Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning Volume 2 Number 4
Developing a multi-organisational strategy
Journal of Business Continuity &
Emergency Planning
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 390–402
䉷 Henry Stewart Publications,
1749-9216
Page 390
for managing emergencies and disasters
Walter J. Ammann
Received (in revised form): 7th January, 2008
Global Risk Forum GRF Davos, Flüelastr. 11, CH-7260 Davos, Switzerland
Tel: ⫹41 81 417 02 31; Fax: ⫹41 81 417 01 10; E-mail: walter.ammann@idrc.info
Walter J. Ammann is President of the Global
Risk Forum GRF Davos, Switzerland and Chair-
man of the biennial International Disaster and
Risk Conference IDRC Davos. His professional
interests focus on integrated risk management,
particularly the use of technical measures to
develop prevention strategies along the risk
circle; intervention with early warning, crisis
management and communication tools; and
recovery with risk-financing tools. Walter lec-
tures at ETH Zurich and at the University of
Zurich and has written an extensive number of
scientific papers, books, reports and guidelines
for practitioners. He chairs the Board of the
Swiss Research Institute on High Altitude
Climate and Medicine. He is a member of
various national and international professional
associations and expert panels. Walter received
both his MSc in civil engineering and his PhD in
structural dynamics and earthquake engineering
from ETH Zurich.
ABSTRACT
The challenge of coping with disasters, risks and
emergency situations must be seen as a per-
manent management process with clearly defined
tasks, responsibilities and resource allocations.
This process requires a continuous effort, includ-
ing periodic identification, analyses and assess-
ments of the critical stages along the risk circle,
thus considering prevention, intervention and
recovery. To cope effectively and efficiently with
disasters demands a clear strategy, involving all
stakeholders and risk scenarios. This paper
outlines the importance of an integral risk
management process and public–private partner-
ship and — taking Switzerland as an ex-
ample — describes the process of developing
and establishing a widely supported vision and
strategy to cope with risks due to natural hazards.
The paper also elaborates some ideas on how
to expand the strategy to other risks and
stakeholders. The Swiss approach involves public
and private sector representatives, assembled in
an extra-parliamentary commission as a national
platform to cope with natural hazards. This
multi-stakeholder strategy development process
has resulted in an action plan for implementing
the strategy. Major progress has been achieved,
with all stakeholders committing to a commonly
established risk concept, to allocate substantial
resources for the improvement of the risk dialogue
and, finally, to accept a periodic audit to evaluate
the status and success of the strategy.
Keywords: natural hazards, integral risk
management, risk strategy, risk assess-
ment, public–private partnership, risk
dialogue
INTRODUCTION
The 2005 World Conference for Disaster
Risk Reduction held in Kobe, Japan,
brought consensus that, to achieve risk-
resilient, sustainable societies, the manage-
ment of unexpected events — such as
natural hazards, climate change, pan-
demics and diseases, man-made hazards or

terrorism — has to be approached in an
integrated way. As a result, the ‘Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005–2015: Build-
ing the Resilience of Nations and Com-
munities to Disasters’1 was approved
by the 168 government representatives
gathered in Kobe. Under the Hyogo
Framework, the governments committed
to the following five priorities:
• Make disaster risk reduction a priority:
Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a
national and local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation.
The creation of national platforms and
national focal points is strongly en-
couraged.
• Know the risks and take early action:
Identify, assess and monitor disaster
risks, as these tasks are essential com-
ponents of risk reduction and they will
enhance the early warning.
• Build understanding of awareness: Use
knowledge, innovation and education
to build a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels.
• Reduce risk: Identify those variables
latent in society and the environment
that contribute to risk and ways to
mitigate them.
• Be prepared and ready to act: Strengthen
disaster preparedness for an effective
response at all levels.
The growing number of people on
the planet, coupled with globalisation
and urbanisation, has greatly increased
the risks and the impact of disasters.
Recent complex disasters, such as the
Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the
earthquake in Pakistan or avian influenza,
confirm this fact. Climate change ag-
gravates the situation in terms of intensity
and complexity.
Emerging trends from risk management
confirm the instincts of the general public:
the world today is more complex,
Ammann
more vulnerable and more interdependent
than at any time before in history.
The contributing factors for increasing
damages include a higher population
density in hazard-prone areas, especially
along coastlines and rivers; the constantly
increasing values of buildings and in-
frastructure; rising demands on mobility
with growing volumes of traffic; rising
demands on logistics and communication;
changes in the way people earn their
living and spend their leisure time; and
the evermore complex economic inter-
dependencies which come along with
globalisation. At the same time, it is
difficult to assess the increasing danger of
a cumulative risk, especially with regard
to critical infrastructure or the influence
of global climate change on the occur-
rence and intensity of weather and
climate-related natural hazards.2 Studies
from the World Bank3,4 have shown that
more than 3.5 billion people and about 80
per cent of the world’s gross domestic
product are located in areas exposed to at
least one natural hazard of significant
nature and probability of occurrence.
BACKGROUND
Natural hazards constrain use of available
living space, thus causing social costs.
The limitations are most easily observed
in areas where the available space for
settlements, lines of transport and other
uses is clearly limited by the terrain.
When settlements or infrastructure over-
lap with hazard zones, natural events
can cause significant damage. Numerous
catastrophes of the last few years have
demonstrated that there are clear limits
to how far life, limb and property can
be protected nowadays. Naturally, the
protection of life has to be the primary
concern, but economic damage also has to
be reduced. Risk reduction is of vi-
tal importance, especially for developing
Page 391
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
countries. Sustainable development and
poverty reduction have to go hand in
hand with disaster risk reduction strategies
to achieve the United Nations’ Millen-
nium Development Goals.5 Disasters and
risks may no longer be seen as isolated
humanitarian affairs but as an integrated
part of poverty reduction and sustainable
development as a whole.
To be able to take effective and
efficient decisions for disaster risk reduc-
tion and mitigation measures, which lead
to transparent and comparable results in
different risk situations, a consistent and
systematic risk management approach has
to be followed. Hereafter, this approach
will be called ‘integral risk management’,
a process that contains a systematic
framework for the risk analysis and
risk assessment procedures, finally leading
to consistent decisions and to an op-
timised, integral planning of risk-reduc-
tion measures. A consistent risk concept
provides a substantial base and allows the
comparison of various risk scenarios at
different locations and originating from
different natural disasters. Therefore, risk-
based management, instead of being a
purely hazard-related approach, is the key
for the future. A significant driving force
for this paradigm shift is the demand for
better accountability and improved effec-
tiveness of risk-reduction measures.
Dealing with natural hazards is not just
complex, it is also contradictory when
technical, social, economic and ecological
aspects have to be balanced. Apart from
the risks due to natural hazards there are
numerous other risks to be considered
simultaneously, such as risks of a technical,
biological or chemical nature, as well as
climate change, pandemics and terrorism.
The task of protecting people as well as
private and public goods has to be taken
on in this knowledge, and achieved in a
sustainable manner.
It is no longer adequate for risk
Page 392
management professionals to focus solely
on the risk within a particular realm.
Rather, in a complex world with inter-
dependent systems, risk management must
have a new vision — one that overcomes
boundaries between subject areas, and that
reaches across specialisms and depart-
ments. Safety and security have to be seen
as a whole. This will enable better
planning, response and reduction of
the most pressing risks faced by com-
munities, where adequate public welfare
and security are crucial elements of
sustainable development.
The Hyogo Framework also recog-
nises that governments have the primary
responsibility for guiding the implementa-
tion of measures for disaster risk reduc-
tion. To create the necessary political will
in national terms, a wide group of risk
management experts, practitioners, scien-
tists and key players from civil society
and other sectors with a strong em-
phasis on implementation at ‘the last mile’
have to be involved and have to interact
with key players from line ministries and
disaster management authorities. Practice,
science, policy and decision making have
to be closely linked in the search for
sustainable solutions for the complex risks
society is facing today. This will secure
a proper bridge between problems and
their main causes on the one hand, and
governance and technology perspectives
of problem solving on the other hand.
Demand-driven, practical application has
to overcome purely supply-driven scien-
tific knowledge.
Thus, the key questions are: how do
we move to a safer world and how can
current know-how support this change
process? The approach must be that of
integrated risk management — across
subject areas, professions and sectors —
encompassing natural and social sciences,
engineering and scientific understanding
with business, policy responses and citizen

participation. Stronger ties with adequate
public–private partnership models must be
built among risk management com-
munities and sectors, and approaches
should be devised to move towards a
more truly integrated way of thinking
about risk: a holistic approach to risk
reduction with safety, security and sus-
tainability at the centre. This is an
approach that will help policy makers and
business people, risk managers and civil
society to address the complex risks
around them more effectively.
RISK, RISK CULTURE AND RISK
GOVERNANCE
Risks are perceived differently and thus
many different definitions of risk exist.
Risks due to natural hazards as an ex-
ample are seen differently from ecological,
technical or social risks, and the dif-
ferent ways in which people perceive risks
strongly influence how they urge for
mitigation measures. Risks describe the
potential effects that hazards are likely to
have on specific targets such as human
beings, buildings, critical infrastructures,
companies, social communities, ecosys-
tems, etc. In other words, risk represents
the uncertain consequence of an event or
an activity with respect to something that
humans value. These consequences are
often difficult to assess, especially those of
a sociopolitical and also economic na-
ture; such consequences go far beyond
purely local damage and cannot simply be
viewed in isolation. A strategy for protec-
tion from disasters has to find a way to put
the various risks (in all their facets) onto
a standard scale to allow for comparability
and to serve as a platform upon which
measures can be agreed.
The term ‘risk culture’ refers to the way
a society handles questions of safety and
security. Risk culture emphasises that in-
security can only be controlled by risk-
Ammann
oriented thinking. On the one hand,
people fear risks and, on the other hand,
there are practical limits to safety and
security. Limiting criteria may be the
restrictions of the efforts, resources and
expenditures put into safety measures,
but considerations also include technical
feasibility and ecological factors. It is a
political act to define these limits in terms
of a risk level, which is accepted by the
society.
‘Risk governance’6 looks at how risk-
related decision–making unfolds when a
multitude of stakeholders or responsible
actors are involved, requiring coordina-
tion and possibly reconciliation between
a profusion of roles, perspectives, goals
and activities. The actors’ problem-solv-
ing capacities often do not match the
major challenges and risks, such as those
from natural hazards. This calls for coor-
dinated efforts among a variety of actors,
beyond the frontiers of countries, sectors,
hierarchical levels, subject areas and risk
fields. The individual steps that make up
this process are described in the following
by the term ‘integral risk management’.
Good risk governance stands for
transparency in decision making, effective-
ness and efficiency of the measures,
accountability, strategic focus, sus-
tainability, equity and fairness, and the need
for the solution to be politically and legally
feasible as well as ethically and publicly
acceptable. Integral risk management and
good risk governance are complicated by
the fact that many risks of today’s society are
not isolated events with a limited extent,
but are often transboundary risks, affecting
countries with different political systems
and coping strategies. Risks are therefore
distributed over time, space and
populations affected. The timescale of the
appearance of adverse effects is particularly
important as delayed effects may appear,
thus linking risk governance and sustainable
development.
Page 393
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
Figure 1 The risk
circle and possible
measures for risk
reduction and
mitigation
Intervention
Organisational measures
Emergency/crisis management
Good risk governance has to balance
risks and chances. There are no chances
without risks — they interact directly. In
addition, the ones that aim for the chances
might not be identical with the ones that
carry the risks. Good risk management has
to find the balance and has to satisfy the
stakeholders’ needs and expectations.
INTEGRAL RISK MANAGEMENT
Integral risk management aims at reduc-
ing and mitigating risks along the whole
risk circle of prevention, intervention and
recovery (Figure 1). Good risk manage-
ment starts with the identification and
analysis of risks, followed by the risk
assessment and the planning of measures.
The underlying objective for risk han-
dling is to plan and implement preventive
and protective measures. Responses to
risk can be very different: people can,
for example, ignore risks, accept, avoid,
reduce, share or transfer them (Figure 2).
A conceptually unified approach to deal
with all kinds of risks and a standardised
procedure (risk concept) helps appropriate
decisions to be taken. Most important
is a paradigm shift towards a risk-based
Page 394
Prevention
Land-use planning measures
(hazard maps)
Technical (engineering measures
Biological measures
management instead of a purely hazard-
related approach.
Dealing with risks always leads to four
fundamental questions: How safe is safe
enough? What can happen? What is
acceptable to happen? What needs to
be done? For the assessment of risks,
methodologically sound approaches have
to be developed, particularly for the
risk-aversion and for the estimation of
direct and indirect losses and damages.
A major criterion for choosing adequate
risk-reduction measures is thus cost-effec-
tiveness.
The risk-oriented approach and the
methodology of dealing with uncertainties
have to be made applicable, both to
the analysis and the assessment of risk.
The discrepancy between the limitations
of safety efforts and the expectations of
society have to be revealed, as well as the
various points of view, attitudes and values
of all stakeholders involved and affected
by the risk.
Disaster risk prevention and mitigation
have to take the whole set of pre- and
post-disaster measures into consideration,
as well as measures during the event itself
or risk transfer by insurance (Figure 1).

Holistic/intregral approach
Transparency
Definitions
The planning of measures serves to iden-
tify and assess measures that are necessary
and appropriate to reach the protection
goals. The main function of the planning
of integrated measures is to achieve the
intended level of safety within the agreed
limits in the most cost-effective way. The
protection with organisational, technical
and biological measures has to be planned,
checked for effectiveness, and undertaken
in concert, while keeping in mind that
prevention, intervention and reconstruc-
tion are all equally valid risk-management
measures.
Further criteria, such as acceptability,
feasibility and reliability of solutions have
to be kept in mind as well. All solu-
tions have to fulfil the criterion of sus-
tainability, ie in a sustainable way disaster
risk management has to be a socially,
economically and environmentally equi-
librated approach. A periodic survey as a
risk audit is necessary to reveal gaps
and to support priority setting. To easily
memorise the different steps of integral
risk management, it is also called the
Ammann
Figure 2 The four
possible ways to
deal with risk
Cost-benefit analysis
environmentally equilibrated)
(socially, economically and
(economical and political)
Communication
Sustainability
Reliable data
‘5S concept’, meaning that stakeholders,
strategy, standards, sustainability and sur-
vey are important issues to be followed
consequently. Possible ways to deal with
risks are described in more detail in Am-
mann (2006).7
Safety measures usually have side ef-
fects, which also have to be taken into
account in cost-effectiveness analysis. The
most obvious among these are the finan-
cial or economic aspects. But aspects of
ecology, of landscape protection or of land
use planning can be of equal impor-
tance. For an optimal coordination of all
measures, all relevant aspects have to
be considered. As long as the side ef-
fects are an inherent part of the safety
measures, all costs have to be allocated
to the safety. But if safety measures, as
an example, also further the economic
growth, the resulting costs should be split
between economics and safety, and full
transparency provided.
Through the base of the risk concept,
integral risk management shows how the
overlying aims can be reached, with
Page 395
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
corresponding technically, economically,
societally and environmentally justifiable
risk-reduction measures. It applies the
required measures within the framework
of the risk dialogue. Integral risk manage-
ment, therefore, makes it possible to
address different risks, including those
originating from natural hazards, in a
uniform and transparent way, based on the
risk concept, and in the sense of a
comprehensive risk culture.
RISK DIALOGUE
The integral risk management not only
dictates that the measures are planned,
assessed and applied in accordance with a
proper risk concept, but also that all those
who are involved and affected are in-
cluded in the process of the planning of
risk-reduction measures via a comprehen-
sive risk dialogue. Risk communication
and dialogue with stakeholders and the
public must start very early, although the
process initially will be dominated more
by questions than by answers and more by
processes than by solutions. Therefore, a
continuous, comprehensive risk dialogue
is crucial for the public understanding and
for public risk awareness, but also for the
acceptance of the necessary investments
for risk-reduction measures. Thus, risk
management will be transformed into a
transparent, understandable process and
become a matter of public trust.
The earlier stated paradigm shift
towards a risk-based management instead
of a purely hazard-related approach will
only be successful if all stakeholders are
integrated and undergo a common change
management process at all levels.
Increasing technological, bio-physical
and social vulnerabilities, interdepen-
dencies among different risk situations,
climate change, global population growth
and demographic development, limited
resources and further aspects need better
Page 396
communication with the public, helping to
increase self-responsibility. ‘Lessons felt’ not
‘lessons learnt’ will be the key to involve
the public. One learns more by direct
experience than by distance learning.
In Switzerland, for example, the
protection against natural disasters is the
responsibility of the federal government,
the cantons, and the communities,
yet businesses and individuals are
equally involved. Such a multi-layered,
sociopolitical task can only be performed
efficiently when all stakeholders under-
stand and acknowledge their respon-
sibilities, and are ready to pull together
when major losses are suffered. Thus, the
contribution of all parties involved, from
the authorities to the responsible
individuals, is crucial.
Active information and communication
play a dominant role in emergency situa-
tions. A well-informed public will sustain
a catastrophic situation much better and
the risk for panic or for long-term damage
can be limited.8 Disaster psychology sup-
port for victims, care team availability and
communication have to be improved to
be able to deal with complex disaster risk
situations in the future. Solidarity among
people affected by a disaster can be mobi-
lised with prompt information. Com-
munication also plays an important role in
business continuity management to keep
recovery times for businesses and the
economy as short as possible.
It is important to note that successful
disaster risk reduction does not only rely
on financial resources, but on politi-
cal commitment, institutional means, a
legal framework, social skills and on
knowledge and know-how. The last point
is of crucial importance, as the starting
point for reducing disaster risks and for
promoting a culture of disaster resilience
lies in the knowledge of the hazards
and vulnerabilities. Science as a driver
for knowledge generation has to make

knowledge available, education affordable
and innovation and technology transfer
possible.
PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
One aspect, as yet only established and
implemented in a rudimentary way, is
the public–private partnership. This topic
is of increasing importance and should
earn much more attention. In emerging
markets, national and multinational com-
panies provide economic value to the
national GDP, greatly exceeding all ex-
ternal development assistance provided.
Small and medium enterprises engage the
local population in productive activities
and are keen on sustaining economic
and social stability in local communities.
While most companies are very willing to
contribute to immediate relief operations
after a disaster, pre-disaster risk manage-
ment actions are less popular, even if they
are likely to protect the business and
relevant value chains much better.
Many businesses have operations all over
the world, and companies greatly rely on
critical infrastructures such as roads, railway
lines, bridges, power grids or water supply
for the continuity of functions and hence
for profitability. In emerging markets, with
their profound lack of reliable infrastruc-
tures, a disaster could dramatically ag-
gravate this situation.
Even more important, companies,
especially small and medium-sized en-
terprises, depend on functioning com-
munities for their workforce and for
customers. Most interactions might occur
on a regional/metropolitan level. Com-
munity protection is therefore a major
challenge, which can only work if public
and private entities cooperate in partner-
ship for the common good, in social,
economic and business terms. Sharing
resources and responsibilities in public–
private partnerships and not just sharing
Ammann
risks might be a successful approach for
the future; reducing risks by limiting the
risks for society as a whole and not just for
the companies being another crucial
topic.
Coming very close to this paradigm
shift is the definition from the Canadian
Council for Public–Private Partnerships:
‘A PPP is a cooperative venture be-
tween the public and private sectors,
built on the expertise of each partner,
that best meets clearly defined public
needs through the appropriate alloca-
tion of resources, risks and rewards.’9
Citizens are workers, customers and resi-
dents of a particular community at the
same time. Disaster risk reduction there-
fore requires the involvement and sus-
tained commitment of public as well as
private parties. Public–private partnership
in disaster risk reduction needs the right
incentives — not only business continuity
but also business opportunities — and
requires the absolute will of both sides for
cooperation. Yet, international law might
restrict the possibilities, in particular for
multinational companies.
Multi-stakeholder national platforms
and other forums can encourage the
dialogue, develop common interests,
strengthen institutions, mechanisms and
capacities to build resilience to hazards
and emerge as a tool to combine resources
for disaster reduction. Yet, the modalities
of engaging the private sector might be
very different, depending on country-
specific conditions. It is highly recom-
mended that emerging national disaster
risk platforms establish a multi-sectoral
coordination mechanism to encourage a
comprehensive risk reduction dialogue
between government officials and the
public as a whole and with the private
sector (industry, services, chamber of
commerce, etc) in particular.
Page 397
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
RISK AUDIT
Risk audit in the present context means
a periodic check of the risk situation and
the assessment of costs and benefits
of measures. This strategic controlling
process also has to monitor residual risks,
thus allowing risk reduction priorities to
be determined, based on longer time-
scales. The implementation of this
strategic risk auditing process, based on
a specific set of indicators, is therefore
of major importance. Indicators for risk
evaluation are of course also important
for international development banks
which rely on them for their investment
policy.
THE SWISS NATIONAL PLATFORM
FOR NATURAL HAZARDS
As an example on how to create a
multi-organisational strategy for managing
emergencies and disasters, the Swiss
National Platform for Natural Hazards
(PLANAT) is presented in more detail.
Based on the United Nations Interna-
tional Decade for Natural Disaster
Reduction (IDNDR) Yokohama Strategy
of 1994 and its longstanding experience
with natural hazards, Switzerland created
a national platform for natural hazards in
1997. The country is now fully in line
with the Hyogo Framework, which
defines as one of its strategic goals the
‘development and strengthening of
institutions, mechanisms and capacities to
build resilience to hazards’ and recom-
mends the creation of national platforms
for disaster risk reduction as a multi-
sectoral coordination mechanism.10,11
Since the mid-1980s a few severe
catastrophes (flood, wind-storm) have
occurred in Switzerland, revealing the
need for closer cooperation. It became
more obvious that a platform was needed
to address emerging threats and strategic
questions, to look for synergies in the
Page 398
disaster risk reduction process and to
bridge gaps between all governmental
levels. As in every country, in Switzer-
land, safety is affordable only to a
certain extent, and not every hazardous
situation can be eliminated. How to
set priorities for risk-reduction measures
becomes more and more important.
PLANAT has been established to act on
a strategic level (eg development of a
vision and strategy to cope with risks due
to natural hazards), as a coordinator
among the various stakeholders, as an
extra-parliamentary commission and as a
consultative body to the federal govern-
ment with the main goal to support the
paradigm shift in handling natural hazards:
from a defence against danger mentality to
risk awareness and a risk culture.
After ten years, a report about the Swiss
experience on how to create and run a
national platform was presented at the
United Nations International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR) Global
Platform in June 2007 in Geneva.12,13
As a national forum for discussion and
coordination between the different fields
and stakeholders, PLANAT facilitates the
sharing of information and knowledge
as well as the transfer of technol-
ogy, thus encouraging and enhancing
collaboration and coordination to in-
crease the knowledge and skills on
disaster risk prevention and reduction.
PLANAT provides policy guidance, har-
monises strategies and coordinates ac-
tivities to improve the implementation of
disaster risk-reduction activities, reveals
gaps, identifies synergies and starts a risk
dialogue with the general public.
PLANAT VISION AND STRATEGY
Strategies should be based on clear visions.
The vision statement outlines the view on
dealing with risks and emergency situa-
tions alike. It concentrates on the fu-

ture, is a source of inspiration, provides
clear decision-making criteria and is valid
for the next decade. In order to be-
come effective, an organisation’s vision
statement must become assimilated into
the organisation’s culture and must be
followed by a strategy, indicating the
direction for the overall work to be
accomplished. The Swiss strategy covers a
decade and is followed by an action
plan, designed to achieve the goals with
the step-wise implementation of strategic
projects. Vision and strategy have to be
clearly communicated. Stakeholders have
to be encouraged to craft their own
personal vision and strategy, compatible
with the overall vision.
For Switzerland’s PLANAT, a working
group was mandated to draft a vision
and a strategy. Risk management involves
multiple functions, institutions and topics,
such as forestry, water supply, land-use,
building regulations, public safety, police,
ambulance services, fire-fighters, depart-
ments of works, civil defence and the
military; they all had to be integrated,
each one with its own responsibilities and
interests.
The resulting vision and strategy paper
is a 40-page document,14,15 based on a
clear principle: it positions natural hazards
in an overall context alongside other risks
(technical, ecological, economic and so-
cial). Decisions about the safety and the
protection of people as a social challenge
have to be taken in this overall context
and, while keeping sustainability in mind,
have to be examined from an economic,
ecological and social point of view.
The strategy relies on the fundamental
solidarity of the people of the whole
country when dealing with emergencies
and disasters, and it encourages the
development of a comprehensive risk
consciousness. This is done by setting
limits on the amount of effort put into
preserving life, livelihoods, goods and
Ammann
lifelines (aims of protection). It applies
integrated risk management to deal with
natural hazards. A risk-based management
instead of a purely hazard-related ap-
proach is the key for the future.
The analysis and the assessment of risks,
as well as the risk-reduction measures, all
have to be based on a transparent and
systematic framework — the risk
concept.16,17 In this complex world with
interdependent systems, integral risk
management has to reach across subject
areas and departments to allow better
planning and reduction of the most
pressing risks faced by society. The risk
situation and the costs and benefits of
measures need to be audited periodically
(strategic controlling).
Numerous uncertainties can increase
future risks. Among the most important
factors that have to be considered,
monitored and periodically surveyed are
mobility, vulnerability, leisure activities,
sociopolitical changes and changing
climate and weather patterns. In the
future, dealing with risks will mean
dealing with constant change. Therefore,
strategies for coping with risks due to
natural hazards will have to be adapted
periodically.
ACTION PLAN
The strategy paper led to an action plan
with a number of activities and im-
plementation projects over a period of
several years. Before starting to implement
these measures, a set of basic principles
had to be clarified as a basis for strategic
reorientation: a review of all public and
private expenditures to cope with natural
hazards on all levels, a methodological
approach to define how to cope with risks
(the ‘risk concept’18) and a comprehensive
communication concept.
A nationwide evaluation19 of risks and
resources, carried out for the first time, gave
Page 399
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
insight into the overall risk pattern of
Switzerland and the repartition of expendi-
tures to cope with natural hazards. A
consistent risk concept has been developed
in line with technical risk handling proce-
dures. The concept has set clear guidance
on how to analyse and assess risks, thus
enabling risks to be handled as a complex,
mental construction. In order to achieve a
comparable level of safety from the risks
due to natural hazards all over Switzerland,
uniform limits had to be set, covering
life and limb, property and important in-
frastructure.
PLANAT is currently preparing a sum-
mary report for the federal government
on the achievements of the last three years
and with a proposal for the next three
years’ activities.
MULTINATIONAL AND GLOBAL
RISKS
National strategies tend to have an
inward-looking perspective and neglect
the existence of global risks. Global risks20
are events or circumstances that are
far beyond any particular stakeholder’s
capacity to control and may adversely
affect multiple parties across geographic
borders, sectors and industries.
To cope with global risks,
new frameworks, principles, strategies,
mechanisms and methods have to be
found, and the outcomes have to be
validated. The more complex the risk
landscape gets, the more necessary a
collaborative global risk-reward manage-
ment process becomes. Public–private
partnership may play a substantial role in
risk management, but it also requires
leadership in sustainable development —
the other side of the coin. Confronted
with global risks, both people and
institutions involved struggle with the
high degree of uncertainty that grows
with the number of unknown quantities,
Page 400
difficulties with measuring and problems
with predictions.
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
The successful management of disasters
and emergencies requires a multi-
stakeholder approach, based on a
consistent strategy, which follows a
stringent risk concept with clearly defined
risk analysis and risk assessment proce-
dures, integrating measures for disaster
prevention, intervention and recovery
alike. To identify, analyse and assess a
specific risk situation, to agree on
measures, to execute them, to control
their effects and to improve them if
necessary is the permanent loop of key
activities, when dealing with risks and
disasters.
Optimal disaster risk management in-
cludes all stakeholders; the key factors
requiring special attention are summarised
in Figure 3 and include among others:
• The acquisition of reliable data: Reliable
data form the indispensable base for any
planning process and for decisions in
disaster risk management. Increasingly
(and particularly due to climate change)
it is insufficient to extrapolate data from
the past into the future. Rather, methods
and techniques are needed to develop
scenarios for future events as the extent
and importance of natural hazards can no
longer only be judged by contemporary
and historical events.
• Transparency in every aspect: Only an
open partnership between science,
governmental agencies, the private sector
and the public leads to an improvement
in disaster risk management.
• Professional and clear communication:
Communication as an in-depth risk
dialogue between different disciplines,
governmental agencies, the private sector
and the public leads to optimised disaster

Risk avoidance
(eg land-use planning)
Total original risk
Risk reduction
( measures)
risk management solutions. A good
vertical risk dialogue between different
governmental levels additionally im-
proves the efficiency of solutions.
• A holistic and integrated approach to risk
management: All risks must be considered,
and counter-risk measures must address
measures to be taken before, during and
after the event.
• Cost-benefit analysis: Cost-benefit and
cost-effectiveness analyses as well as
the principle of marginal costs lead
to consistent solutions in disaster risk
management.
• Sustainability: All solutions have to fulfil
sustainability criteria.
• Context: Each risk has to be considered
within the context of other risks of
technical, biological or sociopolitical
origin.
Numerous uncertainties can increase risks
in the future. Among the most important
factors that have to be considered,
monitored and periodically checked are
globalisation processes and increasing
Ammann
Figure 3 Base,
support and
overarching roof of
good governance in
disaster risk
management
Risk transfer
( insurance)
Self-responsibility
(residual risk)
economic interdependencies, mobility,
sociopolitical changes and climate change.
Success to date in reducing risk from
natural forces should not blind society to
the important future tasks. Developments
in the hazard and risk process flow must
be followed carefully and the potential for
optimisation exploited. Major attention
needs to be paid to the maintenance of
the extensive protective structures that
have been built in the past. For the future,
the challenge will be the constant change,
meaning that strategies for dealing with
risks will have to be adapted periodically.
This will have to be achieved based on
regularly repeated comprehensive evalua-
tions, going far beyond today’s restricted
and hazard-based decisions.
REFERENCES
(1) United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR)
(2005) ‘Hyogo Framework for Action
2005–2015: Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters’,
available at: http://www.unisdr.org/
Page 401
A multi-organisational strategy for managing emergencies
eng/hfa/docs/Hyogo-framework-for-
action-english.pdf (accessed January
2008).
(2) Ammann, W. J. and Stöckli, V. (2002):
‘Economic consequences of climate
change in Alpine regions: Impact and
mitigation’, in Steiniger, K. and
Weck-Hannemann, H. (eds) ‘Global
Environmental Change in Alpine
Regions. Impact, Recognition,
Adaptation and Mitigation’, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp.
125–142.
(3) World Bank and Columbia University
(2005) ‘Natural Disaster Hotspots: A
Global Risk Analysis’, World Bank,
Washington, DC.
(4) Global Facility for Disaster Reduction
and Recovery (2007) ‘Committed to
Reducing Vulnerabilities to Hazards by
Mainstreaming Disaster Reduction and
Recovery in Development’, World
Bank, UN-ISDR, Washington, DC.
(5) United Nations (2008) ‘What are the
Millennium Development Goals?’,
available at: http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/ (accessed 28th April,
2008).
(6) Renn, O. (2005) ‘Towards an
integrative approach’, white paper,
IDRC, Geneva.
(7) Ammann, W. J. (2006) ‘Risk concept,
risk management and risk governance’,
in Ammann, W. J., Dannenmann, S.
and Vulliet, L. (eds) ‘RISK 21 —
Coping with Risks Due to Natural
Hazards in the 21st Century’, Taylor
and Francis, London, pp. 2–23.
(8) Schilling, A., Nöthiger, C. and
Ammann, W. J. (2005) ‘Naturgefahren
und Tourismus in den Alpen — Die
Krisenkommunikation bietet
Lösungsansätze’, in Pechlaner, H. and
Glässer, D. (eds) ‘Risiko und Gefahr im
Tourismus. Schriften zu Tourismus und
Freizeit’, Vol. 4, Erich Schmidt Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 61–74.
(9) Canadian Council for Public–Private
Partnerships (no date) ‘About PPP:
Page 402
Definitions’, available at:
http://www.pppcouncil.ca/aboutPPP_
definition.asp (accessed 28th April,
2008).
(10) United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR)
(2006) ‘Guiding principles: National
platforms for disaster risk reduction’,
available at: http://www.unisdr.org/
eng/country-inform/ci-guiding-
princip.htm (accessed January 2008).
(11) United Nations International Strategy
for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR)
(2007) ‘Guidelines — National
platforms for disaster risk reduction’,
UN/ISDR Secretariat, Geneva.
(12) Ammann, W. J. (2007) ‘1997–2007: Ten
years of experience. How to create and
run a platform’, report, PLANAT Swiss
National Platform for Natural Hazards,
Berne.
(13) Ibid.
(14) PLANAT (2004) ‘Protection against
Natural Disasters — Vision and
Strategy’ [in French, German and
Italian only], available at:
http://www.planat.ch/shop.php?navI
D=25&view=detail&shopProductID
=367&userhash=24898424&l=d
(accessed January 2008).
(15) PLANAT (2005) ‘Executive Summary’,
in ‘Protection against Natural Hazards
in Switzerland — Vision and Strategy’,
available at: http://www.planat.ch/
shop.php?navID=25&view=detail&
shopProductID=501&userhash=248984
24&l=e (accessed January 2008).
(16) Ammann, ref. 7 above.
(17) PLANAT (2005) ‘PLANAT Synthesis
Report’ [in French and German only],
available at: http://www.planat.ch/
ressources/planat_product_de_543.pdf
(accessed January 2008).
(18) Ammann, ref. 7 above.
(19) PLANAT, ref. 17 above.
(20) PricewaterhouseCoopers (2007) ‘Global
Risk, Reward, Business and Society:
Collaborate or Collapse’, PwC
International Ltd, London.