Categorie: Report

Geplaatst op

Global Risks Report 2007

World Economic Forum

“At the core of this year’s overview of risks to the global community over the next decade is a fundamental disconnect between risk and mitigation. Expert opinion suggests that levels of risk are rising in almost all of the 23 risks on which the Global Risk Network has been focused over the last year – but mechanisms in place to manage and mitigate risk at the level of businesses, governments and global governance are inadequate. The global economy has been expanding faster than at any time in history – but it remains vulnerable.

Some tactical gains have been made in specific areas of risk mitigation: despite the raised threat of terrorism, cooperation on dealing with the threat continues to improve; fears of a major pandemic outbreak have driven a major effort to upgrade our global preparedness to identify and isolate new diseases; there is a growing recognition of the need to improve access to mechanisms of risk transfer in emerging markets, to allow risks to be priced in a way that allows the potential economic growth of this century to be fully unlocked.

There has also been major improvement in the understanding of the interdependencies between global risks, the importance of taking an integrated risk management approach to major global challenges and the necessity of attempting to deal with root causes of global risks rather than reacting to the consequences.

Climate change is now seen as one of the defining challenges of the 21st century – and as a global risk with impacts far beyond the environment. Effective mitigation of climate change may ultimately have the consequence of improving resilience to oil price shocks in developed countries by moving them from hydrocarbons to alternative energy sources; ineffective mitigation of climate change will almost certainly be a factor in major interstate and civil wars within the next 50 years. The way in which climate change is dealt with at the global level will be a leading indicator of the world’s capacity to manage globalization in an equitable and sustainable way.

But the tactical gains may be illusory and are certainly temporary. The manifestation of any number of global risks in the way described in the plausible scenarios in this report could quickly put those gains into reverse.

Global Risks 2007 suggests two possible institutional innovations that may help mobilize businesses and governments to approach the global risks of the next 10 years. One is the idea of a Country Risk Officer – an analogy to Chief Risk Officers in the corporate world – intended as a focal point for managing a portfolio of risk across disparate interests, setting national prioritization of risk and allowing governments to engage in the forward action needed to begin managing global risks rather than coping with them. The second is to create an avant-garde of relevant governments and companies around different global risks – “coalitions of the willing” – allowing risk mitigation to be a process of gradually-expanding alliances rather than a proposition requiring permanent consensus.

Above all, Global Risks 2007 makes the case for the active engagement of all sections of the international community in dealing with global risks. No one group has the ability to effectively mitigate most global risks. Interdependency implies not just common vulnerability, but a shared responsibility to act.

Download Global Risks Report 2007

Geplaatst op

Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

HM Treasury UK | 2006

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents serious global risks and demands an urgent global response. This independent Review was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who reports to both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, to contribute to assessing the evidence and building an understanding of the economics of climate change.

The Review first examines the evidence on the economic impacts of climate change itself and explores the economics of stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The second half of the Review considers the complex policy challenges involved in managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and in ensuring that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided.

The Review takes an international perspective. Climate change is global in its causes and consequences, and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required. This response will require deeper international cooperation in many areas – most notably in creating price signals and markets for carbon, spurring technology research, development and deployment, and promoting adaptation, particularly for developing countries.

Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The economic analysis must therefore be global, deal with long time horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at centre stage, and examine the possibility of major, non-marginal change. To meet these requirements, the Review draws on ideas and techniques from most of the important areas of economics, including many recent advances.

The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs

The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.

No-one can predict the consequences of climate change with complete certainty; but we now know enough to understand the risks. Mitigation – taking strong action to reduce emissions – must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future. If these investments are made wisely, the costs will be manageable, and there will be a wide range of opportunities for growth and development along the way. For this to work well, policy must promote sound market signals, overcome market failures and have equity and risk mitigation at its core. That essentially is the conceptual framework of this Review.

The Review considers the economic costs of the impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause it, in three different ways:

    • Using disaggregated techniques, in other words considering the physical
      impacts of climate change on the economy, on human life and on the environment, and examining the resource costs of different technologies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    • Using economic models, including integrated assessment models that
      estimate the economic impacts of climate change, and macro-economic
      models that represent the costs and effects of the transition to low-carbon
      energy systems for the economy as a whole.
    • Using comparisons of the current level and future trajectories of the ‘social
      cost of carbon’ (the cost of impacts associated with an additional unit of
      greenhouse gas emissions) with the marginal abatement cost (the costs
      associated with incremental reductions in units of emissions).

From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a
simple conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.

The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.

At the same time, given that climate change is happening, measures to help people adapt to it are essential. And the less mitigation we do now, the greater the difficulty of continuing to adapt in future.

Download Stern Executive Summary

Visit National UK Archives

Geplaatst op

Global Risks Report 2006

World Economic Forum | 2006

Towards a more sophisticated understanding of global risks, this document summarises the output of a collaboration between the World Economic Forum, MMC (Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.), Merrill Lynch and Swiss Re, in association with the Risk Management and Decision Processes Center of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, on the topic of Global Risks. The purpose of this collaboration, building on work undertaken in 2004, was to:

    • Identify and assess current and emerging global risks in the 2006 and 2015 time horizons.
    • Study the links between them and assess their likely effect on different markets and industries.
    • Advance the thinking around more effective mitigation of global risks.

Lees verder “Global Risks Report 2006”

Geplaatst op

Global Risks to the Business Environment

World Economic Forum | 2005

Global Risks to the Business Environment: “This paper, the output of two workshops organised by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with Merrill Lynch, reviews major, global risks facing business leaders today, and examines how those risks differ from the challenges of the past. Some key points:

1) Global Risks and Business

At a time when risks not specific to business are having an unprecedented effect on the corporate world, it is crucial for business leaders to understand the environment in which their business operates, in order to survive, remain competitive and grasp opportunities.

2) An Increasingly Turbulent and Complex World

Today’s risks are much more interconnected than in the past. They are much more volatile and can disrupt markets throughout the world with almost instantaneous precision. Such risks can be difficult to anticipate and respond to, even for the most seasoned business leaders.

3) The Global Risks

We identify 36 “global” risks, classified into four categories: economic, geopolitical, societal and environmental. This report details the prevailing consensus reached at our workshop discussions as to the ten risks most likely to have a major or extreme impact on business:
• Instability in Iraq
• Terrorism
• Emerging fiscal crises
• Disruption in oil supplies
• Radical Islam
• Sudden decline in China’s growth
• Pandemics – infectious diseases
• Climate change
• Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
• Unrestrained migration and related tensions

4) Risk Mapping – Connecting the “Dots” and Spotting the Patterns

In an interconnected world, global risks should not be considered on a stand-alone basis; it is important to understand how they can trigger, amplify or buffer one another.

5) Dealing with Global Risks

Seldom can global risks be addressed by a single business entity, industry or country, and many institutional mechanisms are proving fairly ineffectual as they struggle to cope with the challenge. There is also a large discrepancy between the immediate time horizon employed by most business and political leaders and the long-term approach required to tackle risks on a global scale. As a result, our capacity to address risk is jeopardized; a myopic tendency – or worse, denial – prevails. Finally, of equal concern is the problem that some major risks are being passed on to those least able to solve them – or with least responsibility for creating them.”

Global Risks to the Business Environment

Geplaatst op

Global Risks Report 2013

World Economic Forum

The report analyses 50 global risks in terms of impact, likelihood and interconnections, based on a survey of over 1000 experts from industry, government and academia.

This year’s findings show that the world is more at risk as persistent economic weakness saps our ability to tackle environmental challenges. The report highlights wealth gaps (severe income disparity) followed by unsustainable government debt (chronic fiscal imbalances) as the top two most prevalent global risks. Following a year scarred by extreme weather, from Hurricane Sandy to flooding in China, respondents rated rising greenhouse gas emissions as the third most likely global risk overall.

The findings of the survey fed into an analysis of three major risk cases: Testing Economic and Environmental Resilience, Digital Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World and The Dangers of Hubris on Human Health. In a special report on national resilience, the groundwork is laid for a new country resilience rating, which would allow leaders to benchmark their progress. The report also highlights “X Factors” – emerging concerns which warrant more research, including the rogue deployment of geoengineering and brain-altering technologies.

Read online

WEFvGlobal Risks Report 2013

Geplaatst op

Risicoperceptie van gemeentesecretarissen

Bert van de Velden, Leo ’t Hart en Franc Weerwind* | 2004, VGS en Marsh

Anticiperend op het per 1 januari 2004 in te voeren Besluit Begroting en Verantwoording provincies en gemeenten (BBV) is medio 2003, bij een aantal gemeentesecretarissen het idee ontstaan om aandacht te geven aan het onderwerp risicomanagement. Dit idee is vervolgens uitgewerkt en besproken met het bestuur van de VGS. Hierbij is afgesproken om binnen het kader van risicomanagement onderzoek te doen naar de risicoperceptie van gemeentesecretarissen.

Bij publieke besluitvorming spelen veel aspecten een rol. Visie, nut en noodzaak, uitvoerbaarheid, (financiële) haalbaarheid en handhaafbaarheid zijn voorbeelden van die aspecten. Risicomanagement is een ander perspectief dat bij deze besluitvorming een rol kan spelen.

Lees verder “Risicoperceptie van gemeentesecretarissen”

Geplaatst op

The environment and bilateral development aid

Brian Johnson and Robert O. Blake | 1979

Since January 1977, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has been conducting a research program on the environmental policies and programs of major development aid organizations. The first of IIED’s studies in this field, a report on environmental procedures and practices in nine multilateral development agencies, was completed in 1978 and published in book form as “Banking on the Biosphere?” (Lexington Books, New York, 1979).

This study aroused considerable interest and IIED, as a result, decided to conduct a parallel policy review in relation to six bilateral aid agencies. This “assessment project” began in May 1978 with the agreement and support of the aid agencies of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States.

The study’s aim was:

    • To assess the extent to which policies, procedures and programs of the six bilateral agencies promote sustainable, environ­mentally sound development.
    • To examine the constraints to improved environmental performance in these agencies, that might be necessary to remove or substantially reduce these constraints.

At the end of a decade (The Seventies, ed.) in which international concern has arisen sharply at the depletion, misuse and overuse of world resources, there is a high level of public and official interest in the impact of aid programs on developing countries’ environmental resources. This new interest caused the development aid agencies of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States to sponsor the present study.

The IIED and the six national research teams that carried out this study found that there is general consensus in the aid agencies studied as to the meaning of “environment” in the context of development problems. This represents a major change from the confused position of only three or four years ago.

In the minds of most (but not all) of the officials of these agencies, it is clear that a broad, “holistic” interpretation of the concept is not only acceptable but necessary.1 This recognition by officers of the holistic nature of the concept “environment” is an important step ahead.2

We also found growing recognition of the importance of emphasizing the interconnectedness of all facets of development and of rejecting any notion that the “environmental concerns” can merely be considered one more “add-on” to be planned for in the economic development process.

1 The term environment as used in this report is synonymous with human environment: the biological and physical components which exist and processes which operate on the earth’s surface and in its atmosphere, and which have direct or indirect influence on humans. The phrase environmental effect: a change in the environment resulting from human action. Environmental impact: the net change
in human well-being resulting from an environmental effect; the environmental impact of a development scheme is the difference in well-being between implementation and non-implementation of the scheme.

2 Almost all “environmental” problems can be defined under other headings, especially resource use, public health and amenity. What gives the word “environment” relevance is its meaning of total surroundings implying inter-connectedness. Thus, the word “environment” means, a dam or a housing project.

The most important feature of this consensus is that environment is now beginning to be seen not as an additional subject, the examination of which has to be added woodenly on to traditional development considerations. Rather this is increasingly seen as a whole new approach to development which gives greater weight to the sustainability of results and to the costs of destructive side effects of projects.

However, one major finding of this study is that this new view, however widely accepted theoretically, has still made too little impact on the orientation and design of the projects or practical development policies of the agencies studied.

Recognizing that each nation’s aid program is bound to have particular priorities which reflect that country’s broad political, economic and socio-cultural relations with recipients of its aid, the comparative report finds that:

    1. There is a need to define more thoroughly environmental and natural resource objectives and concerns in the context of aid programs as a whole.
    2. The most urgent attention should be given to helping developing countries build up their own capacity to study and manage their own environmental problems. This effort should be closely related to donor efforts aimed at fostering greater environmental concern in these countries.
    3. There is a need to encourage and fund a much higher level of consideration and rehabilitation projects commensurate with the rapidly increasing needs of recipient countries.
    4. Policy documents which are produced in each agency project design and execution frequently lack adequate attention to environmental implications.
    5. In only three of the agencies studied was there a clearly focal point for environmental responsibility. A framework for systematically checking on environmental implications is essential.
    6. Procedures to ensure that projects are systematically for environmental impact and where necessary subjected to environmental examination are also needed.
    7. There is a strong case for greater multilateral cooperation in the utilization of donor country resources in these areas.

This report belongs to the selected and used sources of the Brundtland Report.