National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies Facing UK - Thesis Proposal Example

Critical review of the National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies facing UK in the next five years Introduction The aim of this poster is to critically appraise the national risk register of civil emergencies for the people in the UK for the next five years. This will be done through critical evaluation and assessment of the strategic decision making process employed by the assessment team. It will also evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of risk assessment techniques applied in this risk assessment and critically analyze the team’s choices and the risk assessment tool they used in the assessing the risks. Risks assessment The UK government published the NRR document, which gives a fairly detailed assessment of the potential impact and likelihood of a number of risks such as hazards (natural disasters), threats (malicious attacks), and accidents, that may affect communities in five years. The aim of the report is to educate the community so as to increase awareness of the main risks, in order to prepare for it. The report also gives details of what the emergency service unit is doing in the preparation of the emergencies. The report provides is a result of approach to risk management, by all levels of public administration including local to national government level, as well as communities. NRR did not give a clear definition of risk; instead, it identifies the type risks that the UK faces as well as the risk management strategies by the government, organizations and the community. The risks are mainly measured statistical predictions and probabilistic assessment, as it takes advantage of quantitative data (statistics) supplemented by few qualitative data (expert opinions), case studies and historic events. For example, in cases of hazard which often include accidents, disasters, natural events, etc, the likelihood of a risk is determined based on quantitative statistical models as well as scientific and historical information. Assessment of probability of risk like attacks by terrorists is usually determined by qualitative method, relying on the intelligence and the opinions estimates by the experts, for complimenting the empirical data or as the main relevant source. The quantitative data is preferred due to the fact that in risk analysis decision making are designed to provide appropriate or priority measures that can be used to counter the specific threats that exist in a specific risk. In other words, it should provide knowledge which can be acted upon based on scientific relevant information. The report identifies hazards as natural events, while malicious attacks are treated as threats. In all cases, risks are considered to be a negative phenomenon which needs to minimized, not really as possible chance such as in business and infrastructure. In many instances, risks are mentioned in reference to the future events that are subjected to human agency and are therefore shaped by those who are now conducting the risk analysis. There is however no discussion on the disadvantages and advantages of analyzing risks in the security field as well as the consequences and the cost of local and international politics. However, it can be noted that practitioners can benefit greatly through critical and in depth discussions among themselves on the pros and cons of the analysis of risks of security as approached in a more political way. This may include a debate on how risks which may not be easy to quantify can be dealt with. The risk assessed The NRR risk assessments covered a wide range of risks spectrum, providing some background to back the claims. Such risks include: diseases and natural events, terrorist attack and potential accidents. Under natural events, the report mentions a range of potential emergencies that could arise due flooding, volcanic activities, animal or human disease. The risks include: mic influenza, coastal flooding and severe volcanic eruptions. The major accidents discussed include transport and industrial accidents, while attacks comprised attacks in populated places and attacks on the critical transport, information and infrastructure systems. For all these sections, there is reference to the historic events. But NRR focused only on risks which are sufficiently severe and would require the government to respond. However, there was less consideration of some scenarios which may they be have considered them to be outside the “comfort zone”. Such find include money laundering and terrorism finance. This led to the rejection of potential evidence just because such indicators lie outside normal situation, suggesting that experts from these fields were not consulted. Thus the findings are not up to date and lack enough information. If enough time could have been taken to assess all risk especially the issues at hand, it would have produce a better work, which can provide more comprehensive and useful information. The assessing team did not involve the experts from various fields to give informed risk analysis, assumptions and judgement which represent broad fields. As a result, the document failed to address such relevant and pertinent issues in a more inclusive manner. Risks quantification/qualification The National risk register (NRR) assessment team, ranks the risks that have been assessed depending on the impact and the probability in harmony to the prevalence of risk. The results of the evaluation are presented in form of a risk matrix which allowed risks categorization and estimation based on their impact and likelihood providing a clear overview of risks probabilities. However, the use of risk matrix tool is very subjective, and individuals may misperceive risk, especially in this case where the people who made the categories just used the templates. In these findings there is limited evidence to show that scientific study and detailed use of risk matrix has been utilized in making decisions and in prioritizing and categorizing risks. They never utilized the available mathematics based methods to quantify uncertainty, for pooling scientific advice to minimize this epistemic risk or employ scientific judgment to improve decision making. Without such scientific approach, the use of matrix can be influenced more by human bias, bringing to doubt the value of these findings. This method of categorizing clearly has its flaws and the data values may not give a complete representation of the reality. Also the matrix does not have any scale to show what constitute high or low levels of concern. In addition, there not enough justification to show how specified typologies were categorized or are there enough facts to back them. This means that assumptions have been used to produce these results, based on limited facts. This makes the use of risk matrix inadequate. Template data The data has been put in risk matrix tables which provide a clear view of the possible risks at different levels. However, the table alone cannot provide evidence of the choice of the level and categories of risks or their existence in the first place. There is no information to justify the individual typology and the levels as categorized in the tables. Extra information could have explained why certain levels were chosen as the correct category for the risk matrix table and specify the process used to arrive at a given level; this information could have validated the typologies and the risks levels as categorized in the report. This could have validated the results and the data in the risk matrix form could have had more value. Hazards and threats The report provides a distinction between natural events which is normally called hazards and events due to human actions which include threats. The report tends to be as broad as possible which is in line with traditional approach. This approach covers a wide range of risks which is closer to the traditional emergencies or crisis management rather than that of that of national security. This is because complex and unknown crises need strategic resilience and preparation as well as organizations. Each risk or scenario is assessed based on the impact that relates to important critical security interests and values of the community and the government. This assessment follows a wide security concept that includes environment, society and security issues. The main approach towards national security is geared towards the risk due terrorism though natural disaster is also prominent. Probabilistic approach Probabilistic risk assessment has been used in this report. This is evident by the use of ‘possible that’ and ‘likely’ in chapter 3. This may have had greater weight when setting the level of risk tolerance or when describing future problems that considered. The problem with this approach is that the recommendations that were made for future were far, less and lacked significance and usefulness. This led to less consideration of the consequences of risks occurrences for those risks which are considered less probable, but may have serious impact. Such issue as money laundering was not even mentioned. Simply because they are irrelevant as there is no discussion of any kind. If serious analysis were made where all risks are analyzed and preventive measures identified whether its probability of occurrence is low, then this assessment could have been more valuable. Irrelevant case studies Although it is not possible to exhaust all the civil emergencies, all the relevant fields which can be used to prepare for emergencies should be addressed. The report threats some fields like money laundering and terrorism finance as irrelevant as there is no discussion of any sort in relation to the incidents. More evaluation and analysis for each case study could have provided useful additional information to the report. Conclusion In UK, risks analysis clearly have direct influence on the management of national security rather than for operation purposes. This assessment will fairly facilitate improved decisions making due to clarity of risk dimensions which encompass likelihood events and possibility of severe results. It assist the state to place more emphasis on measures of reduction of risks in a more sustainable way and therefore address the issue of rising socio-economic costs of disasters incurred due to preparation and response to risks. This report is has defined risks through representation of risks as scenarios and quantification of data. However, the details of analysis are not in depth as hoped. There is also less integration of risk analysis into wider political operations. These suggest that the report is a result of a rush to try to comply with the 2004 Act. The assessment relied on assumptions and biasness by the assessment team, therefore producing inaccurate findings. Factual information and scientific analysis of the relevant and reliable data should have been analyzed. There is no doubt that this assessment could have been more comprehensive if some critical and wider areas like money laundering and terrorism finance could have been analyzed. The national risk assessment should have strengthened this report through the help of experts drawn from relevant fields including scientific, technical and analytical fields. As a result, the risk assessment produced failed to identify and assess vital range of risks which can enable the Government to prepare enough for civil emergencies. Read More