Risk Management

The impact of climate variability and change on farmer’s livelihood in different agro- climatic systems and the changes in risk management approaches have shaped the mitigation and the response strategies of farmers and societies over the years. Farming communities that do not have inbuilt buffering mechanisms, as in resource poor rain-fed regions, are disproportionately vulnerable to the severity of extreme climate events. Climate change caused by global warming is likely to increase the frequency of climatic extremes in the future and result in changes in cropping practices and patterns over time and space. Climate change further compounds the problem, as it threatens to alter the frequency, severity and complexity of climate events, as also the vulnerability of high-risk regions in different parts of the country. In recent years, there has been a dramatic technological progress in the understanding of climate systems, as well as in monitoring and forecasting weather events on the scale of seasons and beyond. The advent of more reliable forecasts goes hand-in-hand with emerging trends in risk management, where reactive strategies are gradually being replaced with more anticipatory, proactive and forward looking approaches. The introduction of new crop varieties and production techniques offers the potential for improved efficiency; however, agriculture is affected by many uncontrollable events that are often related to weather including excessive or insufficient rainfall, hail, extreme temperatures and frost that can severely impact yields and production levels. In the light of above weather insurance acts as a one of the adaptation strategy to mitigate /manage weather related risks in rainfed areas.

According to Ahmed & Khan (2001), most of the risk management techniques are not applicable to Islamic financial institutions due to the requirements of Sh arī‟ah compliance. It creates Sharī‟ah based challenges to risk management for Takāful companies as well. These challenges arise as Sharī‟ah restricts the use certain instruments that are considered useful in conventional risk management e.g. derivatives (futures, options, swaps etc.) and sale of debts. Al-Suwailem (2006, pp.89-90) argues that Sh arī‟ah constraints to human behavior do not hinder creativity, rather these constraints are the major driving force behind the creation of innovative financial instruments. He suggests several Islamic financial instruments for risk management and concludes that Sh arī‟ah is abundant with real solutions to the present problems of gambling and speculation. It provides directions to Sh arī‟ah scholars and experts of Islamic finance to explore the dimensions of Sh arī‟ah in order to integrate risk management practices with value creation.

An awareness of risk and recognition of the need for risk management have always been at the heart of commercial activity (Essinger and Rosen, 1991). A realization of the inevitable gap between expectations and reality has always characterized commercial activity; particularly once merchants began to make hazardous journeys overseas in search of returns that were potentially much bigger than could be obtained through arduous labour at home. In The Merchant of Venice – the first great work of literature whose plot turns on the issues of risk and loss – Shylock, speaking of Antonio, says:

evaluation. Much of the work on evaluating adaptation has been to support adaptation funding programs and projects by institutions such as the Global Environment Facility and World Bank (Preston et al., 2009b) as well as traditional development assistance (UNDP, 2007; Hedger et al., 2008). Decision-makers currently focus on what can be described as substantive risk management (c.f., Simon, 1976), which emphasizes the identification and quantification of risk, and the identification of risk treatment options. However, without first defining system boundaries, selecting appropriate stakeholders, and asking the appropriate questions in the initial stages, an assessment is more likely to fail. The failure to articulate a process by which adaptation outcomes will be realized can result in viable plans sitting idle or being rejected by interest groups not involved in the risk management process.

The ‘war’ on terrorism is an interesting case for reconceptualising war for several reasons. As Michael Clarke noted, this conflict was extremely unpredictable, had much potential for unintended consequences in the international system and we had to expect the unexpected.^ Breaking with precedents set in Kosovo, policymakers were quick to employ the word ‘war’. Yet explicitly using the word created more problems than answers. Susan Sontag decried the use of a phantom ‘war’ as a metaphor with no foreseeable end: ‘what kind of war is that?’^ Metaphoric wars have no definite endings. In late September 2001, Rumsfeld observed that the ‘war’ on terrorism was ‘very, very different 6om what people think of when using the word ‘war’ or ‘campaign’. We need to fashion a new vocabulary and different constructs for what we are doing’ This paper argues that the language of ‘risk-management’ serves the purpose of understanding George W. Bush’s ‘first war of the 21®‘ century’. Momentous change in IR was arguably in the works, with new ideas of sovereignty where states unable to rein in terrorists are liable to outside intervention. If other states fail to protest vehemently, ‘their behaviour could well constitute acquiescence in yet another change to customary international law’.® Many claimed Washington finally had its defining mission after ten years of drift. US forces established Central Asian bases for the first time ever, with Moscow’s tacit consent. Globalisation also reared its dark head, subverting conventional Realist calculations of material power capabilities as failed states thousands of miles away now posed risks, rather than powerful ones. We face the globalisation of insecurity in perhaps the first ‘major war in the age of globalisation’.^

The EU Flood Directive 1 requires member states to develop flood risk management plans by 22 nd December 2015. Along the way, member states are required to carry out preliminary flood risk assessments by 22 nd December 2011, and detailed flood risk and hazard maps by 22 nd December 2013. Following these initial submissions, the assessments, maps and plans will be reviewed and updated in six yearly cycles.

The first phase of the research thesis proposal included identifying and defining the problems, establishing the objectives of the study and developing the research plan. The second phase included reviewing the literature related to risk assessment, health risk and risk management. The third stage was developing the questionnaire to investigate the risk factors that causes the health risk as well as the activities which causes the more occurrences of risk events.

After the chapter has completed the worksheet in small groups, you can then discuss as a chapter whether or not these risks are worth taking. In most cases, you can identify an alternative activity, procedure, or plan that would at least reduce the level of risk involved and potentially minimize the negative consequences to individuals and/or the chapter. That’s what risk management is all about: anticipating risk and taking actions to minimize exposure and possible negative repercussions. Risk management doesn’t mean that the risk will go away. Even the seemingly safest programs or activities can have unanticipated consequences. What risk management is, however, is a proactive effort conducted in advance of an action or event in an effort to minimize the potential for harm or negative results.

Implement success-oriented risk response planning. Focus risk management on taking action in order to win, rather than hoping not to lose! In the traditional threat-based approach to risk management, people aim to protect themselves at all costs; this purely precautionary approach is always inefficient, and often ends up protecting from things that are unlikely to happen. By focusing action plans on creating value, it creates a win-win situation with the stakeholders involved.

As mentioned above, reputation risk does not include the reliability of financial reports alone. Rather, it is an amalgam of the risk that may arise as a result of all corporate risks that may have a negative effect on stakeholders’ percep- tion. According to COSO ERM, it is possible to appropriately control all risks that may have a ma- jor impact on the future of a company and the ability to continue its business activities. As a re- sult, COSO ERM framework helps ensure effec- tive reporting and compliance with laws and regu- lations, and helps avoid damage to the company’s reputation and associated consequences （COSO, 2004, p.3） . Fombrun and van Riel（2004, p.222） stated that “Reputation management really means risk management.” From the perspective of repu- tation risk management, this is a convincing argu- ment.

It is an ongoing concern to improve the risk management process and increase profitability with minimum exposure to risks, reduce manual interventions and automate processes and controls. With its integrated data model, calculation engine and reporting platform, OneSumX automates the numerous work-around processes that institutions have built to reconcile their silo risk outputs. This reduces the through-the- cycle time and frees up time for added value activities.

9. The key principle in model risk mitigation is effective challenge: critical analysis by objective parties who are qualified and experienced in the line of business in which the model is used, and are able to identify the limitations and assumptions and suggest appropriate improvements. In summary, regulators are encouraging institutions to design model risk management frameworks that formalize the criteria to be followed in model development and implementation, ensure their prudent use, establish procedures to validate their performance and define policy governance and applicable documentation criteria.

Organizations are well advised to take stock of existing risk assessment as well as risk-response activities and build on them. At the end of the project, your steering committee and project team will realize the value of implementing the COSO ERM model and continuing the ERM journey. You will now be able to fold compliance activities, Sarbanes- Oxley processes, and other risk-response activities into your framework to keep it current and relevant. You will be in the position, and have the buy-in, to coordinate risk management activities across functions and departments. The substantial project management, team-building, and risk assessment efforts needed to carry out a successful core ERM project are worth the

Central banks such as the Bank of England and the European Central Bank have large research departments that publish research and surveys related to risk management. Almost all of it can be downloaded from the Internet. A good starting point is the BIS’ links collection http://www.bis.org/cbanks.htm.

Lloyd’s has worked closely with members of the market in developing the toolkit. In particular, Lloyd’s would like to thank those members of the toolkit working party and the members of the LMA Risk Management Committee for their valuable contributions. The participation of both groups in helping to scope and shape the toolkit, in directing the development and by providing valuable feedback at every stage has been hugely helpful. As well as the individuals, we would like to thank their organisations for allowing them to participate. We would also like to thank Deloitte for their help and assistance in putting the material together, and all those that have been involved within the Franchisor.

Nonprofit organizations face unique risk management challenges. They are often held to the same standards as for-profit organizations but do not have the same resources and knowledge to understand their risks and how to mitigate them. Legal and financial requirements may determine some of the risks your organization faces. For example, you must be compliant with tax reporting regulations. If you are not, there may be financial and legal repercussions. Heightened public scrutiny on nonprofit organizations has also created a new risk for nonprofit organizations: reputational risk. Controversial ac- tions or decisions can create bad publicity and alienate supporters, effectively preventing nonprofits from receiving the funding or volunteer base needed to achieve goals.

4.1.1 Overall responsibility for the management of risk within the University lies with the Governing Authority. The Governing Authority will approve the University’s Risk Management Policy and will satisfy itself, through its Audit & Risk Management Committee, that the Policy is effective, that an adequate Risk Management Framework is in place in the University and that Fundamental Risks are being managed appropriately by the University Executive. In addition, the Governing Authority, through its Audit & Risk Management Committee, shall require an external review of the effectiveness of the University’s Risk Management Framework and its governance on a periodic basis.

Often overlooked in the early planning of a human clinical trial, insurance requirements specific to foreign jurisdictions may have a significant impact on a company’s clinical program and a material impact on its bottom line. The clinical impact may include delay in enrollment as well as a decision not to enroll at all in a particular country from a cost/benefit perspective. Historically, the costs to secure insurance meeting local requirements were insignificant and therefore typically not strategic to the clinical trials planning process. An evolution has taken place in recent years outside of the United States whereby a more uniform approach to protecting patients in human clinical trials has prevailed and continues to gain momentum in just about every country today. This movement towards uniform protection has created a complexity of risk management and insurance issues for both insurance company and life science company alike. The key aspects of coverage are described in this overview to help become familiar with terminology to be encountered, and as a guide

Strategy and plans: This is the first step of this generic and cyclic process where, based on risk and reward, a strategy is determined in order to optimise return to shareholders on a risk adjusted basis. Implicit to this task is the high level risk measurement and capital consumption of a certain strategy. This part of the process is owned by the risk owners. Risk management information should be used to provide insight, inform the operational planning process and influence re- source allocation including capital. Businesses must ensure that changes to their risk profile including control effectiveness are explicitly considered within strat- egy setting, business planning, objective setting and performance monitoring. Risk appetite: Based on the plans and the high level risk and capital allocation,

Projects that are developed by using agile methods are projected to give good results and more successful in producing high quality software that satisfies the needs of customer effectively at a faster pace. Software developing organizations that have been employing Scrum are recommended as starting point for organizations with small teams and with no distinct processes. Actually while using scrum it is able to identifying risks that occur in project development but it has no practices to identify the cause, factors to evaluate and handle the risk management effort. This study aims to introduce new roles and new team for Risk management that are effective in Risk management activity. The new roles and new teams of Scrum are useful for organizations that are experiencing high failure rates with respect to risk while using Scrum.