One of the challenges of Risk Assessments lies in defining proper metrics for the consequences of hazards hits. When the Risk Assessment bears on a well-defined facility, the task is easier than if the study bears on large and multifaceted systems exposed to risks, like, for example, copper theft or information warfare at national scale, or, similarly, if we are dealing with
rational funds allotment and justification for critical infrastructure.
Metrics in that case have to cover numerous aspects of the cost of consequences, including wide social-economical repercussions of the hazards.
While working on the definition of the metrics for country-wide rational funds allotment and cyber warfare risk management, a literature search led us to review documents such as “ The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol”. This document explains how “Projects would be ranked on a scale of one to five according to their likely effects on biodiversity, ecology, hydrology and erosion as well as on broader issues regarding regional planning, cultural heritage and effect on local inhabitants.”
The similarity with the requirements for a complex consequence metric seem striking. A presentation of the methodology (PDF), at page 13 shows a graphic representation very familiar to us, and probably to you, readers of this blog (See ORAPR)! In fact the methodology of the “ The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol” is so close to what we developed a while ago for Mine Operational Risk Awareness that we decided to compare the benefits they bring and share our experience with the application of ORAPR.
The “Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol” states among the benefits of its use that it :
- Creates awareness of all the aspects of Sustainability,
- Strengthens the capabilities of developers,
- Provides a neutral platform for dialogue between proponents and affected parties,
- Provides a global benchmark for regulators, banks and policy makers,
- Provides a strong signal to any potential partners in a project.
Our experience with ORAPR certainly confirms the approach helps to raise awareness. In fact, we even named it ORAPR where the A stands exactly for Awarness.
As you see the benefits of using such a tool for mining operation is tremendous, as is it with hydro-power.
ORAPR has the advantage of allowing to compare the same operation at various stages, using preparation, awareness and other controls as key parameters. At the end users have a graphic explicit output, as well as a rating in their hands, to help communicating further needs for awareness and preparation developments.
ORAPR is fast and inexpensive and will allow you to “know where you stand” in terms of risk awareness and preparation.