GAR 15 Concept Note:
Interconnected, inter-dependent risk
Input paper for Thematic Research Area 16
Background:
The Global Assessment Report is a biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction (DRR)
and comprehensive review and analysis of the natural hazards that are affecting humanity. The
GAR contributes to achieving the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) through monitoring risk
patterns and trends and progress in DRR while providing strategic policy guidance to countries
and the international community. The GAR aims to help focus international attention on the
problem and need to address disaster risk and consolidate political and economic support to
DRR1.
The GAR is coordinated by UNISDR in collaboration and consultation with a wide range of
stakeholders, including various UN agencies, governments, academic and research institutions,
donors and technical organisations and specialists.
The GAR 2015 will inform the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015 in which the
successor of the HFA will be negotiated.

GAR15 will not have a theme, but will ask where DRR is going beyond 2015, and what the
future will look like, and examine what are the challenges ahead.

GAR15 will have three main sections: 1. HFA1 retrospective / forward looking to HFA2, 2.
Global patterns of risk, 3. Section on future challenges

The Retrospective will examine the degree to which HFA has been fit for purpose in
engineering change for enhanced risk management using as sources of information, a)
government appraisal, and b) thematic reviews documenting what has happened in the
different areas of expertise, identifying gaps and making proposals for the HFA2 and future
impact (rather than input) indicators.

The thematic reviews will follow an IPCC inspired process and will not reflect institutional
progress but provide independent scientific/academic reviews, including areas which reflect
progress but were absent from the HFA1.
A number of organisations have assumed the responsibility to coordinate the development of
background papers for the GAR15 developed through the lens of the 22 core indicators of the
HFA. The thematic review also seeks to address issues that are at the core of effective risk
management, and which have not been appropriately represented in the HFA.
Interconnected, inter-dependent risk is one such issue that merits a specific research area, the
coordination of which has been assumed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD).
The 22 Core Indicators and three emerging issues have been merged into to 16 Research Areas.
Interconnected, inter-dependent risk represents Research Area 16.
Interconnected, inter-dependent risk
1
http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/gar
The Priorities for Action have been matched to 16 Research Areas. PFA-/CI- is coupled with PFA-/Cinto Research Area -.
Summary Information on Research Area 16
Guiding principle: National disaster risk management strategies need to incorporate risk analysis
and risk treatment programmes that address the increasing degree of economic integration, and
interdependencies between different sectors of critical infrastructure. Mapping and modelling of
complex risks and interdependent systems of critical economic importance can guide prevention
and mitigation policies to address hazards and their economic knock-on effects that do not travel
linear pathways.
Progress:
▫
▫
Countries report having undertaken tailored analyses of the risks of critical system failures
that could produce catastrophic cascade effects due to functional interdependence or
physical proximity.
Risk management decisions pertaining to complex risks are informed by more than one
model
Challenges:
▫
▫
▫
The interdependence of the public and private sectors means that business competitiveness,
sustainability and resilience also depend on governments’ ability to manage disaster risk
through effective policies.
Governments depend on business investment to generate employment and the wealth
required to provide public services. Likewise, businesses depend on reliable public
infrastructure and utilities, on efficient urban systems, on an educated and healthy workforce
and on a range of public services.
Reducing disaster risks in business and in public investment presents a win-win situation for
both.
Future considerations:
▫
▫
Unique dynamics of risk in urban settings need to be examined more closely, with recognition
of the interconnectedness of risk, for instance, the cascading effect of damage to power
utilities triggering failure in water treatment and distribution systems.
In today’s global economic and political turmoil, rapid technological change and increasing
inter-connectedness of global trade, financial markets and supply chains, larger businesses
perceive an increasingly riskier world. For businesses, this means an unprecedented degree
of volatility, unpredictable events and sudden change in which risks can manifest swiftly and
unexpectedly, with far-reaching ramifications.
Objective:
The overall objective of the exercise is to determine to what degree the HFA has been fit for
purpose, and identify improvements both in the content and the indicators of the successor
framework to the HFA (HFA2) that will be adopted in 2015.
More specifically, guidance to the HFA Thematic Review invites research to examine:




What changes have been observed since the adoption of the HFA in 2005, and what has
been the impact in terms of risk to society;
To what degree has this been facilitated by the HFA or other emerging issues in effective
disaster risk management;
Determine if the change was adequately captured by the indicator in its current form and
if not propose an alternative impact indicator;
What elements will need to be developed for inclusion in the successor framework to the
HFA.
Scope of analysis:
The research is of global nature and should provide a good coverage and global balance.
However its aim is to move beyond a national review, either at a sub-national and local
assessment of the effectiveness of the indicator at the community level, or at an international
assessment of the effectiveness of the indicator.
It is important to specify in the abstract how this will be achieved.
An abstract can cover one or several of the below topics, or suggest new topics of enquiry
relevant to the indicator:
Areas of Enquiry - Some guiding questions:
a. How do you define inter-connected risks? If at all possible, please illustrate this in some
examples of disasters that had cascading impacts.
b. To what extent have countries developed models and/ or maps for the identification and
management of inter-connected risks emanating from their national and/or foreign territory?
If at all possible, please provide country examples and a description of the approach, as well
as potential existing challenges.
a. Are these models conceived in an integrative process, including private and public
stakeholders, and addressing complex risks cross-sectorally? Are there dedicated risk
information channels between critical operators and public authorities? How is this exchange of
information regulated and/or controlled?
b. Do countries have models or assessments that indicate to which extent its economic value
chains, or specific sectors therein, are exposed to risks emanating from a foreign territory,
and have those countries put mitigating, including regulatory, measures in place?
c. Do these models and/or maps identify exposed and vulnerable hubs that could propagate
risks? Do they identify social, economic, technological and/or regulatory amplifiers? Do they
identify emerging risks (trends in behaviour driven by incentives or technological innovation)
that have yet to reach a tipping point?
d. What are the sectors which tend to be amplifiers in inter-connected risks? Transport? Energy?
Finance? Utilities? Please describe the scenario that gave rise to this domino effect.
e. How are these tools used to inform national DRR policies? Provide examples of countries
having integrated inter-connected risks into comprehensive DRM plans.
f.
Are there examples of national policies specifically designed to diversify critical hubs and/or
create incentives or regulatory approaches to increase the robustness or diversification of
critical hubs in the private sector? ? Are there examples of public investment or policies to
support private sector operation of back-up systems for critical systems?
g. How do you analyse natural hazards triggering technological disasters (NATCH)? What are
the issues and problems solved to deal with NATECH?
Deliverables:
1.
Abstract
A generic submission form was designed by UNISDR to submit an abstract by the 24th of October
(http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/networks/private/hfa-thematicreview/index.php ). Five to eight abstracts will be chosen and asked to be developed into full
research by their authors.
2. Input paper
Selected Authors will follow the “Guidance on HFA Core Indicators Thematic Research” which
has been developed by UNISDR and can be found on the same website:
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/networks/private/hfa-thematicreview/index.php
Timeframe:
Call for abstracts:
30th September 2013
Submission of Abstract:
31st October 2013
Selection of 5-8 Abstracts (UNISDR & OECD):
8th November 2013
Submission of input paper by Lead Authors:
6th January 2014
Consolidation of input paper into a background Paper:
30th January 2014
Contacts in OECD:
If you have any question or need for clarification, do not hesitate to contact:
Jack Radisch jack.radisch@oecd.org
Catherine Gamper Catherine.gamper@oecd.org