Ortwinn Renn - Towards Increased Resilience

1,311
-1

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,311
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999 3 May 1999 Draft 1
  • Ortwinn Renn - Towards Increased Resilience

    1. 1. Towards increased resilience: The role of social capital in inclusive risk and disaster governance” International Disaster Reduction Conference Davos, August 28, 2012 Ortwin Renn Stuttgart University and DIALOGIK gemeinnützige GmbH
    2. 2. PART 1 Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience
    3. 3. Risk, Vulnerability and Resilience  Risk: Probability of a risk agent (hazard) impacting on a risk absorbing system (target) and causing specific extent of damage  Vulnerability: The extent to which the risk absorbing system reacts to the stress induced by the risk agent  Resilience: The extent to which the risk absorbing system has the capacity to cope with stress induced by the risk agent
    4. 4. Vulnerability and Resilience  Risk: Probability of a risk agent (hazard) impacting on a risk absorbing system (target) and causing specific extent of damage  Vulnerability: The extent to which the risk absorbing system reacts to the stress induced by the risk agent  Resilience : The extent to which the risk absorbing system has the capacity to cope with stress induced by the risk agent
    5. 5. Main Objectives for Resilience 1.to guarantee the functional continuity service in times of stress and disaster 2.to limit the extent of losses and impacts if the service is discontinued 3.to ensure fast recovery if the provider of the service is unable to continue to provide the needed service
    6. 6. PART 2 Model of Inclusive Governance
    7. 7. Efficiency Acceptance Fairness Effectiveness Legitimacy Participation Mediation The basic structure of inclusive (risk and disaster) governance
    8. 8. Crucial Questions for Inclusion  Inclusion Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s) What: options, policies, scenarios, frames, preferences Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal) Scale: space, time period, future generations  Closure What counts: acceptable evidence)experience What actions should be taken?: competition of rationales, goals, objectives How can performance be evaluated? Different standards, role of accountability, success
    9. 9. Who should be involved?  Vertical governance  Political bodies ranging from communities via regions, states, countries, to international level Other agencies or ministries (disaster, planning, development, housing, health care) Subordinate administrations  Horizontal governance Stakeholders (organized groups with an interest in the issue including private sector and NGOs) Experts (groups with specific knowledge) Multipliers (Media, opinion leaders) Affected and general public
    10. 10. General Requirements for Inclusive Governance  Fairness  inclusion of all affected parties  representation of all relevant arguments  representation of all relevant interests and values  Competence  communicative ability (able to make claims and challenge them)  substantive validity (state of the art in knowledge)  Regional appropriateness  Accountability  transparency (internal and external)  Reliability  compatibility with legal mandates  Efficiency  procedures  outcomes
    11. 11. PART 3 Application to Risk and Disaster Governance
    12. 12. Why Inclusive Governance for Risk & Disaster Governance? a. Plurality of modern living conditions: resource availability, living conditions, values, lifestyles b. Increased uncertainties with respect to future development, climate change impacts, socio- political transformations c. Movement towards decentralization (political preference, local quest for more autonomy) d. Distributed knowledge and expertise (systematic, tacit, experiential, local) e. Better communication and planning tools available (IT, real time monitoring) f. Limited resources and distribution of agency
    13. 13. Problems of Inclusive Risk and Disaster Governance a. Lack of central mega-planning, coordination, control, supervision (governance deficits) Balance of assignments (mandate, roles, functions) among all actors Fragmentation of responsibilities a. Quality control Lack of competence Lack of accountability a. Incompatibility of approaches (differences in disciplines, organizational cultures, mandates, identities b. External constraints: Exclusive focus on efficiency on the expense of resilience
    14. 14. Requirements for Inclusive Risk and Disaster Governance a. Organizational structure with emphasis on:  distributed intelligence and operations but strong efforts to foster a common organizational culture and identity and promoting auditing, supervision, and organizational learning. a. Adaptive management procedures, including:  regular revisiting of goals, means, and procedures  and conducting internal/external reviews a. Use of IT-tools and open access services to prove a common communication platform for all actors involved b. Create a learning environment that provides incentives for all actors to improve performance
    15. 15. Model for Effective Inclusive Governance (US National Academy of Scienes) Experiential knowledge agencies, Vert:ical: Cooperation between central and decentral agencie Horizontal: Private-public partnerships, stakeholder involvement, public participation ANALYIS Regional tacit knowledge, Knowledge integration/monitoring DELIBERATION Interdsiciplinary science community
    16. 16. CONCLUSIONS Resilience: – functionality of system – impact limitation and – ease of recovery Need for a transition towards inclusive risk and disaster governance Need for adaptive risk and disaster management based on decentralized operations and centralized coordination One model: the analytic-deliberative approach to organize inclusive governance
    17. 17. EXTRA SLIDES
    18. 18. Introducing the IRGC’s Risk Governance Framework DecidingUnderstanding Pre-assessment ManagementCommunication Characterisation and evaluation Appraisal IRGC’s RISK GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Who needs to do what, when? Who needs to know what, when? Is the risk tolerable, acceptable or unacceptable? Getting a broad picture of the risk The knowledge needed for judgements and decisions

    ×