Better prepared for future crises: Recommendations from risk researchers
In an article published in the "Journal of Risk Research," leading risk researchers from Western Switzerland and Germany address the drivers and key factors of a pandemic. They also provide concrete recommendations on how we can better prepare for future crises.
Risk researchers were making recommendations even before the actual Corona crisis. Nevertheless, although there were early warnings of an exponentially growing pandemic, most policymakers appeared unprepared or hesitant, and it was not until COVID-19 spread from China around the world in March 2020 that risk experts were consulted.
Meanwhile, the crisis has led to unprecedented restrictions and triggered the worst recession since World War II. Despite the ongoing global pandemic, people are taking to the streets, demanding more welfare for themselves in general, and new digital technology and progress solutions are making the rounds in industry and business.
The French-speaking Swiss Aengus Collins, Marie-Valentine Florin - both at the EPFL Lausanne at the International Risk Governance Center tatitig - and German IASS Director Ortwin Renn present actual key factors of crises in their article "COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned," published in the April 2020 Journal of Risk Research.
The following are the findings of the risk researchers and recommendations on how our high-tech society can better equip itself against crises.
A framework for the crisis
The article provides an overview of the spread of Covid-19 and describes six causes of the crisis: the exponential rate of infection, international interconnectedness, lack of capacity of health systems in many countries, confusion of competencies and lack of foresight among many government agencies, difficulties in considering the economic impact of the shutdown in parallel with the health consequences, and weaknesses in the capital market stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. In developing proposed solutions, the team of authors uses the framework co-developed by Ortwin Renn of the International Risk Governance Councils.
Thus, it is necessary to create more capacities for a globally effective scientific-technical assessment of risks, above all to provide reliable early warning systems. Newly developed research requires complementary analysis of risk perception - that is, individual and societal opinions, concerns and desires. For only if these are known and taken to heart can effective crisis communication be conducted and correspondingly effective behavioral regulations be issued.
A key task for decision-makers is the Risk evaluationWhether and to what extent are risk mitigation measures necessary? Which trade-offs arise in the design of measures and restrictions and how can these be resolved according to recognized ethical criteria, even in the presence of extensive uncertainty?
The evaluation is then followed by evaluated options for the Risk Management. It involves collectively binding decisions on measures to minimize the overall suffering of the affected population. It also includes strategies to reduce undesirable side effects. An essential prerequisite for managing the crisis is coordinated crisis and Risk CommunicationThe effectiveness of these measures depends on a solid foundation in communications science and professional implementation.
The researchers conducted ten recommendations from:
- Addressing risks at the source: thus, in the case of pandemics, reduce the possibility of viruses being transmitted from animals to humans.
- Respond to warnings: This includes reviewing national and international risk assessments, as well as developing better safeguards in advance for risks with particularly severe impacts.
- Observe conflicting goals: Measures to reduce a particular risk have an impact on other risks. Undesirable side effects must be included in the risk assessment.
- Consider the role of technology: How can machine learning and other technologies be useful in pandemic assessment, preparedness, and response?
- Investing in resilience: Gains in organizational efficiency have made critical systems like healthcare vulnerable. Now their resilience must be strengthened, for example by reducing dependencies on key products and services.
- Focus on the most important nodes in the system: In the event of a pandemic, early restriction of air traffic is effective. A global emergency fund could be established for such measures.
- Strengthening the link between science and politics: Countries where the transmission of information and recommendations from science to policy has worked well have been more successful in combating coronavirus.
- Build state capacity: Dealing with systemic risk should be seen as a continuous component of good governance rather than an emergency response.
- Better communication: Communication on Covid-19 has been slow or faulty in a number of countries. One solution to this would be to establish national and international risk information and communication units.
- Reflect on social ruptures: The Corona crisis is forcing people and organizations to experiment with new patterns of living and working. Now is the time to consider what changes should be retained as desirable in the long term.
Literature reference:
Aengus Collins, Marie-Valentine Florin & Ortwin Renn, " COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned, Journal of Risk Research" (2020, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1760332)
