@article {bnh-1871, title = {Whose risk is it anyway?}, number = {074}, year = {2015}, month = {06/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This desktop review presents a summary of risk ownership allocation for the strategic management of natural hazard risks in Australia. It forms part of the project Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale undertaken for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.

Risk ownership here is restricted to strategic pre- and post-events for natural hazard disaster management. Other aspects of ownership, such as the undertaking of emergency response, where Australia has a significant and well-recognised capacity, are not addressed.

Risk ownership is explored through three questions:

These questions take in the two main definitions of risk ownership that cover the asset owner and the risk manager: the person or entity with the accountability or responsibility of managing a risk.

The key findings are described according to the strategic aspects of managing the risk of natural hazards:

Ownership was examined within a matrix of broad institutions (federal, state/territory and local government, business and industry, and civil society) and values (built, social and environment assets, and infrastructure). Risk ownership across this matrix was found to be allocated according to individual hazards, ownership of assets, tasks associated with the risk management process and policy/legislative instruments.

Risk ownership is highly dynamic. The systemic nature of natural hazard disasters is characterised by their potential to cross domains and move from one risk owner to another, affecting a wide range of ownership. Risk ownership is also changing as new operational structures and processes are emerging, and growing within and across institutions. Also found was variable interpretation of risk, risk ownership and lack of clarity of appropriate governance, particularly across areas of multiple ownership.

Review of pre- and post-event policies and strategies revealed ownership strengths in the following areas:

Ownership gaps were observed in the following areas:

Areas of interest regarding ownership that will be explored further in the next phase of this project include:

This review has highlighted some of the challenges for ascertaining the allocation of risk ownership for natural hazards and disasters. It has also revealed areas where ownership is less well allocated and potential pathways for this to be developed. \ The breadth and complexity of integration and coordination across institutions to enable effective management of natural hazard risk effectively needs the comprehensive allocation of risk ownership to evolve over time. This will require new structures and adaptive ways of thinking that can incorporate new knowledge as it emerges. It will also require institutions to think systemically, not only within and across their own domains, but also across the broad system of values that are the foundation of our economy.

}, issn = {074}, author = {Celeste Young and Symons, J and Roger Jones} }