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 retrenchment 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.
Aengus Collins from the French-speaking part of Switzerland, Marie- Valentine Florin - both working at the EPF Lausanne in the International Risk Governance Center - and the German IASS Director Ortwin Renn present the actual key factors of crises in their article "COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned", published in April 2020 in the "Journal of Risk Research".
Below 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 health system capacity in many countries, confusion of authority and lack of foresight among many government agencies, difficulties in considering the economic impact of the shutdown in parallel with the health consequences, and capital market weaknesses stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. In developing proposed solutions, the team of authors uses the International Risk Governance Council framework co-developed by Ortwin Renn.
Thus, it is necessary to create more capacities for a globally effective scientific-technical assessment of risks, above all in order to provide reliable early warning systems. The newly developed research requires the complementary analysis of risk perception - i.e. individual and societal opinions, concerns and desires. For only if these are known and taken to heart can effective crisis communication be pursued and correspondingly effective behavioural regulations be issued.
A key task for decision-makers is risk evaluation: whether 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 face of widespread uncertainty?
Evaluated options for risk management then follow from the evaluation. The aim is to take collectively binding decisions on measures to minimise the overall suffering of the affected population.
It also includes strategies to reduce undesirable side effects. An essential prerequisite for overcoming the crisis is coordinated crisis and risk communication, the effectiveness of which depends on a foundation in communication science and professional implementation.
The researchers derived ten recommendations:
- Catching risks at source: i.e. in the case of pandemics, reducing the possibility of viruses being transmitted from animals to humans.
- Respond to warnings: This includes reviewing national and international risk assessments, and developing better safeguards in advance for risks with particularly severe impacts.
- Take account of conflicting objectives: Measures to reduce a particular risk have an impact on other risks. Undesirable side effects must be taken into account in the risk assessment.
- Considering 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 left 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, an early restriction of air traffic is effective. A global emergency fund could be set up for such measures.
- Strengthening the science-policy link: Countries where the transmission of information and recommendations from science to policy has worked well have been more successful in combating coronavirus.
- Build government capacity: Addressing systemic risks 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.
- Reflecting 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 maintained as desirable in the long term.
