RISK COMMUNICATION POLICIES AND

PRACTICES –A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ACROSS OECD COUNTRIES

OECD High Level Risk ForumPublic Governance and Territorial Development Directorate

Catherine Gamper 10 December 2015, Loy Conference Centre

Washington, D.C.

Risk Communication

“Risk Communication is the exchange of information with the goal of maintaining or improving risk understanding, affecting risk

perception and/or equipping people or groups to act appropriately in response to

an identified risk”(US DHS, 2008)

1. Risk awareness could be higher:– Loire river basin, France: 53% of CEO‘s with businesses located in flood zones unaware

of risks– Low levels of awareness = low levels of resilience, i.e. maintaining function in case of a

disruption

2. Ineffective risk communication → under- or over-estimating risks → sub-optimal allocation, i.e. under- or over-provision of protection against risks

3. Countries deem many risk communication measures ineffective, yet continue applying them for lack of alternatives

Why is it important to address risk communication?

There is value and opportunity for identifying novel risk communication practices across countries and testing potential for

policy transfer!

Risk communication survey

RESULTS

Responsibilities for communicating about risks

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Actors with formal responsibility for risk communication

Num

ber o

f re

spon

ding

cou

ntrie

s

However, other stakeholders can be more systematically included in the communication process

• A comprehensive all-hazards, transboundary approach enhances national resilience and responsiveness:– Only half of responding countries have an all-hazards

approach– Almost all respondent countries integrate notions of

trans-boundary risks – Countries tend to communicate about risks in silos

• They utilise administrative department lines rather than viewing issues horizontally

Fostering a comprehensive approach

GOOD PRACTICE highlight: Greece’s General Secretariat for Civil Protection

Risk communication strategies are not as forward-looking as they could be

• 58% of countries communicate about known risks only

• 42% of countries integrate notions of complex , unknonw risks in their risk communications

• GOOD PRACTICE highlight: Queensland’s “Harden-Up” Initative.

Approaches to risk communication (cont.)

Yes45%

No18%

I don't know36%

Cascading effects conveyed in risk communication

yes67%

no25%

don't know8%

Communicating about un-certainty

Purpose of risk communication

Raise public awareness about hazards and risks

Encourage protective behaviour

Inform on how to behave during hazardous events

Enhance knowledge about risks through education and training

Warn of and trigger actions in response to imminent and current events

Reassure the public, improve relationships (build trust, cooperation, networks)

Enable mutual dialogue and understanding

Promote the acceptance of risk management measures

Involve actors in decision making

0 1 2 3 4 5

Average importance (low to high, 0-5)

Risk communication is still viewed in a traditional sense, to inform about imminent threats and behavioural responses

Purpose of risk communication (cont.)

NGO's Private sector academia/science citizens Neighbourhood groups

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Types of major stakeholders involved in the communication process

Coun

try

resp

onse

freq

uenc

y

Non-governmental stakeholders seem to be involved in many but not all responding countries

Inclusive risk communication

TV ads20%

Radio ads18%

Newspaper ads18%

Information campaigns covering several com-munication channels

20%

Active use of political leadership

14%

Civic code4%

Internet (Websites, social networks)

8%

Inclusive risk communication

Relationships between message providers and message receivers based on two-way communication are the foundation of an effective risk communication:

• 75% of responding countries have established platforms for government authorities to engage with citizens in a two-way and interactive communication about risks

• Grounding risk communication in scientific evidence is key to ensure quality and accuracy in risk communication:– 75% of countries confirm that this is the case in their

country:

• It is important to directly assess the impact of different communication activities so to ensure their effectiveness through continuous long-run learning– 60% of countries assess the impact of risk communication

activities, but scarcely report results

Quality assurance

1. Integrate stakeholders more systematically and effectively2. Favour a multi-hazards approach 3. Increase the importance of communicating about risk prevention4. Risk communication needs to become more inclusive and

interactive5. Grounding risk communication in scientific evidence is key to

ensure quality and accuracy in risk communication6. Information communication technologies, including social media,

could be further exploited

Draft recommendations for improving risk communication policies and practices

For further information please contact:catherine.gamper@oecd.org