5.2 Public Hearing in the NWT: Environmental Rehabilitation …
57
• A holistic consequence function integrating all health and safety,
4 environmental,
economic and financial direct and indirect effects.
• Applicable published correlations
5 and information.
• It is expected the risk assessment will use a unified metric showing consequence as
a function of all health and safety, environmental, economic and financial direct and
indirect effects/dimensions. This will be done in a manner that allows transparent
comparison of holistic risks with the selected tolerance threshold.
• Consequences will be expressed as ranges, to include uncertainties. When evaluating the consequences, the risk assessment will:
– Explicitly define risk acceptability/tolerance thresholds, in compliance with ISO
31000 international code (see Sect. 14.1). These will be determined in consultation with potentially affected communities, using a unified metric compatible
with the one described above for consequences.
– Risks
6 and tolerance or acceptability will be developed separately, in such a way
not to influence or bias judgment of the assessors or evaluators. Risks will then
be grouped into “tolerable” and “intolerable” classes. The risks in the intolerable
group will be ranked as a function of their intolerable part. Mitigation efforts
will be allotted proportionally to that ranking.
5.3 Sendai Framework
The so-called Global Platform was established for implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2015) adopted in Sendai, Japan, in 2015.
In fact, the 2017 Global Platform conference (https://www.unisdr.org/conferences/
2017/globalplatform/en) stated that there continues to be real risk (they used this
wording) coming from political attitudes. For example:
• indicators will continue to measure disasters costs in dollars only;
• failure to take into full account the implications on the health, culture, environment,
customs and ways of life of affected social groups;
• best technologies are used to identify the arrival of drought or the poisoning of
water, earth and air, but without the powers necessary to mitigate them.
In fact we were very pleased to see that health, culture, environment, customs and
ways of life of affected social groups are all considered to be valid failure criteria
that should be taken into account in the multidimensional consequences of potential
4 Including inference of casualties and pathologies deducted from health studies described in Measure 9.
5 For example, using Holmes and Rae empirical correlation between “life changing units” and
the likelihood to become ill due to external changes, stress, Societal Willingness to Pay (See
Sect. 13.1.2), etc.
6 Risks = (probability (range) * Consequence (range)) as an extension of Eq. (1.1).
57
• A holistic consequence function integrating all health and safety,
4 environmental,
economic and financial direct and indirect effects.
• Applicable published correlations
5 and information.
• It is expected the risk assessment will use a unified metric showing consequence as
a function of all health and safety, environmental, economic and financial direct and
indirect effects/dimensions. This will be done in a manner that allows transparent
comparison of holistic risks with the selected tolerance threshold.
• Consequences will be expressed as ranges, to include uncertainties. When evaluating the consequences, the risk assessment will:
– Explicitly define risk acceptability/tolerance thresholds, in compliance with ISO
31000 international code (see Sect. 14.1). These will be determined in consultation with potentially affected communities, using a unified metric compatible
with the one described above for consequences.
– Risks
6 and tolerance or acceptability will be developed separately, in such a way
not to influence or bias judgment of the assessors or evaluators. Risks will then
be grouped into “tolerable” and “intolerable” classes. The risks in the intolerable
group will be ranked as a function of their intolerable part. Mitigation efforts
will be allotted proportionally to that ranking.
5.3 Sendai Framework
The so-called Global Platform was established for implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR 2015) adopted in Sendai, Japan, in 2015.
In fact, the 2017 Global Platform conference (https://www.unisdr.org/conferences/
2017/globalplatform/en) stated that there continues to be real risk (they used this
wording) coming from political attitudes. For example:
• indicators will continue to measure disasters costs in dollars only;
• failure to take into full account the implications on the health, culture, environment,
customs and ways of life of affected social groups;
• best technologies are used to identify the arrival of drought or the poisoning of
water, earth and air, but without the powers necessary to mitigate them.
In fact we were very pleased to see that health, culture, environment, customs and
ways of life of affected social groups are all considered to be valid failure criteria
that should be taken into account in the multidimensional consequences of potential
4 Including inference of casualties and pathologies deducted from health studies described in Measure 9.
5 For example, using Holmes and Rae empirical correlation between “life changing units” and
the likelihood to become ill due to external changes, stress, Societal Willingness to Pay (See
Sect. 13.1.2), etc.
6 Risks = (probability (range) * Consequence (range)) as an extension of Eq. (1.1).