1. Join the dots on interconnections

Understanding how things are connected in systems deserves more attention in risk assessment. The cascading effects originating from COVID-19 have allowed us to spot the interconnections that exist in many systems and, in turn, whether a system is functioning as intended. They have also allowed us to spot cascading effects that are emerging in structural shifts sparked by the pandemic. For example, in many of the case studies, the effect on the education system also triggered multiple cascading impacts that went beyond the closure of schools alone. This matters because schools are not just places where children are educated. As we saw in our case studies, schools are also places where children can access food and clothing, as well as being provided with safety and a sense of security. To help us join the dots in interconnects, thinking in systems is important. In particular, working together with local experts and stakeholders can support the identification of hidden vulnerabilities and complex relationships rather than simple linear cause-effect chains. Governments, practitioners and communities should embrace a systems-thinking mindset to support systemic risk analysis and management.

2. Map risk perceptions

The way one person sees risk may not be the same as how another sees it, because of differing societal norms, values and the overall context within which the individual is living. An example can be seen in our case study of Guayaquil, Ecuador, as public distrust spurred the spread of misinformation, resulting in some segments of the population disregarding policy measures and not following the rules. A similar phenomenon was seen all over the world. To guide risk management, attention should be paid to the perception of people and how they perceive the fairness of decisions. Participation and continuous communication with communities, and identifying and developing solutions together — as well as explaining them — are important in this respect as they all build trust. These activities have to be an integral part of all risk management activities.

3. Invest in monitoring and evaluation

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how important monitoring and evaluating is. For example, a big part of having the right public health care capacity means having effective early warning systems and enough laboratories for testing in place. It also means having digital monitoring equipment to test and trace, to enable monitoring of hospital capacity and to forecast health care demand. Health institutions in Guayaquil, Ecuador, for instance, struggled to ensure that testing capacity kept pace with the rise in COVID-19 cases. Monitoring and evaluation also have an important role in signalling the possibility of knock-on effects of policy measures and associated cascading risks.

4. Data collection and management

The dynamic, non-linear nature of systemic risk puts new demands on data collection and management. How we collect and interpret data affects decision-making, as was evident during the pandemic, when COVID-19 cases were measured differently, country-by-country. Close-to-real-time data collection results in stronger decision-making in times of disaster and is needed due to the speed with which things can change. The timing and duration of responses are critical management considerations because, as we saw, the duration of lockdowns and their cascading impacts had a profound impact on the proliferation of COVID-19. As such, it is important to regularly evaluate the usefulness and relevance of the indicators we are trying to measure and strengthen transparent and open-access data sharing. Additionally, involving community-based organizations and front-line workers (as was done in the Sundarbans, India) could help in gathering data and building trust.

5. Identify the trade-offs in risk management options and choices

We have seen that measures to combat COVID-19, such as school closures, stay-at-home orders or travel restrictions, had far-reaching and significant cascading effects. This has highlighted a need to assess the trade-offs involved in introducing such measures. In addition, we must answer the question of what level of impact is acceptable and for whom. This requires us to anticipate possible cascading effects on vulnerable people, sectors and systems. At the same time, it’s worth paying more attention to policy measures implemented during the pandemic that were found to trigger positive effects, such as advances in digitalization and strengthening of hygiene practices, which deserve more attention throughout the risk management cycle.

6. Foster collaboration

Addressing risks from a systemic perspective requires formal institutions and informal actors to collaborate across the board. Managing systemic risks is a “whole of society” responsibility, meaning that all societal actors have a role, from government to private businesses, down to the individual. This helps to increase the chance of identifying and managing vulnerabilities across all of society. Lessons can be learned from the management of previous disasters about the expectations of the general public towards leadership in times of crisis. Inspiring examples of the involvement of citizens in risk management practices in the context of the case studies include the Club de Mères in Togo and the female-led self-help groups in the Sundarbans, India. These examples also confirm the importance of supporting and strengthening the ability of communities to self-organize in managing systemic risks. The pandemic has also demonstrated that effective risk management requires a multilevel approach, involving collaboration with and between global, supranational and national institutions, and local communities.

7. Comprehensive risk management

The pandemic has underscored the need for risk management to be holistic; that is, it must encompass disciplines, sectors and institutions at all levels. On top of this, there needs to be more coherence between pandemic risk management, disaster risk management and climate change adaptation, given the interplay between pandemic risks, climate-related extreme events and natural hazards such as floods, storms and earthquakes. The case studies in Indonesia and the Sundarbans, India, illustrate the point: buffeted by the overlapping impacts of the pandemic and multiple climate-related or natural hazards, the experience of communities in these locations shows the need to devise risk management practices that tackle multiple types of hazards and risks in a comprehensive and integrated fashion, covering prevention, response and preparedness, as well as recovery.

8. Communication that translates into effective action

Clear and timely communication results in more effective uptake of policy measures in times of disaster. On the contrary, ambiguous and conflicting communication can result in the spread of misinformation and distrust in risk reduction measures. Both instances were seen in our case studies. In the Maritime region of Togo, the Club de Mères created awareness among the population of the need for proper hygiene, bringing this and other important messages to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to households that were not being reached by conventional communication channels, showcasing how community organizations can communicate effectively in times of disaster. In Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, however, it was found that the failure to include community leaders from religious organizations in the communication process resulted in less effective uptake of COVID-19 policy measures.

9. Tackling gender inequality in risk

While impacts from the pandemic have affected the whole of society, in many countries women have borne the brunt of it, either by being particularly exposed due to the nature of their work or by seeing their share of household activities increase significantly due to educational disruption, or even because of gender-based violence or an increase in child marriage. Countries should address, head on, the gender inequalities that are the root of such outcomes as part of their efforts to reduce risk. For example, societal awareness must be increased, through education campaigns and other means, to prevent gender-based violence. Unpaid care should be recognized for what it is and tackled so that the societies where it is taking place move towards an inclusive “care economy.” In the context of disaster risk reduction, our case studies show that women's groups can play an important role in disseminating good practices.

10. From systemic risk to systemic recovery

The flip side of systemic risk is systemic recovery. This paradigm shift is needed if we are to manage risks and respond to disasters in a manner that considers the needs of future generations and is inclusive for all. Climate change, natural hazards, political instability and the pandemic itself have shown that society is effectively now in a constant recovery mode. Countries competing to purchase vaccines, and the inequality in vaccine distribution that resulted, is a compelling example from the pandemic. However, we saw evidence of how policy measures produce positive outcomes, such as job creation following the provision of financial assistance and advances in digitalization. This points to the potential for systemic recovery that both reduces risk in the present and results in opportunities in the future. It is imperative to consider how systemic recovery is just and inclusive as systems are “built back better.” The focus should be co-creating recovery pathways that can help account for uncertainty as the future unfolds.

chapter 3

understanding and managing risk

A. Our understanding of risk has expanded

B. Lessons and recommendations for managing the systemic nature of risk

BOX 4: Social protection

Get more into detail:

CONTACT

USEFUL LINKS

SOCIAL UNU-EHS

SOCIAL UNDRR