When risk-based regulation aims low: a strategic framework

This article develops a strategic framework for regulators to employ when choosing intervention strategies for dealing with low risks and reviewing performance, building on the analysis by the same authors in the previous edition of this journal. The framework occupies the operational “middle ground” between risk analysis and formal enforcement action. At its core is a matrix, the Good Regulatory Intervention Design (GRID), which provides a framework to categorize sites or activities on the basis of two factors: the nature of the risk and the nature of the regulatee. Using GRID, regulators can select which intervention tools to use, and determine the overall level of regulatory intensity that should apply. GRID is accompanied by the Good Regulatory Assessment Framework (GRAF) for agencies to use in reviewing their performance and provides a step-by-step process for enabling “double loop learning.” The article also argues that the process of developing such a framework highlighted the extent to which “low risk” and “high risk” regulation are distinct. “Low risk” means “low priority.” Justifying why certain risks should not receive much regulatory attention requires a particular type of engagement, and has a bearing on the regulatory strategies that are adopte

Climate Refugees: Why Measuring the Immeasurable Makes Sense Beyond Measure

Climate change-related human movement typically occurs within a complex web of commingled contributory causative factors. Hence the multicausality inherent in human movement makes attribution or disaggregation of causality an almost intractable problem. Nevertheless, climate change is now widely recognized as a key contributing migration push factor. Moreover, there is agreement among experts that its contribution to migration, relative to other causes, is growing. This suggests a possible, if not probable, influx in “climate refugees” (Reeves and Jouzel 2010), although this term is contested in the literature (cf. Zetter 2017; Ahmed 2018; see Box 1). Adopting a posture of “preparedness” emerges as an important priority for effective adaptation to climate change, where “migration” is seen not as a “failure to adapt” but rather as a “strategy to survive”. This discourse argues that quantitative scenarios of “climate refugees” are an essential prerequisite for anticipatory adaption to climate change

How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision-Theoretic Evaluation

<p>Internationally, national risk assessment (NRA) is rapidly gaining government sympathy as a science-based approach toward prioritizing the management of national hazards and threats, with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in leading positions since 2007. NRAs are proliferating in Europe; they are also conducted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, while regional RAs now exist for over 100 Dutch or British provinces or counties. Focused on the Dutch NRA (DNRA) and supported by specific examples, summaries and evaluations are given of its (1) scenario development, (2) impact assessment, (3) likelihood estimation, (4) risk diagram, and (5) capability analysis. Despite the DNRA's thorough elaboration, apparent weaknesses are lack of stakeholder involvement, possibility of false-positive risk scenarios, rigid multicriteria impact evaluation, hybrid methods for likelihood estimation, half-hearted use of a probability x effect definition of risk, forced comparison of divergent risk scenarios, and unclear decision rules for risk acceptance and safety enhancement. Such weaknesses are not unique for the DNRA. In line with a somewhat reserved encouragement by the OECD (Studies in Risk Management. Innovation in Country Risk Management. Paris: OECD, 2009), the scientific solidity of NRA results so far is questioned, and several improvements are suggested. One critical point is that expert-driven NRAs may preempt political judgments and decisions by national security authorities. External review and validation of major NRA components is recommended for strengthening overall results as a reliable basis for national and/or regional safety policies. Meanwhile, a broader, more transactional concept of risk may lead to better national and regional risk assessments.</p>