Transcript ภาพนิ่ง 1 - Prince of Songkla University

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Session 8
RISK MANAGEMENT
Parichart Visuthismajarn, Dr. phil., Asst.Prof.
Faculty of Environmental Management
Prince of Songkla University
Objectives
Risk management definition
Approaches to risk management
Aspects of risk management
Principles & challenges of risk management
Risk Tradeoffs
Impact of perception
Urban air pollution
Remedial action risk management process
Use of risk management in the military
Labeling systems for risk management (DOT, NFPA)
Management systems – ISO 14001
Environmental audit process
Qualitative risk management systems, several examples
Risk management
Risk Management is reducing risks to an
acceptable level, which is?
– Zero risk? – no risk is acceptable – unrealistic
– Acceptable risk? – who defines what is acceptable
– De Minimus and De “Manifestis” Risks
de minimus, that is trivial risks
– Often considered less than 1 in 1,000,000 risk
de “manifestis” that is obnoxious risk
– Controlled without regard to cost; risk greater than 1 in 1000
Risk Assessment complicates management by
exposing
– Uncertainty and variability
– Differences in stakeholder understanding and
perceptions
How Risk Management fits into
the process
: www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/ esn/risk/risktext.htm
source: www.iupac.org/publications/ ci/2001/march/
Environmental management
methods
Economic
Instruments
Indirect Regulation
Direct
Regulation
Emissions
trading
Deposit-refund
Consumption
fees
Performance
bonds
Grants, loans
Tax relief
Subsidy Removal
Government spending
Information
Publicizing behavior
Reporting
performance
Education
Standards
Regulations
Inspections
Penalties
Risk = Hazard x Exposure
If this is true, then risk management is a
function of reducing or eliminating:
– Hazards
– Exposure
– Consequences (harm) of expsoure
Risk management must be formulated in
the context of the culture
– Socio-economic
– Socio-political
Risk Management
Involves decision-making
that incorporates:
– Prioritizing risks
– Determining acceptable level
of risk
– Determining resources to
reduce risks to an acceptable
level
– Determining the greatest
benefit for the resources to be
expended
– Planning
– Implementing
Risk assessment &
management integrated
systems
framework
Identify
Develop
risk
Implement &
Define
Prioritize
Objectives
Resources,
Assess Risk
Corporate
objectives
EHS
policies
Site
specific
goals
Driving
forces
Analytical
boundaries
Adapted from Autenrieth
Worker
Public
Ecologic
al
Consume
r
Financial
Reduction &
Opportunities
Avoidance Alt.
Likelihood
Magnitude
Eliminate
Reduce
Respond
Communica
te
Threshol
d criteria
Benefit
estimatio
n
Cost
estimatio
n
Time
sensitivit
y
Benefit
to cost
ratio
Review
Results
Resource
allocation
Schedule
milestones
Independen
t review
Continuous
improveme
nt
Use of Risk Management in the
Military
The use of risk
assessment methods
in the military varies
– Quantitative Health
Risk Assessment
follows generally
accepted principles
– Qualitative methods
are also used for
decision-making
Six Steps of Risk Management
in Military
Step 1
– IDENTIFY HAZARDS DURING MISSION ANALYSIS
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF
POLLUTING THE AIR, SOIL, WATER, OR DEGRADE
NATURAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Step 2
– ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
AND VIOLATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT MATRICES
Step 3
– MAKE DECISIONS AND DEVELOP MEASURES TO REDUCE
HIGH RISKS
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Six Steps of Risk Management
in Military
Step 4
– BRIEF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND APPROPRIATE
DECISION MAKERS
PROPOSED PLANS AND RESIDUAL RISKS
Step 5
– IMPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES
INTEGRATE THEM INTO PLANS, ORDERS, SOPs,
TRAINING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
REHEARSALS
Step 6
– SUPERVISE AND ENFORCE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
TRAIN TO THESE STANDARDS
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/gta/5-8-2/050802_top.htm
Management Systems
Plan
Act
Do
Check
Environmental Management
System
4.2
Environmental
policy
4.6
Management
review
4.5
Checking and
corrective action
4.3
Planning
4.4
Implementation
and operation
Compliance & Management Systems
(adding context)
Compliance Status
High
Good Performance But
Not Sustainable
Sustainable
Zone
Weak Systems &
Poor Performance
Ineffective
Systems
Low
Early
Mature
Management Systems Development
Social Risk Management Framework:
Basic thrusts:
The poor are typically most exposed to diverse risks
– traditional and modern
The poor least equipped to deal with these risks
– The poor are most vulnerable
– High vulnerability makes them risk averse and thus unable or
unwilling to engage in higher risk/high return activities
SRM seeks to account for multiple sources of risk and their
characteristics to address vulnerability
– Operates with multiple strategies (prevention, mitigation, coping)
and arrangements (informal, market-based, public) to deal with
risk
– Attempts to match the multiple suppliers of risk management
instruments (such as households, communities, NGOs, and
governments) with key demand groups (formal, informal-urban
and informal-rural workers)
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Sources and Forms of Social Risk
Micro
(idiosyncratic)
variant)
Natural
Meso
Macro
(co-
Rainfall
Earthquake
Landslide
Volcanic eruption
winds
Health
Illness
Injury
Disability
Birth
Old-age
Death
Crime
Domestic violence
Unemployment
Life-cycle
Social
Economic
collapse
Floods
Drought
Strong
Epidemic
Terrorism
Gangs
Resettlement
Harvest failure
Business failure
Civil strife
War
Output
Financial
or currency
crisis
Technology
Political
social prog.
Environmental
Ethnic discrimination
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Riots
Pollution
Deforestation
Nuclear disaster
Default on
Risk Management Strategies
Prevention Strategies - to reduce the
probability of down-side risk
Mitigation Strategies - to decrease the
impact of a future down-side risk
– Portfolio diversification
– Insurance
– Hedging/Risk exchange
Coping Strategies - to relieve the impact
once the risk (the event) has occurred
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Risk Management Arrangements
Informal arrangements, e.g.
– marriage, real assets, mutual community
support
Market-based arrangements, e.g.
– cash, bank deposits, bonds and shares,
insurance contracts
Publicly provided or mandated
arrangements
– social insurance, transfers in cash and
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Arrangements/
Strategies
Risk reduction
Matrix of Social Risk Management
(examples)
Informal/personal
Formal/ financial
Formal/publicly-mandated/provided
market-based
Less risky production
Migration
Labor standards
VET
Labor market policies
Disability policies
Risk mitigation
Portfolio
Insurance
Hedging
Risk coping
Multiple jobs
Investment in human, physical
and real assets
Marriage/family
Community arrangements
Share tenancy
Tied labor
Investment in
multiple financial
assets
Old-age annuities
Disability/Accident
Multi-pillar pension systems
Social Funds
Selling of financial
assets
Borrowing from
banks
Transfers/Social assistance
Subsidies
Public works
Mandated/provided for
unemployment, old-age, disability,
survivorship, sickness, etc.
Extended family
Some labor contracts
Selling of physical and real
assets
Borrowing from neighbors
Intra-community transfers/charity
Sending children to work
Adapted from Holzmann, 1998
Framework for studying vulnerable population
Policy
Social and
Ethical norms
Perspective
economic policy
and values Community
Community resources
Community-oriented
(-)
People
Ties between
people
Neighborhoods
Individual
Resources
Social status
Social capital
human capital
(+)
At-risk
Resource
availability
(+)
Individual
health policy
Vulnerable
Populations
Relative
risk
(+)
(-)
Community and
Individual WellBeing
Individual
Health Needs
(+)
Level
public health policy
of analysis
Community
health Needs
Common Good
Statistical
Physical
Reciprocity
(aggregate)
Psychological
Interdependence
lives
Social
Health
status
(+)
Vulnerable
Individuals
Susceptible to:
harm
or neglect
Medical care and
Physical
Psychological
Social
Individual
(identifiable)
lives
Individual Rights
Autonomy
Independence
Note: (+) indicates direct relationship (likelihood of outcome increases as predictor increases; (-) indicates inverse
relationship (likelihood of outcome decreases as predictor increases)
Source: Aday (1994)