IRGC - International Risk Governance Council

Application guidelines

Sylvie — 2010-08-26T12:18:15Z

IRGC is currently developing Application Guidelines, which serve as a companion to the Risk Governance Deficits report and policy brief. Their aim is to provide decision-makers with practical guidance in applying the concept of risk governance deficits in order to identify, evaluate and bridge potential deficits within their organisations or area of responsibility.

The Applications Guidelines handbook provides a comprehensive (although not necessarily exhaustive) check-list of questions to aid in the identification of deficits, as well as a scale with which to evaluate their severity.

It also provides guidance on how to overcome each of the identified risk governance deficits through suggested actions for each area of deficits. These actions, once operationalised and adapted to organisational circumstances, will form the basis for a customised roadmap for each organisation to bridge its own deficits.

A PowerPoint slide presentation to accompany the handbook has been created for use in workshops and oral presentations.

Nb. These are generic tools that may need to be adapted to specific situations and organisational needs (some questions will be omitted, others will be added, they must be prioritised differently, using for example decision trees, etc.)

IRGC's Application Guidelines documents are a work-in-progress. Both the handbook and slide presentation are available upon request from IRGC (please contact governance@irgc.org), however, they should be considered as drafts for improvement.

IRGC would welcome feedback from practitioners about the usefulness of these Application Guidelines in order to further improve and develop them.

Concept note

Sylvie — 2010-08-17T13:46:53Z

Work on the Emerging Risks project began at a roundtable hosted by the Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue in Rüschlikon/Zürich on 8 and 9 June, 2009. Approximately 30 participants from governments, industry, academia and international organisations contributed to discussions which have helped shape IRGC's thinking on emerging risks and the direction of this project. Expert discussions at the workshop led to drafting of a Concept Note, which is available here. The Concept Note identifies and explains the following elements related to emerging risks:

Sources of risks
Natural sources
Human sources
Causal interactions between different sources

Drivers of risk
Knowledge of emerging risks
System complexity
Social and cultural dynamics
Degree of development, poverty and inequality
Natural resources and the environment
Competing interests, ideologies, values and religions
Variability in susceptibility to risk

Governance issues
Tackling complexity
Dealing with tractable and deep uncertainty
Governance of change and adapting institutions
Organisation and authority
Better agenda-setting
Resolving conflicts

The purpose of IRGC Concept Notes is to provide an outline of the project work that IRGC is starting. For further information on the progress of this project, see phase 1.

Maritime global critical infrastructure

Celine — 2010-06-30T09:19:52Z

IRGC's first project focusing on critical infrastructures concluded with the publication in 2006 of the IRGC White Paper “Managing and Reducing Social Vulnerabilities from Coupled Critical Infrastructures”, also the title of an IRGC Policy Brief published in 2008.

IRGC has now begun work, in collaboration with our project partner – the Disaster Prevention Research Institute at Kyoto University, Japan – on a project addressing the risk governance of maritime Global Critical Infrastructures (GCI). The project has a specific focus on the Strait of Malacca and the Port of Singapore.

In this project IRGC addresses the issue of risk governance relating to potential break-points in the GCI of global shipping and trade. Maritime GCI inherently encompass a great variety of stakeholders, resulting in a high level of systemic complexity and uncertainty. Given that approximately 90% of world trade is transported by sea, the global economy is heavily dependent on the effective operation of the shipping industry. One of the busiest shipping lanes in the world is the Strait of Malacca, carrying around 25% of all world trade and half of the world's shipped crude oil. Located at its end is the Port of Singapore – the world's busiest port in terms of shipping tonnage, attracting vessels from over 600 ports in 120 countries each year. Due to their strategic importance, these two critical infrastructures combined present an ideal case example for IRGC to develop recommendations for improved risk governance of maritime GCI.

In 2009 the project held a multi-stakeholder workshop in Kyoto, Japan, gathering participants from North- and Southeast Asia as well as India, from academia, industry, government and NGOs.

Summary workshop report

As a result of the activities in 2009, the project has developed a document outlining its insights to date and the plans for the next phase of the project:

Initial Insights Report

The project will hold two regional seminars in 2010, in preparation for the second international multi-stakeolder workshop currently planned for September 2010. This will be followed by the publication of an IRGC Policy Brief presenting risk governance recommendations for the maritime global critical infrastructure in the autumn.

For more information about this project, please contact Ms Malin Samuelsson at the IRGC secretariat malin.samuelsson@irgc.org

Employment opportunities

Sylvie — 2010-06-25T08:06:20Z

Director of the International Risk Governance Council

IRGC is an independent foundation that aims to support governments, business and other organisations and to foster public confidence in risk governance and in related decision-making by:
reflecting different views and practices and providing independent, authoritative information;
improving the understanding and assessment of important risk issues and the ambiguities involved;
designing innovative, efficient and balanced governance strategies

It has developed a wide and recognised expertise in:
Developing approaches to risk governance;
Developing policy options and recommendations in fields such as nanotechnology, carbon capture and deep sequestration, bioenergy and synthetic biology.

IRGC regularly encourages and organises debates among scientists and policymakers, to advance the resolution of neglected or controversial issues requiring a multi-stakeholder approach.

After seven years of development and recognised contributions to the field, IRGC is looking for a director who, together with the Board of Foundation and the Scientific and Technical Council, will lead the organisation in the coming years.

The director of IRGC will be the principal leader and spokesperson of the organisation. He or she should have an advanced degree in a scientific or technical area, or its equivalent, and professional experience and accomplishment in risk assessment, risk communication and related fields. He or she should have demonstrated leadership, fundraising, communication and management skills and familiarity in working in an international and multi-cultural environment. Multi-lingual ability is desirable but not a requirement.

The post is based in Geneva, with frequent international travel.

Applications should be submitted to recruitment@irgc.org, with full resume, list of publications, copies of five best papers/articles or other writings, and list of references.

Partie droite

Marie Valentine — 2010-06-25T08:03:30Z

As a follow-up to its recent report, IRGC has published (in May 2010) a “Policy Brief on Risk Governance Deficits", with added recommendations for policymakers.

Download the Policy Brief
Order a paper copy

As a follow-up to its report on risk governance deficits, IRGC has published in November 2009 a "Concept Note on Emerging Risks".

Download the Concept Note
Order a paper copy

Expert workshop

Celine — 2010-03-16T16:16:28Z

Within the auspices of IRGC's synthetic biology project, a multi-stakeholder expert workshop entitled "Risk Governance of Synthetic Biology" was organised in Geneva on 26 and 27 October 2009. It gathered participants from a variety of sectors, including government, intergovernmental organisations, academia, NGO and industry.

As a basis for the discussions, the revised and updated Concept Note was presented, followed by a session on the current research in the field. The first day concluded with group discussions on three different perspectives: opportunities, risks and perceptions associated with synthetic biology.

The second day was devoted to governance issues, including a panel presenting the current governance context. This was followed by break-out sessions exploring which risk governance deficits are likely to influence the development and acceptability of synthetic biology.

The workshop concluded with an open session to bring forward recommendations for the effective risk governance of synthetic biology.

Workshop deliberations will be an important component for the development of an IRGC Policy Brief, which will be published in the Summer of 2010.

Project overview

Celine — 2009-12-21T16:07:41Z

As a direct follow-up to its work on risk governance deficits, IRGC is now focussing on emerging risks. IRGC defines as “emerging” a risk that is new, or a familiar risk in a new or unfamiliar context or under new context conditions (re-emerging). Emerging risks are issues that are perceived to be potentially significant but which may not be fully understood and assessed, thus not allowing risk management options to be developed with confidence

This project takes place in two phases. Its purpose is not to develop a list of risks or possible future changes but, instead, to focus on how and why risks emerge (phase 1), and to develop practical guidelines for practitioners in business and the public sector, helping them improve their own capabilities to understand, anticipate and respond to emerging risks (phase 2).

IRGC is working with its partners Swiss Reinsurance Company and Oliver Wyman Inc. on this project.

Project work on emerging risks would not have been possible without the generous support of IRGC's donors, including the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Government of Quebec, Alpiq Group, Swiss Reinsurance Company and Oliver Wyman Inc.

For more information on the emerging risks project, please contact Belinda Cleeland

Title...

Michel Maila — 2009-12-21T15:42:12Z

- Wiki

Contributing Factors for Fertile Grounds

2009-12-21T14:25:43Z

Michel Maila, Thomas Homer-Dixon, with contribution from Mary Wilson.

Short discussion 17 December on an Emerging risk conceptual framework
click here for MSword file: Emerging_risk_conceptual_framework21Dec.doc

NB. Proposed definitions have been added by MVF

Most important emerging issues require to adopt a whole system, multi-factor approach, which is dynamic, evolving and adaptive. It must stay away from any static linear approach and include human involvement or interaction between human action and natural or technological systems. Examples: Titanic, electricity grid

1. Risk profile

“Introducing an overarching concept of sound risk governance as alignment of all relevant stakeholders around an acceptable risk profile” Maila

Introduction and definitions

Central to how organisations address risk and in particular emerging risks is the notion of risk profile [1]. Several dimensions, qualitative and quantitative, need to be explored, by any organisation or stakeholder before it enters into an active risk evaluation (to judge the acceptability of the risks) and management process. “In the course of risk characterisation, scientists are asked to design a multi-criteria profile of the risk in question, make a judgement about the seriousness of the risk and suggest potential options to deal with the risk.” (IRGC white paper 1). Risk profile therefore “assigns a significance to each risk and provides a tool for prioritising risk assessment effort.” (IRGC white paper 1). Following this, risk management will be “aligned with the organization's external and internal context and risk profile” (ISO 31000)

In the case of emerging risks, we will focus in particular on the criteria that inform about:
Risk source
Direction of change
Magnitude of the potential change
Stress testing and scenario analysis
Sensitivity analyses

A typical risk profile ends with a “story” like description of the set of risks that may affect the organisation.

2. Tolerance for adverse outcomes

Introduction and definitions

After having characterised a risk, risk analysts enter into the process of risk evaluation. “Decisions should take account of the wider context of the risk and include consideration of the tolerance of the risks borne by parties other than the organization that benefit from the risk.” (ISO 31000). It is important to place risk in the context of opportunities and to “enable organisations to add value to their activities. (Managing risks) is not just about stopping or minimising the impact of negative events: it encourages organisations to establish their tolerance of, or appetite for, risk” (Ferma risk management standards).

“In order to make good risk management decisions, organisations and stakeholders need to define their level of tolerance for each risk they face (the organisation or stakeholder's readiness to bear the risk after risk treatment in order to achieve its objectives) [ISO, 2009]. In the private sector in particular, risk decisions will have to explicitly state the level of loss that the organisation is prepared to accept in its operations.” (IRGC report on risk governance deficits). Setting an appropriate level of risks tolerance is a challenge for new or emerging risks, of which level of knowledge is often low. Example: how many people can you see die before you decide you must do something about a risk? In practice, tolerance thresholds are determined and are not independent from interaction between elements.

Conclusion to 1 and 2:

“The notion of an acceptable risk profile for a system may be a useful organizing principle for risk governance purposes. Achieving and maintaining over time the alignment of multiple stakeholders around a common vision of an acceptable risk profile may serve as a useful overarching objective for sound governance. Delineating such a profile on a case by case basis will require common agreement on specific answers to the following questions:
which type of crisis and of what order of magnitude is the system designed or targeted to survive?
what are the relative weights of the probability and severity components as determinants of risk tolerance?
how robust and resilient does a given system need to be for the combined and cumulative impact of emerging risks to be contained within the acceptable level of tolerance?” Maila

3. Contributing factors for fertile grounds for risks to emerge

" A useful metaphor for the process of emerging risk is that of a plant emerging from a fertile ground . What are the contributing factors which make for fertile grounds in that sense ? Could some of these "fertility" factors be generic i.e. prevalent across disciplines while others are strictly domain or sector specific ? What combination of factors may be necessary or sufficient for the grounds to be fertile enough for risk to emerge ? Can the presence of several generic contributingg factors in some combination act as a leading indicator or signalling device as to the likelihood of risk emerging in a variety of settings ? Is it possible to identify ex ante the presence of such a combination of factors even in situations where the risk profile is hard to describe ? " (Maila)

Contributing factors are “INUS sets of causes”: each factor in each set acts as an insufficient but necessary component of its larger set of factors, and this larger set is, itself, an unnecessary but sufficient cause of a particular dangerous outcome." (T. Homer-Dixon).

Contributing factors will be grouped in two categories, according to the type of contribution: 1) linear. 2) non-linear.

In linear factors, amplifiers /attenuators acts as “plus”/”minus”.

In a non-linear case, amplifiers /attenuators acts as “multiply”/”divide”.

Will also be grouped in two other categories: 1) those that are generic 2) those that are sector/domain specific

The dimensions along which the contributing factors can be “analysed” may include (to be developed):
whether the factor is constant or variable
whether the factor is not controllable or controllable
What can amplify or attenuate it (prevent-mitigate-adapt – cost benefit analysis)

A preliminary list of generic contributing factors:

“Each item on that list should need to pass muster against at least 3 different disciplines before it can make it on the list” . … one “would expect the list to shrink as we do more work, particularly if we decide to focus on ex ante identifiability and signalling potential as additional criteria” (Maila).

1. Complexity

From Tad's paper: “Rising complexity accompanies the evolution of almost all adaptive systems over time. It is an intrinsic feature of these systems and not an analytically separate phenomenon.” “Of the characteristics of complex systems, the ones that are relevant to the an emerging risk framework are:

• Unboundedness (or Causal openness): We cannot easily draw a boundary around such systems to determine which factors or variables are important to their behavior and which are not.

• Synergistic causation: Causation in complex systems usually involves multiple factors that combine multiplicatively, which means we cannot identify a single sufficient cause of any particular outcome.

• Non-linear behaviour (or Disproportional causation): In complex systems, small causes sometimes cause big effects, while big changes sometimes cause little effect whatsoever, a characteristic often called nonlinear behavior. Disproportional causation has a range of sources, including the presence within complex systems of self-reinforcing (or “positive”) feedback loops. Together, disproportional and synergistic causation make it difficult to assign a relative weight or importance to a given cause or set of causes. Feedback loops can be subsumed under non-linear behaviour.

• Inertia: Complex systems usually exhibit time lags of varying and often indeterminate length between a given perturbation and the system's behavioral response.

• Threshold behavior: Transitions between equilibria occur abruptly as the system crosses a critical threshold and flips from one state to another. Such flips involve a substantial reorganization of the system's internal relationships.

• Path Dependency and Hysteresis: A complex system's state at any particular time depends on the path the system followed to get to that state – that is, on the causal history of its development. Movement along that path is not trivially reversible. A return to a previous state may be impossible. If it is possible, the system will return via a path different from the one it followed previously.

• Intractable uncertainty: Because of the above characteristics, people trying to manage complex systems usually cannot estimate with any precision future system behavior or its associated risks. Managers are often surrounded by unknown unknowns, which means they are ignorant of their own ignorance.”

Other factors mentioned on 17 Dec:

• Opacity

• Tight coupling - connectivity

• Regime shifts – thresholds

• Length and variability of the time lag – space

2. Asymmetries

Cf Maila's paper

• asymmetries of information

• asymmetries of incentives

3. Degree of safety margin

• “slack” – stress – leverage -Cushion –

• In financial markets, environment, techno systems

• Ability to cope with change, shocks,…

• What is generically important is the degree of stress vs. coping capacity: the relationship between the two

• Ratio between stress and coping capacity. Examples: stress x quality of life – threshold; carrying capacity in ecosystems.

4. Etc

4. Conclusion

• Need: fast innovative capacity

• from management to complex adaptation

[1] ISO Guide 73 defines risk profile (in terms relating to risk treatment, that is the process to modify risk) as the description of any set of risks. The set of risks can contain those that relate to the whole organisation, part of the organisation or as otherwise defined.

Expert Workshop

Celine — 2009-12-16T11:10:22Z

An expert workshop was held at the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal on 20 and 21 April 2009. Attended by experts from science, business and governments, from North and Central America, Europe, Russia and China, the discussion was held under Chatham House Rules in order to encourage free discussion of geoengineering's many risk governance issues.

The workshop was convened by the Portuguese Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education together with the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation, The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the International Risk Governance Council and organised in close cooperation with the Carnegie-Mellon Portugal Program, the National Science Foundation Climate Decision Making Center at CMU and the Energy and Environmental Systems Group of the University of Calgary.