncertainties are the main focus. These uncertainties need to be translated, as well as possible, to risks that can be discussed.

This translation will not always be complete. When it comes to making the decision, there will always remain uncertainty. The new risk approach requires specific organisational requirements. It requires for example prudence that is reflected in the willingness to consider multiple disciplinary problems from different perspectives.

Where the classic risk approach had a clear definition of roles and well defined coordinating procedures, this risk approach brings more threats in uncertain and ambiguous risk problems. Dealing with uncertainty requires flexibility, variety and room for early warners.

According to Professor Van de Donk, we tend to not always deal with risk policy rationally. “Something that gets a lot of attention in the media, or has a sexy sound to it, gets a great fuss. It is important to keep paying attention to the more ‘simple risks’, such as the chance to fall down the stairs and die or that senior citizens slip while taking a shower and are unable to get up”.

The WRR report Uncertain Safety offers a interesting insight into the risk policy of the government and the opportunities that is still offers. You can download the report (in Dutch) from the site of the WRR.

Risk management in public service organisations has come a long way in the ten years since Alarm became involved in tracking the development and progress of this discipline with the first triennial survey in 2000. Alarm’s Chief Executive Dr Lynn Drennan reviews the outcomes of the 2009 Triennial Benchmarking Risk Management Survey.

By Dr. Lynn Drennan, Chief Executive Alarm

The findings of our 2009 survey are published at a time when the public sector faces some of its biggest challenges in recent times; as it attempts to match growing demand with ever tightening financial constraints, and looks for innovative ways of delivering services with a growing number of partners.

In the face of these challenges, and the changes they are likely to require, the need for a thoroughly embedded risk management process that supports the delivery of objectives and projects and protects the assets and reputations of public bodies has never been so great. But at a time when all functions are being assessed in value-for-money terms, the risk profession needs to ensure it can demonstrate continuing improvement and that it adds value to the organisation, not just cost.

In 2006 we made seven recommendations to members, aimed at improving risk management processes. The results from the 2009 survey suggest that these have been taken on board and, in at least five out of the seven, significant improvements can be observed. In the remaining two areas – related to partnership risk processes and demonstrating the added value of risk management in delivering outcomes – progress appears to be slower, albeit still noticeable.

When it comes to the top five risks on corporate risk registers in 2009, it is perhaps not surprising that issues around the impact of the current recession/ economic downturn are foremost in respondents’ minds and ranks number one in the total responses. There are considerable fears surrounding the likely extent of cuts in public sector funding over the next few years, with additional uncertainty caused by the prospect of a general election in 2010. The recession has already led to higher levels of unemployment and greater demands on the delivery of particular benefits and services. This economic downturn is, of course, a global problem that has had, and will continue to have, a severe effect locally within the UK.

Another global issue, raising local concerns, relates to major incidents/ disasters such as climate change, pandemics and computer viruses – all of which affect countries around the world. In 2006, the survey listed critical incidents and business continuity together and this proved to be the most prevalent risk cited by respondents in that year. In 2009, each of these threats were noted separately and, as a result, took up fourth and fifth positions on the chart of top five risks.

At number two on the list, once again, is partnerships. Although this is recognised as a potentially serious risk, responses to other questions indicate that risk management methodologies are not being universally applied to the various elements of, and parties to, a partnership. Greater effort is still needed if these risks are to be properly managed. The risks in third position in both 2006 and 2009 relate to the internal allocation of resources i.e. ensuring that sufficient resources are made available to achieve the organisation’s objectives and to manage the risks. In a public service context however, this issue is never likely to be far from peoples’ minds and therefore is likely to always feature highly on risk registers.

Outside the top five risks, it is interesting to note that the safeguarding of children and adults was highly ranked, possibly influenced by recent high profile cases such as ‘Baby Peter’. The recruitment and retention of staff – a top five risk in the 2003 survey – was also mentioned by a large number of respondents. Whereas in 2003, when the jobs market was buoyant and the concern was that staff would leave to join another organisation, in 2009 the uncertainty created by the economic downturn may be enhancing fears of redundancy and an embargo on new recruitment.

For the first time, the survey also sought examples of the types of opportunities that organisations recorded on their corporate risk registers. Some common themes emerged, including:

• Raising the profile of the district /region
• Transforming town centres
• Tailoring services to customer needs / improved service delivery
• Shared services
• Regeneration
• Building schools for the future

Overall, the survey results provide a significant body of data to suggest that the embedding of risk management is almost complete in most organisations, putting them in a better position to meet the challenges ahead by minimising the risks and threats inherent in any change process. Risk management is now a part of most planning, performance and management processes and continues to grow and develop, although it appears to be less well utilised in areas more heavily influenced by political or financial expediency, such as change management and policy development. From its strong position in the operational aspects of public service organisations, risk management now needs to move further up the agenda and become a key element of strategic decision making. In this respect, both Alarm and its members, as professional public risk managers, have a vital role to play.

A full copy of the survey report can be downloaded from the Alarm website at www.alarm-uk.org

By Eelco Dykstra

Imagine the following.

An earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale struck Haiti on 12 January 2010, causing catastrophic damage to Port-au-Prince, Jacmel and other settlements in the region, with numerous powerful aftershocks. It has been reported that there are up to 200.000 dead, 250.000 people wounded and more than 3 million people directly affected. Up to one million people are in need of shelter throughout the country and there are up to 600.000 internally displaced people, 235.000 people have left Port-au-Prince and up to one million people could leave cities for the rural areas, putting pressure on already vulnerable communities there. Haiti, a country where some 1.8 million people were “food insecure” prior to the earthquake, in a country where close to 60% of the population live in rural areas and 70% live on less than USD 2 a day. In Haiti, decades of political instability had helped to weaken government institutions and the state’s ability to provide basic public services prior to the earthquake, and the damage caused by the earthquake has paralysed the state’s ability to respond actively to the relief effort, thereby aggravating the situation.

Was this preventable?

Perhaps not the earthquake itself but many of the pre-impact risks and post-impact consequences described above, yes.

Was this predictable?

Yes, without a doubt. The question never was whether something like this would happen, but when.

So, who is to blame?

No one is.  Earthquakes are generally considered to be an ‘act-of-God’ and who is to blame God? Surprisingly perhaps, it is not the earthquake that kills people but the buildings do.

So how about the builders and the guardians of building earthquake-resistant dwellings such as the government and the solicitors in charge of drawing up the contracts? Experience from the past reveals that the guilt is pushed around but no one is held accountable.

So what is the problem?

For some reason, we – as a human race – seem unable to learn the lessons from the past. The earthquake in Haiti is by no means the first example. While we know the areas of the greatest problems (e.g. planning, critical infrastructure, resource mobilization, information, communication, coordination, etc.) and what to do (e.g. unified command, logistics, psychological counseling, etc.) it seems that we are so response-oriented that we are always too late.

The problem with risk management is that we tend to think in only two ways. 

First, we can wait until something happens and then take action. This is what we traditionally did and do – wait for the fire alarm, extinguish the fire and wait for the next one. 

Secondly, we calculate risk but generally do this on the basis of information from the past; this kind of risk assessment works therefore only with problems we already know. We present this information in the form of graphs and tables, call it science and bore everyone to death.  And that is probably the reason that the information gleaned from lessons learned in the past is not being used.  

Solutions?

Plenty; when sticking to the response phase one can quickly mention things such as early-warning systems, pre-positioning of resources, community emergency response teams, resilient critical infrastructure – and an international community which plans, prepares, responds and implements with a concentrated effort instead of with a million disparate voices and organizations.

More solutions?

Yes, let us think in a different way and study what the consequences of future events will be. When we use scenario-based approaches to risk and crisis management we can do that. And let us involve everyone, not just the scientists, and make these scenarios into gripping stories.       

Imagine that.   

The European Commission has now agreed to provide EUR 137 million for short-term needs and at least EUR 200 million for the medium and longer term, with Member States providing an additional EUR 92 million.

Why not use a fraction of this money to set up a European Centre-of-Excellence with two primary functions?

First, the Centre would collect all the lessons learned from past events – within and outside of Europe.

Second, the Centre would act as catalyzing agency to ensure that these lessons will not be ignored but disseminated and implemented before the next disaster strikes.

 Imagine.

Imagine that we, as a human race, no longer wait until something happens before we spring into action.

Imagine that we, as a human race, no longer calculate risks on the basis of historical data.

Imagine that we actually plan our actions today because we study the consequences in the future.   

Imagine a scenario-based approach to risk and crisis management.

Eelco H. Dykstra, M.D.  (dykstra.disaster.stories@gmail.com)

Director International, the International Katrina Project Inc. (IKP – www.stormovereurope.org)

The IKP is a US-EU-International cooperative program that uses reality-fiction scenarios to describe the events and consequences when a super-storm paralyzes the critical infrastructure in eleven European countries. From 2010-2013, the IKP will use these scenarios to collect, analyze and disseminate large numbers of conclusions with corresponding recommendations from a large network of participating entities.

SymbioCity is a network of Swedish companies and organisations. It was founded on the initiative of the Swedish Government and Swedish Industry. SymbioCity is administrated by The Swedish Trade Council, with offices in more than 60 countries around the world. Our headquarters is situated in Stockholm.

Source: www.symbiocity.org

Liveable SymbioCity

Economy, environment and improved well-being? Yes! The SymbioCity approach is centered around our needs as individuals and families. Symbiosis means the integration of two or more organisms in a mutually beneficial union. This also describes the idea of SymbioCity. Looking at the city as a whole, we find benefits through synergies in urban functions – turning waste into energy instead of landfills, for one. In Sweden this is the way we have been saving our natural resources and money for over fifty years. It is our way to a prosperous, secure and comfortable future for all citizens. In our experience the SymbioCity approach is applicable to other countries, no matter the circumstances.

The SymbioCity approach

It takes more than one petal to make a flower. SymbioCity promotes holistic and sustainable urban development. We find potential synergies in urban functions and help to unlock their efficiency and profitability.

Combine urban functions – and prosper

The image shows the urban functions that support a working city. There are many ways to make an urban function effective. But focusing on them individually means you miss out on the real treat: the synergies that can be found between them. These synergies can only be found with a holistic approach and do not just improve the environment. They are also truly profitable.    

Turning water into…

Take water – a scarcer resource than ever. Modern cleaning technology can produce drinking water from household wastewater. Along with household biowaste, this wastewater could serve as a resource for biogas production. And there you go: two urban functions (water supply and sanitation), combined with waste management, just gave you the means to run your city bus fleet and keep your farmers stocked with quality fertilizer.

Learn more about SymbioCity at http://www.symbiocity.org.

In the end of 2009, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conducted a research about Risk Management in multiple OECD countries.

The OECD Futures Project on Risk Management Policies aims to assist OECD countries in identifying the challenges of managing risks in the 21st century, and contributing to their reflection on how to best address those challenges. Its focus is placed on the consistency of risk management policies and on their ability to deal with the challenges, present and future, created by systemic risks.

This OECD report looks at innovative practices in the management of risk in six countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore. It focuses on recent developments in risk management at central government level such as approaches to multi-risk identification and assessment, and methods to prioritise investments in mitigation activities. Recent reforms to reorganise ministries, create collaborative partnerships with the private sector and reshape financial assistance following disasters share the common purpose to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the prevention, protection, response and recovery from large scale events and are here considered in light of previous OECD policy guidance[i].

The call for this study comes amid rapid changes to the global risk landscape as evidenced not only by new sources of natural and man-made hazards, increasing frequency of disasters and rising magnitudes of damage, but also by new socio-economic trends such as rising population densities and value concentrations in geographic areas exposed to hazards.

In 2005, economic losses from natural catastrophes hit a record high, with direct financial losses of about US $ 230 billion, representing 0.5% of total worldwide GDP, of which US $83 billion was covered by insurance[ii]. Although unprecedented damage from Hurricane Katrina accounted for much of the costs in that year, 2008 ended up being the second highest year for economic losses from natural disasters (US $ 200 billion)[iii].

A high degree of technical integration and economic interdependence in modern societies has also increased uncertainty regarding where risks begin and end, as seemingly minor events may cascade into full blown crisis. The current financial crisis illustrates that even robust regulatory approaches may fail to foresee how risks to one sector of the economy can carry global ramifications. Concerns have arisen over the capabilities of governments to respond adequately to large scale disasters and the continued ability of insurers to offer property and casualty coverage. Adapting to the new risk landscape raises the need for new forms of partnership between governments, the private sector and individuals to prepare for crises in advance and to redistribute the burdens they incur.

Government efforts to manage large scale risks often focus on a particular type of hazard, because they have been established in reaction to the consequences of specific events such as natural catastrophes. Over time highly defined areas of competence tend to develop in which numerous ministries, departments and regulatory agencies at various levels of government carry-out operations in parallel and separate silos. A modern networked society with increased connections and interdependencies may be exposed to unforeseen vulnerabilities when risks arise that do not fit neatly within the remit of one particular department. Indeed, government departments might focus on one phase of what is actually a multi-layered risk management cycle comprising risk assessment, prevention, protection, response and recovery.

An integrated, all-hazards approach to risk management entails multifaceted interactions between public authorities at the national, regional and local levels of government and private parties such as operators of infrastructure and insurers. The challenge to improve country risk management is no easy task: the intricate web connecting these various groups may obscure lines of responsibility, allocation of resources, information flows and complicate the reception of effective input from interested parties. Indeed, efficient risk management may be compromised by the inability to deal effectively with bottlenecks in the exchange and analysis of information or to set priorities informed by the entirety of a country‘s risk portfolio.

Policymakers, regulators and emergency services with narrow or short sighted focus on achieving their individual mandates may also miss opportunities, fail to leverage the expertise of colleagues in different government departments, compare different types of risks and share lessons learned. This report highlights programmes that integrate the work of various bodies into coherent and credible sources of information that can guide prevention and protection efforts.

Public investments to mitigate risks entail the expenditure of limited resources that need to be prioritised. When such projects are in competition for funds, decisions should be informed by risk assessments that provide comparable criteria; silo operations in risk governance are not conducive to such comparisons. This report illustrates innovative tools that help policymakers compare risks for the purpose of targeting mitigation investments to their greatest benefit and how these decisions are validated.

Such decisions are complicated by the reality that risk is a moving target. For this reason some countries use horizon scanning methods that provide a forward looking perspective on risk assessment to ensure investments made today are not irrelevant tomorrow. Only by understanding such complexities is it possible to understand, and so be ready for, the possible long-term consequences of damage to a system – including the potential domino effect of harm to other systems.

The scope of this report pertains to risk management of large scale events such as natural catastrophes, terrorist events and pandemic disease that pose grave consequences for a country‘s population and national assets. It does not pertain to operational risk management systems that some countries have implemented to prevent disruptions to the operations of government per se. In particular the report focuses on organisational improvements and challenges to the pre-event phases of risk management: risk identification, assessment, and mitigation activities (including both prevention and protection measures). Policymakers face the challenge to determine not only how damage may be reduced most efficiently through pro-active measures before disaster strikes, but also how cost burdens may best be met and equitably shared. Recognising that it is impossible to perfectly prevent and protect against all risks, the report looks to new and inclusive approaches to the risk and financial management of large scale events.

 The full research report can be found on the OECD website.

© OECD 2009

[ii] Swiss Re, sigma No 2/2006.

[iii] Munich Re Press (29 December 2008).

In January 2010 the World Economic Forum published a Global Risk Network Report in collaboration with Citi, Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC), Swiss Re., Wharton School Risk Center and Zurich Financial Services. The full research report is available on the website of the World Economic Forum.

After the shock to the global financial system and world economy in 2008, 2009 was a year of appraisal and adjustment. The risk landscape that this report has explored over the past five editions has in fact changed remarkably little. What has changed dramatically is the level of recognition that global risks, like the world, are now tightly interconnected and shocks and vulnerabilities are truly global, even if impact and response can still differ at the “local” level. This recognition is illustrated by the increased number of interlinkages on the 2010 Risks Interconnection Map (RIM)1.

Cross-cutting themes

Three themes provide the backdrop for discussion in this report. As the first chapter discusses, the increase in interconnections among risks means a higher level of systemic risk than ever before. Thus, there is a greater need for an integrated and more systemic approach to risk management and response by the public and private sectors alike. Second, while sudden shocks can have a huge impact, be they serious geopolitical incidents, terrorist attacks or natural catastrophes, the biggest risks facing the world today may be from slow failures or creeping risks. Because these failures and risks emerge over a long period of time, their potentially enormous impact and long-term implications can be vastly underestimated. These are risks linked to big shifts that are recognized and which will roll out over many years, even decades. For example, global population growth, ageing and the ensuing rise in consumption have implications for resources, climate change, health and fiscal policy. The emergence of multiple poles of economic and geopolitical influence is another shift. At the same time two nations, China and the US, will probably play a determining role through their choice of saving and investment paths. Finally, the third theme picks up the discussion of global governance gaps from last year’s report. In light of ongoing short-term pressures on governments, business and individuals, can the necessary reform of global governance be achieved across the range of issues where it is required? Improved coordination on macro-prudential supervision, effective climate and energy policies, and new mechanisms to protect resources and security are all key to reducing vulnerability and risk. The next years will test the political will, vision and willingness of governments, business and individuals alike to make tough choices and manage the challenges ahead.

Risks in focus

This year’s report explores a set of risks that share a potential for wider systemic impact and are strongly linked to a number of significant, long-term trends. First, there are those which feature highly on the Global Risks Landscape and which predated the recession but have been exacerbated by its impact through greater resources constraints or short-term thinking. These include:

• Fiscal crises and the social and political implications of high unemployment
• Underinvestment in infrastructure, both new and existing, and its consequences for growth, resource scarcity and climate change adaptation
• Chronic diseases and their impact on both advanced economies and developing countries

The report also notes how concerns over further asset bubbles remain strong, as indicated by the Global Risk Network Partner’s assessment for the Global Risks Landscape. The other risks discussed in this report are equally systemic in nature and also require better global governance but they currently feature less prominently on the Global Risks Landscape. The report raises these risks to understand if there is an “awareness gap” around these areas and suggests that they should not be forgotten in the focus on an integrated and longer term view of risks. These risks include: transnational crime and corruption; biodiversity loss; and cyber-vulnerability.

None of these risks feature in the upper right-hand quadrant of the Global Risks Landscape, but they are all connected to a range of other risks more likely to occur and with greater severity over the next 10 years. Thus, their impact will be truly global and cross industry, and will affect individuals as they will businesses or governments. The 2010 Global Risks Landscape is as crowded as ever. This report does not aim to cover all of the risks tracked by the Forum’s Global Risk Network. The landscape offers a view of where each risk lies relative to others. Indeed, the core set of risks behind the report are not exhaustive: it has evolved and will continue to be refined and adjusted as new issues emerge on the 10-year horizon. Some risks are not addressed in this edition, not because they are less important but because of the constraints of length and the need for focus. In particular, though cognizant of their weight, the discussion in this year’s report only touches on a few of the many geopolitical risks on the landscape. Afghanistan featured highly in discussions throughout the year, with concerns that the level of instability in the country poses a threat for its own population and the troubling events that are unfolding in neighbouring Pakistan. As discussed in last year’s report, though many of the geopolitical risks identified by the Global Risk Network may appear intractable and limited in their geographic reach, in reality each has an impact in terms of human suffering and the burden on development and growth. Each of these can be a source of wider regional instability or even broader conflict.

Decision-making in an interconnected world

The objective of the work of the Global Risk Network is to raise awareness of the level of interconnections among risks and the global impact of those interconnections. The report offers a framework for decision-makers to look at risks in an integrated manner and to provide an impetus to different stakeholders to focus on ways to manage systemic risks more effectively. The events of the past two years have shown how costly slow failures can be when they erupt in systems. The lessons learned were numerous but must be remembered and acted on in other areas, not only in the sphere of finance and economics. Much discussion has rightly centred on behaviour change and governance, but both are highly dependent on political and individual will and the choices acted on by decision-makers. For behaviour to evolve, a concerted effort is needed to provide the right mix of information, incentives and institutions; to stretch people’s time horizons and make them understand exactly what is at risk. All of this requires a longer term approach than usually dictated by electoral cycles or indeed financial reporting and executive tenure. The Forum is driving some of the thinking on how to work towards long-term solutions, while managing the immediate challenges. Its Global Redesign Initiative has this goal at its core: it leverages the Forum’s convening power to focus the minds of all stakeholders on new models of governance to manage complexity and risks to global growth and well-being. Equally, by taking the 10-year perspective and exploring interconnections, experts who contribute to the work of the Global Risk Network focus on the context in which strategies and policies are formed and the decisions taken to anticipate and manage, rather than merely reacting to risks.

Damages to economic assets resulting from natural disasters have soared in the past fifteen years, and climate change models forecast intensified exposure to extreme weather in many OECD countries. The occurrence of flooding in Europe for the period 1998-2006 more than doubled compared with 1990-1998, while in North America the spectre of hurricane season is an annual threat to coastal communities. Seismic risks remain a key concern for countries such as Mexico and Turkey, both of which have a perilous record of earthquakes. As economic assets and populations continue to concentrate in urban centres, the damages from such disasters will increasingly test emergency response capabilities and the public’s resilience. Governments at national, regional and local levels will need to efficiently and effectively manage a broad value chain of risk management policies to confront these challenges.

This OECD review of risk management policies focuses on Japan, a country whose geography, topography and climate subject it to serious natural hazards, especially seismic activity and typhoons. This report looks at how Japan monitors, prepares for and responds to floods and earthquakes. It identifies good practices and areas where improvements could be made. The case studies consider several issues of particular interest to policymakers, such as how to take climate change into account for long term policy planning related to large scale floods, and Japan’s unique earthquake insurance scheme for damages whose probability and impact are hard to accurately assess. Moreover, the report offers lessons that other countries can draw from on the integration of various phases in the risk management cycle — from risk assessment to disaster recovery.

More information available on the OECD website

Flood risk is managed at different geographical scales and involve stakeholders as diverse as the State, region, department and local authorities, businesses, insurance companies and the scientific community or associations. For this reason, the OECD is holding a “kick-off meeting” on 30 April 2009 in Orléans to inform a sample of Loire basin stakeholders about the case study’s context and methodology. A self-assessment exercise will follow to identify working hypotheses for a future mission of international experts who will visit stakeholders in the Loire basin in June 2009. More information about this research can be found on the OECD website.

Byron says:

It was a pleasure to work in the public sector for almost four decades, with the last two decades as Chief Executive, but at the end of 2009 I decided the time was right to move my horizons and it was pleasing that having contributed to creating a world-class quality of life Capital for Wales from within local government that there were now opportunities to extend my remit to a Wales dimension. My work with professional networks such as UDiTE and PRIMO and with business partners have helped me to understand how to devote my experience and energies to these new arenas and to create strong public/private partnerships which would take forward the agenda of economic, social and environmental well being for citizens and communities.

The change will also allow me to focus my attentions further on UDiTE during 2010, and it is clear that the next phase of development, needs to create strong and sustainable organization which will allow each successive President to be self-standing and authoritative by removing the dependency on  the nominating National Associations or their Local Authority employers. Establishing a strong and sustainable UDiTE would allow the President with the help of the Executive Committee to guide and develop the role of UDiTE knowing that there would be an organizational capacity for undertaking teh work which would then be seen as being equitable for individual National Associations or individual Local Authorities. It is necessary for UDiTE to move to this next phase of development with a professional team supporting the representative work of the President and the policy making work of the UDiTE Executive. This professional team needs to work closely with Business Partners to create a sustainable partnership and funding base for UDiTE and strengthen its relationships with partner organizations such as PRIMO Europe. 

My personal change of direction allows me to start this process of the next phase of development during 2010 and my intention is to establish a sustainable self-standing model that can support the President and the UDiTE Executive before I hand over to the next Presidency. To achieve this I have already assembled a team of consultants and people who will support me – Charlotte Jacques and Louise Harrington in Cardiff, UK,  Andreas Rapp based in Austria and Simon Pascoe based in Brussels. The contact details for this UDiTE 2010 team can be found here.

As President of UDiTE my work can only progress with the continued goodwill of the UDiTE Executive, the National Associations, PRIMO and Business Partners and I have been really grateful for the support and assistance that the partners  have given to me over the years. I hope that we continue to build on that positive support for the duration of my Presidency and that UDiTE and PRIMO will move forward together through what is an important change phase that we all need to get right.

Politicians represent a diverse group, including government as well as opposition.  In the UK there are a number of interacting bodies: Westminster Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Irish Assembly and Local Authorities.  There are a number of institutions outside UK which have impact: UN, European Parliament, WTO, WHO and others.  This paper focuses on politicians in government but many of the observations apply to other politicians. 

Politicians’ motivations are complex but represent the wish to ensure that their message is carried to the public.  In the context of public risk they wish to be seen as responding appropriately.  They are often closer in perception of public risks to the public than to the ‘experts’, though, they may diverge on particular issues and may lead public opinion on others. 

The media plays a significant role in terms of coverage of politicians’ actions.  Other groups will also have an impact such as lobbyists and the public.

There is a need to understand the triggers that lead to the development of public risk and aspects of how they develop over time.  Timescale for action is an important issue in terms of response expected by the public. 

For the anxiety of the public to be allayed, the public needs to trust its politicians to serve their interests and protect their well being.   A response to this has been to encourage the public to participate in processes, though there is evidence to show this is not always effective. 

It is valuable to study past examples and consider the public’s reaction to politicians’ approaches.  It may be possible to determine what the public’s reaction is.  This should be investigated by further research. Further research is also needed to understand more fully how politicians become informed of public perception of risk, whether and in what ways they respond and the impact of their actions in terms of diminishing or escalating risk perceptions.

View the full research report here.