Better prepared for future crises: Recommendations from risk researchers

Risk researchers were making recommendations even before the actual Corona crisis. Despite early warnings of an exponentially growing pandemic, most policymakers around the world appeared unprepared and hesitant as Covid-19 spread from China around the world.

Meanwhile, the crisis has led to unprecedented retrenchment and triggered the worst recession since World War II. In a Article in the "Journal of Risk Research analyze Aengus Collins, Marie-Valentine Florin (both EPFL International Risk Governance Center) and IASS Director Ortwin Renn identify the key factors and make recommendations on how we can better prepare for future crises.

Six causes of the crisis 

The article in the Journal of Risk Research 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 in health systems in many countries, confusion and lack of foresight among many government agencies, difficulties in considering the economic impact of the shutdown alongside 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 Council.

According to the study, five of the aspects of risk governance described there are particularly relevant for the way out of the Corona crisis. For example, there is a need for more capacity for globally effective risk management.  scientific and technical assessment of the risks in particular to provide reliable early warning systems. This research requires complementary analysis of the Risk perception - in other words, individual and societal opinions, concerns and wishes. Because only if these are known and taken to heart can effective crisis communication be pursued and correspondingly effective rules of conduct be issued.

A key task for decision-makers is the Risk evaluationWhether and to what extent are risk reduction 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 assessed options for the Risk Management. It involves 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 managing the crisis is coordinated crisis and Risk communicationThe effectiveness of this depends on a solid foundation in communication science and professional implementation.

From its considerations, the team of authors derives ten recommendations as of:

1. Addressing risks at source: reduce the possibility of viruses being transmitted from animals to humans in the event of a pandemic.
2. Responding to warningsThis includes reviewing national and international risk assessments and developing better safeguards in advance for risks with particularly serious impacts.
3. 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.
4. Consider the role of technology: How can machine learning and other technologies be useful in pandemic assessment, preparedness, and response?
5. Investing in resilienceGains 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.
6. Focus on the most important nodes in the systemIn the event of a pandemic, an early restriction of air traffic is effective. A global emergency fund could be set up for such measures.
7. Strengthening the link between science and policyCountries where the transmission of information and recommendations from science to policy has worked well have been more successful in combating coronavirus.
8. Building government capacitySystemic risk management should be seen as an ongoing component of good governance rather than an emergency response.
9. 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.
10. 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 retained as desirable in the long term.

Publication:

• Aengus Collins, Marie-Valentine Florin & Ortwin Renn (2020) COVID-19 risk governance: drivers, responses and lessons to be learned, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1760332