Discussion 1: Access to Risk Information & Resilience Solutions
  • Sophie AbrahamSophie Abraham
    Dear All,

    Our second round of discussions this week is entitled: “Decreasing Existing Risk Exposure: Business Solutions for Governments and Enterprises”. It will focus on the exchange of risk information and business solutions between the public and the private sectors and how this process of exchange can reduce disaster risk for cities, global value chains as well as micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME’s). Public-private partnerships for disaster risk reduction and resilience are based on the recognition that neither the public, nor private sectors can manage such risk on their own. Collaboration is essential, not out of altruism, but out of sheer self-interest.

    The topic of Discussion 1 is on “Access to Risk Information & Resilience Solutions”. While we can all agree that disaster risk management policies need to be underpinned by robust mechanisms for information generation, management, and sharing, there still remains a number of key challenges in acessing and sharing risk information.

    I look forward to your contributions to this discussion around the questions listed below.

    Many thanks and kind regards,

    Sophie Abraham (Willis Group, UNISDR Private Sector Advisory Group member)
    Moderator, Online Consultation, Business for Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience



    Key Questions for Discussion:
    1. How can the post-2015 HFA leverage private sector expertise and incentivize public-private partnerships to decrease the existing risks of critical infrastructure such as hospitals, water and power plants and transport lifelines? Please give examples of good partnerships and the preconditions that enabled such a partnership.

    2. How can the private sector better share its data management expertise and advanced analytical capacities with the public sector and the communities they operate in? What are the mechanisms in place for sharing that work now, and what can/should be improved further?

    3. What existing data and risk information (e.g. meteorological) could be more actively shared with the private sector, both multinationals and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME’s)?

    4. What social media channels can be used to communicate risk information to the private sector? How can the private sector, in turn, communicate that information to its clients/customers to spread risk and resiliency messages?

    5. How can the public sector create an enabling environment to increase the penetration of disaster insurance solutions, and access to insurance analytics and science to support risk awareness?
  • David BreschDavid Bresch
    As a specific way of disseminating knowledge and sharing risk assessment tools, see www.iac.ethz.ch/edu/courses/master/modules/climate_risk with an open-source climate adaptation tool directly available here https://github.com/davidnbresch/climada
  • Kgosietsile MaripeKgosietsile Maripe
    Q1. A deliberate effort should be taken to bring along the private sector into the disaster dialogue stream. It is time to know that disaster risk reduction is for all actors and all can be victims. Losses of whatever nature can be suffered by all. As such, they should be brought along and be assisted to curve their role in the disasters risk reduction stake.
    Q2. Currently there are no mechanisms through which the private sector can share its data management expertise and advanced analytic capacities with the public sector and the communities. This should be a deliberate effort by stakeholders challenging each other for engagement in dialogue, think tanks, research, and information sharing ultimately defining the pathways of sharing capacities.
    Q3. There is quite some meteorological information on climate and weather change patterns that can be shared with the private sector and health related changes but the information must be packaged for the special target group. It can be just general information. It is advisable that the agencies concerned organize data for consumption by different groups (intellectuals, business community, and the common man).
    Q4. Taking that disasters are not only a probability but also a possibility and have the potential to destroy developments of decades, the public sector must engage the different stakeholders on dialogue, research on the matter, and provide training where necessary to ensure a safe environment for all players. Look into policies and legislation that needs to be put in place to promote safe and resilience
  • Anna KilmartinAnna Kilmartin
    The Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities has commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to develop a report that analyses the need for a national approach to consolidating research, data and associated funding to better protect Australian communities against the impact of natural disasters.

    Speaking on behalf of the Roundtable, Insurance Australia Group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Mr Mike Wilkins said: “Reducing the impact of natural disasters is a priority for all of us. A more coordinated approach to research would enable government, industry and community to more easily identify information that could help save lives and property. It would also help ensure funds are directed into research areas where they can have the most benefit.

    “It is widely recognised that while there is a range of research being conducted on natural disasters in Australia, it is largely uncoordinated. It’s not clear who is doing what, where overlaps exist and what is not being researched extensively enough. In a country where individuals and communities regularly face natural disasters, like bushfires, cyclones and floods, this matters.”

    The evidence based report will take stock of Australian natural hazard data and research and consider international best practice. It will be the first national analysis of its type and will look at what information exists, where there are gaps and what could be done to make research more accessible. It will also include assessment of research into the long-term psychological and social cost of natural disasters.

    The report, due to be completed mid-year, will examine the cost efficiencies behind the centralisation and consolidation of research and funding and the benefits of a national research agenda.

    The Roundtable’s White Paper ‘Building our Nation’s Resilience to Natural Disasters,’ published in June last year, identified that a more coordinated national approach to data gathering and information sharing is critical to building a more resilient Australia.

    Last year’s White Paper forecast the cost of natural disasters in Australia to rise from $6.3 billion a year currently to around $23 billion a year in 2050. It estimated that through pre-disaster investment the impact of disaster response on government budgets, and taxpayers, could reduce by more than 50%.

    The Australian Government announced in December 2013 that it would ask the Productivity Commission to examine the full scope of national expenditure on natural disasters and the effectiveness of current mitigation support measures. The Commission will also be asked to examine the best ways to reduce the impact of natural disasters on communities and how they recover in a sustainable way. The Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience & Safer Communities supports this Inquiry.

    Roundtable members are the Chief Executive Officers from Australian Red Cross, Insurance Australia Group, Investa Property Group, Munich Re, Optus and Westpac.

    Members of the Roundtable have come together to champion the need for a more sustainable, coordinated national approach to make communities more resilient and people safer. They believe that national investment in disaster resilience and preventative activities is the most effective way to protect communities and reduce the impact of disasters.

    For more information and a copy of the Roundtable White Paper ‘Building Our Nation’s Resilience to Natural Disasters’:www.australianbusinessroundtable.com.au
  • Mark BakerMark Baker
    Public Private Partnerships are a useful method of bringing together both government and private resources together to reduce risks. This can be done for any of the various Pillars of Emergency Management.

    Some successful examples from Canada are;

    1. The Private Sectors Working Group of the Canadian Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/pltfrm-dsstr-rsk-rdctn/wrkng-grps-eng.aspx). The Private Sector Partnerships Working Group provides Canada's Platform with informed advice on relevant strategies and takes the lead in identifying priorities in appropriate DRR activities and fostering disaster resiliency. It guides, sets priorities, and supports the development of economic resilience in the private sector to enhance its ability to plan for response and recovery from disasters. It seeks opportunities for collaboration both within the private sector and with government at all levels to promote community resilience.

    This group has participated and sponsored panel discussions at the CRHNet (Canadian Risk and Hazard Network) Symposium in 2013 as well as facilitating Natural Resources Canada’s presentation of Public Federal Resources on Natural Hazard Risk during Business Continuity Awareness Week , (http://bcaw.groupsite.com/main/summary) . The Natural Resources Canada Presentation featured HAZUS Canada http://hazuscanada.ca/

    Both of these events have helped in determining risk and therefore contributing to the Mitigation/Prevention pillar of Emergency Management.

    2. GTIME (Greater Toronto Incident Management Exercise) I and II (http://driegtime.org/index.php). GTIME a cross disciplinary project that attempts to seek out and analyze best practices for public/private cooperation in addressing wide scale events and incidents where the Greater Toronto Area is affected at large, assessing key risks, sharing information, and planning together to address those risks. GTIME works to bring together government, business and emergency services for a meaningful dialogue on our collective abilities. This team will seek to express ideas, opinions as a group, and attempt to drive change and evolution across business and government.

    GTIME has held two exercises that have brought together all levels of government, first responders, Business Continuity Professionals, Landlords, facilities managers, emergency management Professionals, security professionals and those concerned with the effects of disasters. These exercises provide a forum where various disparate groups can discuss/test their plans and process and get to know the people you will have to work with in a disaster.

    Those groups that have partnered in these exercises are; BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association) Toronto , DRIE (Disaster Recovery Information Exchange) Toronto, SAFE (South Area and Facilities Entertainment) Group and the OEM (Office of Emergency Management) City of Toronto. These exercises strengthen the Preparedness pillar of Emergency Management.

    3. While not Canadian I would be remiss in not mentioning ChicagoFIRST, our neighbours to the south. ChicagoFIRST is a non-profit association of private firms in the Chicagoland area that collaborate with one another and with government at all levels to promote the resilience of its members and the Chicago business community. They also have my favorite motto for disasters “A disaster is not the place to be exchanging business cards”. Again they strengthen the preparedness pillar of emergency Management.

    In terms of the success of such organizations, In these various endeavors I have found the following have helped with success. Some are easy, some are not so easy.

    a. Like minded people will go out of their way to help you
    b. People will come out for free food and drink
    c. Always ask for something, the most they can do is say no
    d. People and organizations have vastly different needs, always try to determine and
    help what is in it for your partner
    e. Organizations and people can be discouraged by many things, tread carefully
    f. Be flexible as to your partner’s needs, you have show what is in it for them, as
    perceived by them (not you)
    g. You will make mistakes, allow yourself the freedom to this and move on.
    h. There is not a common corporate (or otherwise) culture, a common vision, or even
    a language in the various groups and disciplines involved in disaster and
    emergency management
    i) Different terminologies
    ii) Different goals
    iii) Different problems
    iv) Different constituents to satisfy
    v) Different personalities
    i. The good news there are ways around the above
    i) Work slowly, baby steps. This sort of collaboration will never happen fast.
    Take the time to talk and get to know each other. Stories actually help, They
    create camaraderie and help determine a common lexicon
    ii) Lots of good will (and forgiveness) on all sides
    iii) Flexibility, be prepared to change
    iv) Collaboration works both ways, with the public side learning as much from the
    private and vice versa
    v) Learning is part of the value added
    vi) ALL must learn from each other as all have to work together in case of an event

    This has been Canadian Experiences, or at least mine, in doing public private work.
    Hopefully this will help others in developing public/private partnerships.

    Mark W. Baker
    Co-Chair Private Sector Partnerships Working Group
    Canada’s Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
    http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/pltfrm-dsstr-rsk-rdctn/wrkng-grps-eng.aspx
This discussion has concluded and posts can no longer be made.