Reducing Risks, Protecting People A Harmonised Approach
|
|
- Juniper Floyd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Reducing Risks, Protecting People A Harmonised Approach R.B. Foster Health and Safety Executive, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, UK INTRODUCTION Risk training, education and communication usually refers to the responsibilities of those who generate risk (e.g. operators of nuclear power plants) towards those who are exposed to the risk (e.g. employees working in the plants and those living in the vicinity). In this context training, education and communication are often intended to transfer information from risk professionals to a largely uninformed audience, with a view to improving standards or providing reassurance. However, with higher standards of education and with the growth of media such as the Internet, those to whom such training, education and communication have traditionally been directed are now much better informed. In addition, within developed countries increasing prosperity and higher standards of living have triggered marked shifts in the values, preferences and expectations of society. In general the traditional, paternalistic approach that governments, corporations and associations have taken in the past in determining how involuntary risks should be addressed is no longer acceptable to society. People want to be involved - or at least to have the opportunity to be involved - in decisions about how the risks to which they are involuntarily exposed are addressed. Within the UK, for example, this is very evident for nuclear power and other applications of ionising radiation, and in other areas such as genetically modified food. One outcome, strangely enough, is not a wish by society for institutions to retreat from taking such decisions, but rather that such decisions should be taken only by institutions that are trusted. But such trust is not bestowed lightly. Institutions have to work hard to earn and maintain trust, and hard-earned trust can all too easily be lost. A consequence of these developments is an onus on government regulators of risk from hazardous activities to demonstrate that the decisions they take, and the way they go about taking them, are fair, consistent and accountable. This in turn has led to an increasing expectation that regulators should explain the principles and processes they adopt, and the criteria they apply, in reaching their decisions. All this does not make life easy for regulators! Of course, regulators still have to formulate standards, communicate them to those responsible for risk reduction and see that the necessary controls are in place. But in addition regulators have to be able to answer convincingly questions such as: why are risks from certain work activities (e.g. those involving ionising radiation) controlled to much lower levels than those from others? what determines whether a risk is unacceptable? when should a risk be reduced further? is the approach to risk reduction precautionary? how are stakeholders involved in decisions? This paper describes how the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the regulator of risk from work activities in Great Britain, has responded to these challenges by preparing and publishing an account of how it goes about its task of regulating risk and assisting the Health and Safety Commission (HSC). The HSC is the statutory body responsible for administering occupational health and safety legislation in Great Britain. Its primary function is to make arrangements to secure the health, safety and welfare of people at work, and the health and safety of the public, in the way work activities are conducted. HSE advises and assists HSC in its functions and is responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation, licensing of nuclear power stations, etc. The scope of work activities within HSC/E s remit is very broad it includes manufacturing, health services, education, construction, farming, railways and extractive industries as well as gas and electricity utilities, including nuclear power. A RISK REGULATION FRAMEWORK HSE has recently set out an account of how it goes about its task of regulating risk in the form of a discussion document entitled Reducing Risks, Protecting People (1). This document develops an approach first used in the context of nuclear power (2) and extends it to risks from all work activities. The discussion document aims to: open to scrutiny HSE's approach to the management and regulation of risk and the philosophy underpinning it; make transparent the factors that inform its decisions on risks, for example scientific knowledge, the technology available to control the risks, and public attitudes towards the risks and associated benefits; 1
2 help to reassure the public that industry, in taking advantage of technological advances, will not be allowed to impose unnecessary risks on people; let other regulators, whose responsibilities may overlap with those of HSC/E, know the basis for the management of occupational health and safety risks and thereby help to promote consistency of decision-making between regulators. The document brings together the criteria, protocols and tools HSE adopts in a six-stage process for informing and reaching decisions: 1. Decide whether the issue is one of health and safety risk and therefore one for HSC/E; 2. Define and characterise the issue; 3. Examine the options available and their merits; 4. Adopt decisions; 5. Implement the decisions; 6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the action taken. Progressing through the stages is an iterative process which often requires earlier stages to be revisited. The involvement of stakeholders at all stages in the process is essential. Stage 1 is necessary because pressure is often put on HSC/E to tackle issues where the health and safety of people is not the prime consideration - for example the development of an airport in a built-up area. In stage 2 HSE decides how the issue should be framed or described in terms of problems to be tackled and the means for tackling them, so the problem is addressed as our stakeholders see it. We also examine how the issue can then be characterised in terms of risk by examining how the risk arises, how it impacts on those affected and on society at large. We usually achieve this by undertaking an assessment of the risks involved, in a way that seeks to ensure that our stakeholders will regard as valid the process and inputs used to carry out the assessment. In stage 3 we identify the options available for managing the risks. These can range from doing nothing to introducing measures (regulatory or non-regulatory) to get rid of the problem altogether, or to reduce it to one which people are prepared to live with in the knowledge that further measures will continue to be sought to reduce the risks as low as reasonably practicable. The courses of action available are many and varied and could include: improving the available knowledge base through research; providing more information and guidance to duty holders to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities; publicity campaigns to create awareness; engaging the assistance of intermediaries in the health and safety system; stronger enforcement of existing legal provisions; exerting pressure for heavier penalties on transgressors; targeting action on those able to control the risks as distinct from imposing lowest common denominator provisions on everybody; and if necessary, proposing new measures that are commensurate with the risks to be addressed, e.g. new law. In stage 4 we review all the information gathered in the previous stages and select the most appropriate option for managing the risk. The criteria that we use for doing this take the form of a framework known as the tolerability of risk (TOR). The TOR framework is illustrated in Figure 1. The triangle in Figure 1 represents an increasing level of 'risk' (measured by the individual risk and the societal concerns they engender) moving from the bottom of the triangle towards the top. The dark zone at the top represents an unacceptable region. For practical purposes, a particular risk falling into that region is regarded as unacceptable whatever the benefits. The light zone at the bottom, on the other hand, represents a broadly acceptable region. Risks falling into this region are regarded as insignificant and adequately controlled. Further action to reduce risks will not usually be required unless reasonably practicable measures are available. The zone between the unacceptable and broadly acceptable regions is the tolerable region. Risks in that region are typical of the risks from activities that people are prepared to tolerate in order to secure benefits, in the expectation that: the nature and level of the risks are properly assessed and the results made available. The assessment of the risks needs to be based on the best available scientific evidence and, where that evidence is lacking, on the best available scientific advice; the risks are not unduly high, are kept as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), and are periodically reviewed. 2
3 Unacceptable region Risk cannot be justified save in extraordinary circumstances Increasing Individual risks and societal concerns Tolerability Region Broadly acceptable region Control measures must be introduced for risk in this region to drive residual risk towards the broadly acceptable region If residual risk remains in this region, activity is undertaken only if a benefit is desired and risks are tolerable only if further risk reduction is impracticable or if there is gross disproportion between the time, trouble and effort involved and the reduction in risk achieved Level of residual risk is insignificant. Further resources to reduce risk likely to be grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction achieved Negligible risk Figure 1. HSE s tolerability of risk (TOR) framework In stage 5, having reached a decision on the degree to which a risk should be controlled, we decide how the decision can be implemented in practice using the regulatory tools at our disposal. We usually place the responsibility for controlling a risk on the person who creates it or failing that on the person who is in a position to do something about preventing or minimising the risk. Finally, in stage 6 our process includes ex post procedures to establish: whether the actions taken to ensure that the risks are adequately controlled resulted in what was intended; whether decisions previously reached need to be modified. This could arise because, for example, what was considered at the time to be good practice may no longer be regarded as such as a result of new knowledge, advances in technology or changes in the level of societal concerns; the appropriateness of the information gathered in the first two stages of the decision-making process to assist the decision maker, e.g. the methodologies used for the risk assessment and the cost benefit analysis (if prepared), or the assumptions made; whether improved knowledge or data would have helped to reach better decisions; any lessons to guide future regulatory decisions, improve the decision-making process and promote greater trust between regulators and those affected by, or having an interest in, the risk. Having outlined our six-stage process for informing and reaching decisions, and the TOR framework, the remainder of this paper explains how the approach in Reducing Risks, Protecting People is applied in policy formulation, regulatory development and enforcement activities, and specifically how it helps us to answer the five questions posed in the introduction above. WHY ARE THE RISKS FROM CERTAIN WORK ACTIVITIES CONTROLLED TO MUCH LOWER LEVELS THAN THOSE FROM OTHERS? This question is particularly relevant to ionising radiation. The UK (like many other countries) has, for 3
4 example, a strict licensing system for nuclear power stations covering all aspects of the design, construction, operation, and modification of each installation, together with a rigorous system for scrutinising licence applications and amendments against high standards of engineering and good management practice. In addition, the licensing system is policed by a dedicated inspectorate (the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate) within HSE. The standards applied and the resources devoted to this particular work activity could not be justified on the basis of the level of individual risk to workers, the public or the environment (which are controlled to very low levels), or by the accident history. Figure 1, however, makes clear that our judgement about levels of risk to people that are unacceptable, tolerable or broadly acceptable is a combination of both individual risk and societal concerns. Societal concerns arise where aspects or attributes of the hazard could, if the risk were realised, provoke a socio-political response. For nuclear power the levels of societal concern are very high, reflecting the well-known perception and cultural factors associated with ionising radiation (e.g. 3, 4). These require us to apply a very stringent control regime, both to reduce the level of individual risk to and to assuage the societal concerns, such that the overall level of risk is brought down to a very low level. WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER A RISK IS UNACCEPTABLE? Figure 1 makes clear that there are levels of risk (in terms of a combination of both individual risk and societal concerns) that are unacceptable. Any activity or practice giving rise to risks falling in the unacceptable region would be ruled out (i.e. banned) whatever the benefits unless the activity or practice can be modified to reduce the risk such that it becomes tolerable or broadly acceptable. Risks, therefore, may be unacceptable on the grounds of a high level of risk to exposed individuals, or because of the repercussions of an activity or an event (e.g. a nuclear incident) on society as a whole, or because of a combination of the two. Indeed, it would be surprising if high levels of individual risk did not give rise to societal concerns on the basis of equity. The converse, however, is not true societal concerns can arise from hazards which give rise to relatively low levels of individual risk, but which can, for example, impact disproportionately on groups which society considers vulnerable and so deserving special protection. For ionising radiation this includes, e.g. the unborn. It follows, therefore, that the boundary between the tolerable and unacceptable regions depends on the nature of the hazard as well as the consequence of the risk. However, based on criteria first applied in the context of nuclear power (2), we adopt as a working rule for risks entailing fatalities that an individual risk of death of one in a thousand per annum should on its own represent the dividing line between what could be just tolerable (provided everything has already been done to reduce the risk ALARP) for any substantial category of workers for any large part of a working life. For members of the public who have a risk imposed on them in the wider interests of society we reduce this criterion by an order of magnitude, i.e. to one in ten thousand per annum. However, these limits rarely bite. These levels of individual risks are set for exceptional activities where the risk is most difficult to control, and are based on international agreements. In practice most industries in the UK (including the nuclear industry) do very much better. In addition, where the societal concerns arise from the risk of multiple fatalities from one incident from a single major industrial activity, HSE has proposed that the risk of an accident causing the death of fifty or more people in a single event should be less than one in five thousand per annum (1). WHEN SHOULD A RISK BE REDUCED FURTHER? The levels of risk characterising the broadly acceptable region in Figure 1 are comparable to those that people regard as insignificant or trivial in their daily lives. They are typical of the risk from activities that are inherently not very hazardous or from hazardous activities that are so well controlled that risk control measures are at the limit of practicability. At this point the residual risks are such that the resources needed to introduce further control measures are likely to be grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction achieved. Nonetheless, we take the view that, if it is possible to reduce the risk at minimal cost, such action would be warranted. In general, however, HSE considers that an individual risk of death of one in a million per annum for both workers and the public corresponds to a very low level of risk that represents a reasonable guideline for the boundary between the broadly acceptable and tolerable regions (Figure 1). Whilst this guideline for the boundary is useful for HSE as a regulator in indicating when resources may be better deployed elsewhere, it applies only to individual risk where the consequence is death. In occupational health and safety issues there are many potential consequences and the hazards may give rise to societal concerns. Regulators and duty holders need other criteria to decide when the level of residual risk is tolerable. HSE s approach is pragmatic we refer to good practice. Our starting point is that suitable controls must be in place to address all significant hazards and that, at a minimum, those controls must implement authoritative good practice precautions irrespective of situation-based risk estimates. In effect we take authoritative good practice as representing a consensus between regulators, technical experts, duty holders, safety representatives, etc. on the action necessary (taking account of what is technically feasible, the balance of costs and benefits and, 4
5 if necessary, other factors such as the need to alleviate societal concerns) to result in a tolerable level of residual risk. We accept as authoritative good practice the requirements of UK legislation, Approved Codes of Practice and Government guidance. In general we also accept standards produced by standards-making organisations (e.g. CEN, CENELEC, ISO, ICRP, BS) and guidance produced by bodies representing UK industrial or occupational sectors (e.g. trade federations, professional institutions, etc.) provided the guidance has gained general acceptance in the safety movement that it does represent good practice. In effect all this provides an abundance of authoritative good practice on which to draw in determining when the level of residual risk is tolerable. Only where there is no reliable base of good practice for ensuring that risks are adequately controlled, is it necessary to go through a risk assessment and evaluation process for deciding the degree to which the risks should be controlled. In these circumstances Reducing Risks, Protecting People includes a number of protocols that assist this process, including: our usual practice of performing a risk assessment on the basis of a hypothetical person, i.e. an imaginary person who is deliberately placed in a fixed relationship with the hazard; the architecture of UK health and safety law; the constraints that have to be taken into account; a hierarchy of options for new non-regulatory and regulatory measures; guidelines on how to undertake a cost benefit analysis and for ensuring consistency when comparing costs against benefits. IS THE APPROACH TO RISK REDUCTION PRECAUTIONARY? HSE s approach is inherently precautionary in that our risk assessment procedures address uncertainty by: requiring that assumptions to fill gaps in knowledge be tested through recognised methods, e.g. sensitivity analysis; attaching more weight to consequences for hazards giving rise to irreversible and potentially severe detriment, e.g. cancer; giving more weight to the consequences of a risk being realised than to its likelihood the greater the uncertainty about the latter; building safety factors into the assessment process where appropriate, e.g. in considering the effects of ingestion of radioactive material; considering worst case scenarios the greater the uncertainty about consequences; making use of comparative risk assessment for novel hazards that bear a similarity with existing hazards requiring a stringent control regime for reducing risks to tolerable levels. The general approach is indicated in Figure 2. consequences increasingly uncertain likelihood increasingly uncertain conventional risk assessment emphasis on consequences eg if serious/irreversible or need to address societal concerns rely on past experience of generic hazard consider putative consequences and scenarios towards ignorance Figure 2. Procedures for tackling uncertainty when assessing risks This inherently precautionary approach is balanced by the need to ensure than the action we take is proportionate to risk and is compatible with the operation of a free market economy. Getting the balance right is, of course, a matter of judgement. Inevitably there is usually a spectrum of opinion on where the balance lies on 5
6 any issue, and HSE has to come to a view on the appropriate course of action in accordance with the process, criteria and protocols outlined in Reducing Risks, Protecting People. HOW ARE STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN DECISIONS? HSE makes decisions by: following the six-stage process set out under A risk regulation framework above; and seeking to involve the stakeholders at every stage. The process, criteria and protocols in Reducing Risks, Protecting People are designed to meet the principles of good regulation (proportionality, targeting, consistency, transparency, accountability) that apply across the UK government (5). Whilst HSC/E have a long tradition of engaging their stakeholders, the trends are for wider engagement earlier in the process using an increasing array of techniques (e.g. focus groups, people panels, consensus conferences, etc.). Two-way risk communication is an important tool, and significant efforts continue to be made to improve skills (6). In addition we are researching which techniques of engagement are likely to be most effective in particular circumstances. CONCLUSIONS HSE s initiative in setting out for discussion an integrated account of how we seek to regulate the risks from work activities reflects a concerted effort to ensure that our approaches to regulating risk are coherent and consistent across all work activities in the UK, and to make what we do more open and transparent. The document Reducing Risks, Protecting People has sparked considerable interest, both within the UK and further afield. To date over 15,000 paper copies have been circulated, more downloaded from the Internet and a series of dialogues has been established on the concepts and material presented. We have received numerous responses, almost all applauding the initiative and many providing thoughtful and considered comment. Preparation and publication of Reducing Risks, Protecting People has in itself been an instructive and informative exercise involving two-way education and communication, first within HSE and subsequently with our stakeholders. In addition we have found the document to be a valuable training aid in helping those who join the organisation to understand its purpose and modus operandi. Ministers have asked other UK governmental departments to prepare and publish their own accounts of how they regulate risks from hazardous activities. REFERENCES 1. HSE Discussion Document, Reducing Risks, Protecting People. Available (free) from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 6FS, UK, tel , fax and from the Internet at (1999). 2. The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations. HSE Books, ISBN, (1992). 3. N.C.Pidgeon, C.Hood, D.Jones, B.Turner and R.Gibson, Risk Analysis, Perception and Management. The Royal Society, London, (1992). 4. M.S.Douglas and A.Wildasky, Risk and Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley (1982). 5. Principles of Good Regulation. A leaflet issued by the Better Regulation Task Force, Cabinet Office, Horse Guards Road, London SW1P 3AL, UK. 6. Risk Communication, A Guide to Regulatory Practice. Inter-departmental Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA), available from the Risk Assessment Policy Unit, Health and Safety Executive, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS, UK and from the Internet at (1998). 6
ALARP Guidance Part of the Petroleum Safety Framework and the Gas Safety Regulatory Framework
ALARP Guidance Part of the Petroleum Safety Framework and the Gas Safety Regulatory Framework DOCUMENT TYPE: Policy Proposal Document REFERENCE: CER/15/212 DATE PUBLISHED: 6 October 2015 VERSION 3.0 QUERIES
More informationThe Approach of a Regulatory Authority to the Concept of Risk
The Approach of a Regulatory Authority to the Concept of Risk by H.J. Dunster Risk is a poorly defined term and is commonly used in at least two quite different ways. I shall use risk in a qualitative
More informationNagement. Revenue Scotland. Risk Management Framework. Revised [ ]February Table of Contents Nagement... 0
Nagement Revenue Scotland Risk Management Framework Revised [ ]February 2016 Table of Contents Nagement... 0 1. Introduction... 2 1.2 Overview of risk management... 2 2. Policy Statement... 3 3. Risk Management
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Articles 31 and 32 thereof,
L 219/42 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2014/87/EURATOM of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
More informationNagement. Revenue Scotland. Risk Management Framework
Nagement Revenue Scotland Risk Management Framework Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 2 1.2 Overview of risk management... 2 2. Policy statement... 3 3. Risk management approach... 4 3.1 Risk management
More informationJob Safety Analysis Preparation And Risk Assessment
Job Safety Analysis Preparation And Risk Assessment Sample Only Reference CPL_PCR_JSA_Risk_Assessment Revision Number SAMPLE ONLY Document Owner Sample Date 2015 File Location Procedure Revision Date Major
More informationCOUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 4 June /14 Interinstitutional File: 2013/0340 (NLE) ATO 45
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 4 June 2014 10410/14 Interinstitutional File: 2013/0340 (NLE) ATO 45 NOTE from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Delegations No. Cion prop.: 15030/13 ATO 119
More informationRisk Assessment Policy
Risk Assessment Policy Updated: April 2018 Date of next Review: April 2019 Policy Lead: Bursar Checked by: Middle Leadership Team 1. INTRODUCTION Beachborough School will have hazards which if not controlled
More informationHow science works. Page 1 The Nuffield Foundation, 2009 Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges
Teacher Notes Introduction This activity is based on material drawn from the HSE report called The tolerability of risk from nuclear power station. The full report can be downloaded here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability.pdf.
More informationFrom cradle to grave - EIOPA s dynamic approach to restoring consumer confidence in the sale of general insurance products.
SPEECH Manuela Zweimueller Director of Regulations From cradle to grave - EIOPA s dynamic approach to restoring consumer confidence in the sale of general insurance products. FCA General Insurance Sector
More informationexecutive summary ExEcuTivE SuMMAry
executive summary 1 British Energy was privatised in 1996. In 2002, the price of electricity fell and on 5 September 2002, the Company applied to the Department of Trade and Industry (the Department) for
More informationNote: This policy incorporates key elements of the former Risk Taking and Assessment Policy (SO-0080).
Risk Assessment Policy Document Title Reference Number Risk Assessment Policy Version Number V2.3 Date of Issue 01/09/06 Latest Revision 17/03/16 Distribution Owner Policy Lead Department All Employees
More informationOECD guidelines for pension fund governance
DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS OECD guidelines for pension fund governance RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL These guidelines, prepared by the OECD Insurance and Private Pensions Committee
More informationAPPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF LAAG/3/H NUCLEAR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (extracts from relevant guidelines and letters) TRUDY AUTY, BSc, ARCS FOR LAAG
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - SECTION 77 AND TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) RULES 2000 APPLICATIONS BY LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT LTD SITE AT LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT LIMITED,
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, PRIORITIZATION, AND PROCESS
RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, PRIORITIZATION, AND PROCESS Modified Extract of a Presentation by Nate Snorteland, P.E. Director, USACE Risk Management Center Presenter Bruce Rogers, P.G. USACE Philadelphia
More information28 July May October 2016
Policy Name Risk Management Policy & Procedure Related Policies and Legislation AISWA Guidelines Risk Management Policy Category Planning & Management Relevant Audience Date of Issue / Last Revision All
More informationrisk management and assessment for business Risk Reduction Practical Solutions Egyptian Petroleum Ministry, Cairo, Egypt 14 th October 2014
Risktec Solutions risk management and assessment for business Risk Reduction Practical Solutions Egyptian Petroleum Ministry, Cairo, Egypt 14 th October 2014 Gareth Book, Director, Risktec Solutions Risk
More informationThe Role of the COMAH Safety Report in Improving Health, Safety and Environmental Performance at a Chemical Processing Site
The Role of the COMAH Safety Report in Improving Health, Safety and Environmental Performance at a Chemical Processing Site Michael Beanland BSc CEng MIMechE MIOSH ABB Eutech Process Solutions SYNOPSIS
More informationFinancial Services Authority. With-profits regime review report
Financial Services Authority With-profits regime review report June 2010 Contents 1 Overview 3 2 Our approach 9 3 Governance 11 4 Consumer communications 17 5 With-profits fund operations 23 6 Closed
More informationJFSC Risk Overview: Our approach to risk-based supervision
JFSC Risk Overview: Our approach to risk-based supervision Contents An Overview of our approach to riskbased supervision An Overview of our approach to risk-based supervision Risks to what? Why publish
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY Approved by Governing Authority February 2016 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The focus on governance in corporate and public bodies continues to increase. It resulted in an expansion from the
More informationReservoir safety risk assessment a new guide
Reservoir safety risk assessment a new guide Mark Morris 1,2, Mike Wallis 1, Alan Brown 3, David Bowles 4, John Gosden 3, Dr Andy Hughes 5, Alex Topple 1, Paul Sayers 6 and Keith Gardiner 7 1 HR Wallingford
More informationRisk Management. Webinar - July 2017
Risk Management Webinar - July 2017 Compiled by: Raaghieb Najjaar, Yaeesh Yasseen & Rashied Small Adapted and Facilitated by: Professor Enslin J. van Rooyen Risk Management - June 2017 2 Defining Risk
More informationVersion: th November 2010 RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
Version: 1.2-25th November 2010 RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY Document History Document Location To be completed. Revision History Date of this revision: 17/09/2010 Date of next revision: N/A Revision Number
More informationRisk Management. Seminar June Compiled by: Raaghieb Najjaar, Yaeesh Yasseen & Rashied Small
Risk Management Seminar June 2017 Compiled by: Raaghieb Najjaar, Yaeesh Yasseen & Rashied Small Defining Risk Risk reflects the chance that the actual event may be different than the planned / expected
More informationUNDERSTANDING RISK TOLERANCE CRITERIA. Paul Baybutt. Primatech Inc., Columbus, Ohio, USA.
UNDERSTANDING RISK TOLERANCE CRITERIA by Paul Baybutt Primatech Inc., Columbus, Ohio, USA www.primatech.com Introduction Various definitions of risk are used by risk analysts [1]. In process safety, risk
More informationKidsafe NSW Risk Management Plan. August 2014
Kidsafe NSW Risk Management Plan August 2014 Document Control Document Approval Name & Position Signature Date Document Version Control Version Status Date Prepared By Comments Document Reviewers Name
More informationGross Disproportion, Step by Step - A Possible Approach to Evaluating Additional Measures at COMAH Sites
Gross Disproportion, Step by Step - A Possible Approach to Evaluating Additional Measures at COMAH Sites Eur Ing Martin H Goose BSc DIS CEng CSci FIChemE Process Safety Corporate Topic Group, Health and
More informationRisk Management Strategy Highland Council Pension Fund
Risk Management Strategy Highland Council Pension Fund Approved Pensions Committee 9 August 2018 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Risk management is a key element of Corporate Governance and the Highland Council
More informationEU Council Adopts Revised Nuclear Safety Directive
GLOBAL NUCLEAR GROUP CLIENT PUBLICATION 14 August 2014 EU Council Adopts Revised Nuclear Safety Directive If you wish to receive more information on the topics covered in this publication, you may contact
More informationA Discussion Document on Assurance of Social and Environmental Valuations
A Discussion Document on Assurance of Social and Environmental Valuations Social Value UK Winslow House, Rumford Court, Liverpool, L3 9DG +44 (0)151 703 9229 This document is not intended to be an assurance
More informationFundamentals of Project Risk Management
Fundamentals of Project Risk Management Introduction Change is a reality of projects and their environment. Uncertainty and Risk are two elements of the changing environment and due to their impact on
More informationOpra: Tackling the risks to pension scheme members
Opra: Tackling the risks to pension scheme members REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 1262 Session 2001-2002: 6 November 2002 LONDON: The Stationery Office 11.25 Ordered by the House of Commons
More informationHealth and Safety Procedure: Risk Assessment. 1. Introduction
Health and Safety Procedure: Risk Assessment 1. Introduction 1.1. The purpose of this Procedure is to set out the London School of Economics (hereafter the School or LSE) arrangements for undertaking risk
More informationMaster Class: Construction Health and Safety: ISO 31000, Risk and Hazard Management - Standards
Master Class: Construction Health and Safety: ISO 31000, Risk and Hazard Management - Standards A framework for the integration of risk management into the project and construction industry, following
More informationCMP for Special Regs and Safety Issues. 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose Scope Submissions to Australian Sailing:...
CMP Policy - AS i Australian Sailing CMP for Special Regs and Safety Issues 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1. Purpose... 1 1.2. Scope... 1 1.3. Submissions to Australian Sailing:... 1 2. CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
More informationSeveral members of the Subcommittee have contributed to this draft and appropriate attribution will be made in a later version.
This is a working draft of a Chapter of the Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries and should not at this stage be regarded as necessarily reflecting finalised views of the UN Committee
More informationRisk Assessment Policy (Trust, Summer, Senior and Prep School & EYFS)
Risk Assessment Policy (Trust, Summer, Senior and Prep School & EYFS) Introduction St Bede s School Trust (hereafter referred to as Bede s) clearly recognises that a failure to take reasonable safety precautions
More informationANOTHER LOOK AT RISK AND STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY CRITERIA
ANOTHER LOOK AT RISK AND STRUCTURAL RELIABILITY CRITERIA V.M. Trbojevic, Risk Support Ltd., UK Abstract The paper presents a comparison of societal risk criteria and the several structural reliability
More informationENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK
ANNEXURE A ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK CONTENTS 1. Enterprise Risk Management Policy Commitment 3 2. Introduction 4 3. Reporting requirements 5 3.1 Internal reporting processes for risk
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 1 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK... 1 INTRODUCTION... 3 AN EFFECTIVE ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM... 4 Guiding Principles... 4 RISK GOVERNANCE... 5 Mandate and Commitment... 5
More informationThe King's Academy Risk Assessment Policy and Procedure 2010
The King's Academy Risk Assessment Policy and Procedure 2010 Page 1 of 12 Background and Purpose This policy forms part of and should be read in conjunction with the Health and Safety Policy it is designed
More informationExplanatory Memorandum to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2010.
Explanatory Memorandum to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2010. This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Environment, Sustainability and Housing
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT MANUAL
ABN 70 074 661 457 RISK MAGEMENT MANUAL QUALITY ASSURANCE - ISO 9001 ENVIRONMENTAL MAGEMENT - ISO 14001 OCCUPATIOL HEALTH AND SAFETY - AS 4801 This is a Controlled Document if stamped CONTROLLED in RED.
More informationRisk Management Policy
Risk Management Policy Contents Executive summary... 3 Aim & introduction... 3 Definitions... 3 Consequence... 3 Event... 3 Likelihood... 3 Risk... 4 Risk Appetite... 4 Risk Management... 4 Risk Management
More informationOECD RECOMMENDATION ON GOOD PRACTICES FOR ENHANCED RISK AWARENESS AND EDUCATION ON INSURANCE ISSUES RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL
OECD RECOMMENDATION ON GOOD PRACTICES FOR ENHANCED RISK AWARENESS AND EDUCATION ON INSURANCE ISSUES RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL These Good Practices were approved by OECD Governments on March 28, 2008.
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION OCTOBER 7, 2014
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION OCTOBER 7, 2014 Information Note 1: Environmental and Social Risk Classification The Board has requested the release of this document for consultation purposes to seek feedback on
More information1. Define risk. Which are the various types of risk?
1. Define risk. Which are the various types of risk? Risk, is an integral part of the economic scenario, and can be termed as a potential event that can have opportunities that benefit or a hazard to an
More informationPolicy. Safety risk assessment. 1 Why use risk assessment?
Safety risk assessment V E R S I O N 1. 1 M A R C H 2 0 0 5 1 Why use risk assessment? 1.1 The principle reason for conducting risk assessments is to comply with our legal duty. The Management of Health
More informationISO/IEC INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. Information technology Security techniques Information security risk management
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO/IEC 27005 Second edition 2011-06-01 Information technology Security techniques Information security risk management Technologies de l'information Techniques de sécurité Gestion
More informationSection Defining Risk Management. 11. Principles of Risk Management
Section 2 10. Defining Risk Management Enterprise risk management is the process, affected by an entity's board of directors, management and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the
More informationRisk Management Strategy
Risk Management Strategy Document Reference MLCSU CA_WL_V3 Version 3 Authors: Donna Bamber, Midlands & Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit Senior Risk Officer Smita Shetty, Service Redesign Manager,
More informationSETTING MULTINATIONAL RISK TOLERANCE CRITERIA
SETTING MULTINATIONAL RISK TOLERANCE CRITERIA by Paul Baybutt, Primatech Inc. Presented at the 1st CCPS Asia-Pacific Conference on Process Safety Qingdao, China September 4-5, 2013 paulb@primatech.com
More informationPolicy and Procedures on Risk Management
Policy and Procedures on Risk Management 4 th January 2008 Policy... 1 Procedures... 1 Appointment of assessors and training... 2 Risk Assessment... 2 Health and Safety Action Plans... 4 Background information
More informationPerformance Budgeting in Australia
ISSN 1608-7143 OECD Journal on Budgeting Volume 7 No. 3 OECD 2007 Chapter 1 Performance Budgeting in Australia by Lewis Hawke* This article describes how the principles of management for results have worked
More informationPaper 3 Measuring Performance in Public Financial Management
Paper 3 Measuring Performance in Public Financial Management Key Issues 1. Effective financial management of public resources is essential to achieve the objectives of development programmes. It also promotes
More informationPOLICY. Enforcement REGULATORY FUNCTION POLICY
POLICY Enforcement REGULATORY FUNCTION POLICY August 2017 The Enforcement Policy describes the high level approach WorkSafe uses regarding enforcement. CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2 1.1 The Intervention
More informationRisk Management Framework. Metallica Minerals Ltd
Risk Management Framework Metallica Minerals Ltd Risk Management Framework 23 March 2012 Table of Contents Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Risk Management Approach... 3 3. Roles and Responsibilities...
More informationScouting Ireland Risk Management Framework
No. SID 124A/15 Gasóga na héireann/scouting Ireland Issued Amended 20 th June 2015 Deleted Source: National Management Committee Scouting Ireland Risk Management Framework Revision Date Description # 20/06/2015
More informationThe Concept of Risk and its Role in Rational Decision Making on Nuclear Safety Issues
The Concept of Risk and its Role in Rational Decision Making on Nuclear Safety Issues George Apostolakis Head, Nuclear Risk Research Center apostola@criepi.denken.or.jp NRRC Symposium September 2, 1 1
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.6 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES OCTOBER 2007 This document was prepared
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK 1. INTRODUCTION (Company) acknowledges that risk is inherent in its business. The Company faces a broad range of risks as a listed entertainment organisation. The Company s risk
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Risk Management Framework RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Purpose This Risk Management Framework introduces St. Michael s College s approach to risk management. It includes a definition of risk, a summary of
More informationPANAMA MARITIME AUTHORITY
PANAMA MARITIME AUTHORITY MERCHANT MARINE CIRCULAR MMC-213 PanCanal Building Albrook, Panama City Republic of Panama Tel: (507) 501-5000 segumar@segumar.com To: Ship-owners/Operators, Company Security
More informationDIRECTIVE 2013/30/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
L 178/66 Official Journal of the European Union 28.6.2013 DIRECTIVE 2013/30/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive
More informationRisk Management Strategy January NHS Education for Scotland RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
NHS Education for Scotland RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY January 2016 1 Contents 1. NES STATEMENT ON RISK MANAGEMENT 2 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 3 RISK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES 4 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESSES 5 RISK
More informationReview of the Money Advice Service
Telephone: 020 7066 9346 Email: enquiries@fs-cp.org.uk Independent Money Advice Service Review 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ 1 September 2014 Review of the Money Advice Service This is the Financial
More informationLONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY PENSION FUND INVESTMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT. 1. Introduction
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY PENSION FUND INVESTMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT 1. Introduction Haringey Council is the Administering Authority for the Local Government Pension Scheme in the London Borough of Haringey
More informationExplanatory Memorandum to The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015.
Explanatory Memorandum to The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015. This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by the Planning Directorate and is laid before the National Assembly
More informationThe distinct nature of insurance business and the introduction of a specific insurance objective;
Financial Regulation Strategy HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ Via Email: financial.reform@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk 8 September 2011 Dear Sirs A new approach to financial regulation: the blueprint
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.x INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES DRAFT, MARCH 2008 This document was prepared
More informationDRAFT SAINT LUCIA NATIONAL STANDARD DNS/ISO 31000: 2009 RISK MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES (ISO 31000: 2009, IDT) Stage 40 Enquiry Stage
DRAFT SAINT LUCIA NATIONAL STANDARD DNS/ISO 31000: 2009 RISK MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES (ISO 31000: 2009, IDT) Stage 40 Enquiry Stage DECEMBER 2017 Copyright SLBS Saint Lucia Bureau of Standards,
More informationExecutive Board Annual Session Rome, May 2015 POLICY ISSUES ENTERPRISE RISK For approval MANAGEMENT POLICY WFP/EB.A/2015/5-B
Executive Board Annual Session Rome, 25 28 May 2015 POLICY ISSUES Agenda item 5 For approval ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY E Distribution: GENERAL WFP/EB.A/2015/5-B 10 April 2015 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
More informationStatutory Instrument 1999 No. 3242
Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 3242 The and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Crown Copyright 1999 The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument which is published by the Queen's Printer of
More informationGO/GN3519. Guidance on Accident and Incident Investigation. Rail Industry Guidance Note for GO/RT3119
GN Published by: Block 2 Angel Square 1 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NY Copyright 2012 Rail Safety and Standards Board Limited GO/GN3519 Issue Three: December 2012 Rail Industry Guidance Note for GO/RT3119
More informationTHE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TOWARDS SMALL BUSINESSES
THE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TOWARDS SMALL BUSINESSES By Dr Francis Neshamba Senior Lecturer in Enterprise Development Africa Centre for Entrepreneurship and Growth
More informationThe Scope and Nature of Occupational Health and Safety
Element 1: Foundations in Health and Safety The Scope and Nature of Occupational Health and Safety The study of health and safety involves the study of many different subjects including the sciences (chemistry,
More informationRISK ASSESSMENTS (GENERAL) POLICY AND GUIDANCE
RISK ASSESSMENTS (GENERAL) POLICY AND GUIDANCE Revised June 2016: Version 1.2 Name of Policy: Purpose of the Policy: Policy Applies to: Approved by: Responsible for its Updating: Final Approval by: Risk
More informationContact: David Holmes, Tel: +33 (0) ; Fax: +33 (0)
For Official Use DAFFE/CFA(2003)43/ANN5 DAFFE/CFA(2003)43/ANN5 For Official Use Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Jun-2003
More informationA GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA
A GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICE IN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA McLuckie D. For the National Flood Risk Advisory Group duncan.mcluckie@environment.nsw.gov.au Introduction Flooding is a natural phenomenon
More informationConsultation Paper Proposed fee amendments for financial services providers
Proposed fee amendments for financial services providers Date of Paper : 6 March 2014 Version Number : V4.10 File Location : z:\accounts\financial control\2014-2015 budget\consultation paper\604-publications-fees
More informationHMRC Consultation: Large Business compliance enhancing our risk assessment approach Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
HMRC Consultation: Large Business compliance enhancing our risk assessment approach Response by the Chartered Institute of Taxation 1 Introduction 1.1 This consultation document is examining how HM Revenue
More informationRisk criteria in EU. V.M. Trbojevic Risk Support Limited, London, U.K.
Risk criteria in EU V.M. Trbojevic Risk Support Limited, London, U.K. ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on risk criteria used in the EU for population living in vicinity of hazardous facilities. The criteria
More information17. Reduction. 17 REDUCTION p1
17. Reduction Summary Reduction involves identifying and analysing risks to life and property from hazards, taking steps to eliminate those risks if practicable, and, if not, reducing the magnitude of
More informationDear Members of the Board,
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. Pension Supervision Division Expert Centre on Financial Risk to Pension Funds Re: Sectoral letter on sustainable investments by pension funds: practical insights Dear Members
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 330/31 COMMISSION
28.11.2006 Official Journal of the European Union L 330/31 COMMISSION COMMISSION RECOMMDATION of 24 October 2006 on the management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations,
More informationRisk Assessment Procedure
1. Introduction Risk Assessment Procedure 1.1 The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 set out general duties which apply to employers and are aimed at improving health and safety management.
More informationPROHSP6 Control health and safety risks
Overview This standard is for people with a role which involves: 1 managing the control of health and safety risks effectively, co-ordinating outcomes, prioritising risks and reviewing effectiveness; 2
More informationThe 2007 Recommendations of ICRP Dr Jack Valentin Scientific Secretary, ICRP
The 2007 Recommendations of ICRP Dr Jack Valentin Scientific Secretary, ICRP The ethical basis of ICRP Recommendations Justification (political) optimisation limits & 1990 constraints The application and
More informationHow can we improve outcomes for investors in investment funds?
Date: 16 November 2016 ESMA/2016/1579 How can we improve outcomes for investors in investment funds? EFAMA Investment Management Forum, 16 November 2016, Brussels Steven Maijoor ESMA Chair Ladies and gentlemen,
More informationRISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. BACKGROUND 3 2. MATERIAL BUSINESS RISK 3 3. RISK TOLERANCE 4 4. OUTLINE OF ARTEMIS RESOURCE LIMITED S RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY 5 5. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES
More informationSECTION II.7 MANAGING PROJECT RISKS
SECTION II.7 MANAGING PROJECT RISKS 1. WHAT ARE RISK ANALYSIS AND RISK MANAGEMENT? Any uncertainty in the scope of the Project, the cost of delivery and time scale for delivery, will present either a risk
More informationOutline This lecture will cover the following topics: What is risk assessment? Concept of residual risk What is risk-informed decision making? History
Risk-Informed Decision Making and Nuclear Power George Apostolakis Head, Nuclear Risk Research Center apostola@mit.edu The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan September 27, 2016 1 1 Outline This lecture
More informationPrioritisation Methodology
Prioritisation Methodology March 2014 PRIORITISATION METHODOLOGY Table of contents 1 Introduction... 5 2 The Projects Prioritisation Process... 7 3 The Methodological Assumptions... 8 3.1 Background...
More informationCommon Safety Methods CSM
Common Safety Methods CSM A common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment Directive 2004/49/EC, Article 6(3)(a) Presented by: matti.katajala@safetyadvisor.fi / www.safetyadvisor.fi Motivation
More informationAn Introductory Presentation for ECU Staff
Risk Management at ECU An Introductory Presentation for ECU Staff Phillip Draber Manager, Risk and Assurance Outcomes By the end of this session you should: Be able to complete and document risk management
More informationThe Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive
The Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive by Ian F Robinson BSc FSRP CRadP, FNucI and Charles E Temple BSc MSc FSRP CRadP Office for Nuclear Regulation, Redgrave Court, Bootle, Liverpool L20 7HS UK
More informationCOUNTRIES BLENDED FINANCE. in the LEAST DEVELOPED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND ACTION AGENDA
BLENDED FINANCE in the LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES < < < < < < < <
More informationPublic Safety Zones. Geoff Marks
AEF Planning & Aviation Seminar, CIPFA, London, 19 th March 2008 Public Safety Zones Geoff Marks www.aef.org.uk Public Safety Zones (PSZ) Current policy and the case for change Geoff Marks OBE, C.Eng.,
More informationRisk Management Framework
Risk Management Framework Risk Management Framework 1. The University views Risk Management as integral to the successful execution of its Strategy. In order to achieve the aims set out in our strategy,
More information