About ASEAN Reinsurance Programme (ARP) The ASEAN Reinsurance Programme (ARP) aims to enhance reinsurance education and talent development in the region. It is an initiative under the ASEAN Insurance Education Committee and the ASEAN Reinsurance Working Committee and managed by the Insurance Institute of the Asia-Pacific (IIAP) in collaboration with the Singapore College of Insurance (SCI), the Malaysian Insurance Institute (MII), the Thailand Insurance Institute (TII) and the Dewan Asuransi Indonesia (DAI). The ARP is a first of its kind, multi-pronged holistic talent and professional development initiative that combines technical training programmes with internships in time to come. The Programme is slated for February 2021 kicking off with a 2-hour webinar organized by the IIAP, focusing on reinsurance developments in the ASEAN marketplace. Participants who are interested in the technical training programmes will be encouraged to go through a Reinsurance Primer course and assessment, sponsored by SCI. This Primer covers the basic concepts of reinsurance. Participants can register for the various technical training programmes on a stand-alone basis. For a start, only one intake will be offered in 2021 and we will limit the number of participants to no more than 30 per class. Participants are expected to have a minimum of three years of experience in reinsurance.

Speaker: Mr. Nirupam Das - Director, Global Digital Transformation Liberty Mutual Insurance, Singapore

To read this newsletter in a browser click here. An update from Mami Mizutori, UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction — 26 February 2021 I am sure we all hope for a 2021 that sees us overcome the challenges and tragedy of COVID-19 and move forward into a positive 'new normal'. But that won't be possible until vaccines have been made available equitably across the world. We are not safe until we are all safe. A human rights-based approach to disaster risk reduction lies at the heart of the Sendai Framework, and for this reason UNDRR advocates strongly for equity in vaccine distribution. The inclusion of biological hazards in the Sendai Framework came as a direct result of the experience of Member States combatting more localized outbreaks of disease. The world is now faced with a much greater challenge which requires a universally agreed approach to disaster risk governance when it comes to tackling the pandemic. It would be a great mistake to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel just because of the innovative work that has been done in producing several COVID-19 vaccines in record time. As discussed at the International Recovery Platform event which attracted 340 participants from 49 countries, the vulnerable are suffering the most. Solidarity needs to improve if we are to respond adequately to the compound nature of the impacts flowing from the pandemic. This applies particularly to making the vaccine available in low and middle-income countries. The current funding shortfall is US$27 billion which pales by comparison with the trillions more that could be lost if we do not get the pandemic under control in all countries in reasonable time. If you have been following my Twitter feed you will have seen that I have been highlighting the need for equity in vaccine distribution and drawing attention to the funding gap for the ACT Accelerator i.e. the WHO mechanism to speed up Access to COVID-19 Tools, including vaccines. The pandemic underlines the importance of Sendai Framework Target (f), which will be the focus of this year's International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction on October 13. Target (f) calls for enhanced "international cooperation to developing countries through adequate and sustainable support." I'm sure no one doubts the wisdom of this target in the current moment! US BOOST FOR PARIS AGREEMENT AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION It is a cause of great encouragement to the rest of the world that the United States has re-joined the Paris Agreement. It gives me hope that if other members of the G20 raise the level of their ambition to at least match, if not surpass that of the US when those reductions are announced in coming weeks that we may at last have achieved a tipping point in global commitment. It is also very encouraging to read the news emanating from FEMA — the US Federal Emergency Management Agency — that the Biden administration is contemplating what could prove to be one of the largest-ever domestic investments in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation by a single country. President Biden often talks about building back better, a phrase which is used widely throughout the Sendai Framework. This makes sense against a backdrop of some $2 trillion dollars in economic losses caused by extreme weather events in the US over the last forty years, a period during which the world at large has seen extreme weather events almost double. Losses on such a scale are not sustainable or acceptable. This is especially so when US federal researchers have found that $6 are saved in disaster losses for every dollar invested in prevention. EARLY WARNING, EARLY ACTION At the Climate Adaptation Summit hosted by the Netherlands, much of the emphasis was on those countries who do not make a significant contribution to emissions but suffer the worst consequences of global warming and often lack the means to reduce the risks they face because of extreme weather. It is astonishing to learn that only 40% of World Meteorological Organization (WMO) members report having adequate early warning systems in place. I listened attentively to the discussion of the anchoring event on disaster risk management and later commented on the importance of early warning followed by early action reaching the last mile with a multi-hazard approach as a key area of attention for climate financing routed through CREWS and REAP. However, it is still the case that developed countries are a long way from delivering on their climate finance commitments to developing countries. UNDRR's 'Media Saving Lives' project, which was rolled out in the Caribbean in late 2020 is working with the World Broadcasting Union (representing more than 200 public broadcasting service unions) to deliver journalism training, resources and co-production opportunities to strengthen the media's role in early warning and early action scenarios. G7 CRISIS WAKE-UP CALL Dear G7 Leaders, The world was not ready for covid-19. But we could have been. We could have been prepared for the many climate-related disasters, famines, conflicts and global health threats of the past decade. Instead, we paid for these disasters with lives, not money. That's why we, a group of organisations and individuals working to stop risks turning into disasters, are coming together in 2021 to ask G7 leaders for a new global agreement to better predict, prepare and protect the world's most vulnerable people from the big risks we face... These are the opening paragraphs of Crisis Lookout letter I have signed along with 26 other UN agency chiefs and heads of leading organizations. As the UK takes over the presidency of the G7 and COP 26, we are calling on G7 leaders to agree to: PREDICT CRISES BETTER by creating a new "Crisis Lookout", to improve risk information and the prioritisation of crises globally, regionally and nationally. PREPARE RESPONSE BETTER by agreeing a new plan to make pre-arranged finance the primary way that crises are paid for, so that funding gets where it is needed faster and with greater impact. PROTECT PEOPLE BETTER by operationalising this approach now with support for an initial group of 'pathfinder' countries to explore better risk information and financing options, so they are ready when the next crisis hits. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND PREVENTION The first opportunity that I have had to mention that increasing international cooperation for developing countries would be the focus of this year's International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction was my speaking engagement with the Working Party on Humanitarian Aid and Food Aid under the auspices of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of Europe. My message was straightforward. One of the hard lessons we have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic is that without strengthened international cooperation we cannot reduce the risk of global crises before they strike us, now or in the future. We know that humanitarian aid plays a vital role in saving lives in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and the demands for it are now at a record high, a level which has become almost impossible to meet. Therefore, we need to enhance forward-looking investment in prevention and in addressing the drivers of disaster risk to make a significant impact in reducing overall disaster losses as well as reducing demand for humanitarian assistance. Whether it is a crisis in food production or the spread of a zoonotic disease, it is not enough to reduce the risk of future events inside a country’s border or even in a region- we must take a global, interconnected perspective of risk. It is also vital that humanitarian aid itself is implemented with an eye to prevention. Measures to alleviate present difficulties should be undertaken with a view to preventing future recurrences, and they have to be anticipatory. The Guide to Scaling up Disaster Risk Reduction in Humanitarian Action is a good starting point for investing in ways that make DRR more integral to humanitarian planning and programming at the country level. LEARNING AND GUIDANCE I would like to thank all of those who provided us with feedback on the public review version of our new Words into Action guide Nature-Based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction. It aims to give practical, how-to-do information on setting up and implementing nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in support of implementation of the Sendai Framework. This new publication is intended to complement IUCN's Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. It is broken down into three chapters including an introduction and overview of the current state of play; tools and resources; and, finally, how to mainstream and upscale Nature-based Solutions to deal with disasters and climate risks. There is valuable advice on policy coherence and how to engage communities, including women and youth, and the private sector. This is a combined effort of the international DRR Community brokered by UNDRR and will be launched officially in the coming months. As a first attempt, the launch of this Words into Action will be accompanied by a podcast with experts in this field discussing on the multiple benefits of Nature- based Solutions for disaster risk reduction. * * * #PreventionSavesLives I hope that you will find this update useful and informative. If you would like more information about UNDRR’s many activities, please do visit www.undrr.org and please — stay safe and well. Mami Mizutori UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Disaster Risk Reduction Please, send us feedback — undrrcomms@un.org If you’d like to know what else we have planned, please visit our website, or follow us on: © UNDRR 2020 You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. If you don’t want to receive these updates, please unsubscribe here.

About ASEAN Reinsurance Programme (ARP) The ASEAN Reinsurance Programme (ARP) aims to enhance reinsurance education and talent development in the region. It is an initiative under the ASEAN Insurance Education Committee and the ASEAN Reinsurance Working Committee and managed by the Insurance Institute of the Asia-Pacific (IIAP) in collaboration with the Singapore College of Insurance (SCI), the Malaysian Insurance Institute (MII), the Thailand Insurance Institute (TII) and the Dewan Asuransi Indonesia (DAI). The ARP is a first of its kind, multi-pronged holistic talent and professional development initiative that combines technical training programmes with internships in time to come. The Programme is slated for February 2021 kicking off with a 2-hour webinar organized by the IIAP, focusing on reinsurance developments in the ASEAN marketplace. Participants who are interested in the technical training programmes will be encouraged to go through a Reinsurance Primer course and assessment, sponsored by SCI. This Primer covers the basic concepts of reinsurance. Participants can register for the various technical training programmes on a stand-alone basis. For a start, only one intake will be offered in 2021 and we will limit the number of participants to no more than 30 per class. Participants are expected to have a minimum of three years of experience in reinsurance.

About a third of the employees of a regional bank have returned to working onsite, and the president holds a weekly all-staff town hall meeting by videoconference. Employees are encouraged to submit anonymous questions for him or other senior leaders to answer. For the past six weeks, an increasing number of people have asked, “How do we know if the people who are still working from home are actually working?” Some employees have even suggested specific technology-based monitoring approaches to track remote workers’ onscreen time and activities. Each week, the president assures his employees that the business is on track and that measures of productivity (like the number of loans taken out) are above expectations. “But it’s exasperating,” he said. “No matter how much I try to convince them or even use numbers and other kinds of evidence, it’s not sinking in. You’d think that if I can trust people, surely they can trust each other, right? But no.” The crisis of trust this bank is facing is increasingly common as the strains of remote working wear down company culture and people’s goodwill. Early in the pandemic, stories of organizational heroics — like companies repurposing laptops en masse overnight to equip employees’ homes — abounded. And for a while, people gave each other the benefit of the doubt and didn’t mind making compromises like allowing the occasional deadline to slip so that people could take care of homeschooling or other new demands. Over the past eight months, we’ve worked with and researched dozens of companies that are wrestling with this challenge in settings as varied as professional services, oil and gas, finance and insurance, healthcare, telecommunications, automotive, and tech. In each of them, we’ve seen a shift from the positive, “We’ve figured out this virtual work thing!” sentiments to the recognition that trust in their organizations — in individuals, relationships, and the organization — is fundamentally at risk. Increased reports of electronic monitoring also suggest that executives’ confidence in having figured it out is starting to ebb. For example, Hubstaff, a provider of time-tracking tools for remote work, reported a four-fold increase in its UK customers since February of 2020, and Sneek, whose technology takes webcam pictures of employees on a regular interval and shares them with colleagues, reported a five-fold increase. It’s critical that company leaders work to rebuild and maintain trusting relationships — with and among their employees. Those that don’t risk far more than lower morale. The chances of increased attrition, lower productivity, and stalled innovation also loom large when trust plummets. Why the Crisis of Trust Now? Companies have experimented with work-from-home policies for years, so what’s new now? First, remote work is now widespread. Companies previously allowed select employees to work from home, either because those specific employees were highly trusted or because their work allowed managers to measure their output and hold them accountable. Now everyone is at home, regardless of past performance level or job. Second, when stay-at-home mandates hit around the globe, people were involuntarily thrust into remote work — often without the equipment, training, or desire to do it. Whereas before, employees may have opted to work remotely, many are now struggling to focus at home thanks to increased familial responsibilities or because other members of their household are also working from home. Third, uncertainty about the economy and job stability breeds anxiety, which tends to prompt a go-it-alone mode of working among employees and a general wariness of others. Finally, employees’ WFH challenges (including technology failures, shifting work norms, and conflicts between work and home responsibilities) make it more likely that they’ll fail to deliver on perceived obligations, leading to a further erosion of trust. Critically, though, the factors reducing this ability to trust are not limited only to the effects of Covid-19, but are tied to ongoing trends in the way we design our work and organizations. Leaders need to address the underlying issues in order to build a sustainable model of trust. A Loss of Information Undermines Trust Predictability is the foundation of trust. We’re willing to be vulnerable — to expose ourselves to potential risk — when we have reason to believe that someone will not take advantage of us or disappoint us. This comes only when we think we can anticipate how others will behave. One of us, Heidi K. Gardner, researched more than 3,000 senior knowledge workers and identified two distinct kinds of trust that are essential for people to work together effectively. First, they need to believe that others will deliver and that the work will be high quality (competence trust). Second, they need to believe that others have good intentions and high integrity (interpersonal trust). To trust colleagues in both of these ways, people need clear and easily discernible signals about them — what they’re doing (actions), why they’re doing it (motivations), and whether they’ll continue to do it (reliability). Over the past two decades, the moves toward remote working and dynamically shifting teams has made this information harder to come by. Less face-to-face time means that we have less opportunity to observe, for example, that a teammate consistently brings along prepared notes and diagrams to enhance the conversation. We also have fewer shared sidebar conversations that build rapport and interpersonal trust, and we lack situational cues — like the leftover pizza boxes as evidence colleagues pulled an all-nighter — to understand others’ efforts and outputs. This makes it difficult to establish trust in others because we don’t have the data we need to know what they’ll do. It also eliminates the steady stream of reinforcing information that helps us maintain existing trust. The isolation of remote working may be tied to lower trust for another reason: we unconsciously interpret a lack of physical contact as a signal of untrustworthiness. In virtual work misunderstandings and miscommunications abound. We therefore face a perfect storm of less information on which to establish trust, less reinforcing information to maintain it, and more “trust infractions” to break it. Once trust is lost, it’s very hard to regain. There are a few steps leaders should take — and one they shouldn’t — to bring trust back to theirs and their employees’ relationships. Monitoring Is Not the Answer An increasingly common approach to dealing with decreased trust is to counter it with increased monitoring. Whether done through technology (for example, keystroke capture) or process (for example, daily check-ins), monitoring is usually counterproductive. First, it never works. Any manager who thinks they can know everything their remote employees are doing is fooling themselves; there will always be gaps in any monitoring process. Second, people perform to the measure, not to the objective. It doesn’t take much to figure out how to get around the measures themselves, and employees often put more effort into working around them than into just doing the work. Third, monitoring isn’t just ineffective — it actually makes the problem worse. One survey found that 49% of employees subject to stringent monitoring reported severe anxiety, compared to only 7% of those subject to low levels of monitoring. Monitoring can also increase burnout and employee dissatisfaction and undermine firm morale. There are few stronger signals that you don’t trust someone than putting them under surveillance. Understanding the Science of Trust Monitoring fails because it tries to solve the wrong part of the trust equation — it’s about managers trying to eliminate the space for vulnerability. The better approach is to leave the space alone, but reduce the likelihood that someone will take advantage of it (and you). This doesn’t mean trusting blindly, but rather relying on the science of trust to build it in the least risky way possible. Recognize and leverage reciprocal trust. So often, when we talk about trust, we focus on how we develop it in other people. This misses the fact that trust is bi-directional and reciprocal — research shows that the more you trust someone and act accordingly, the more likely they are to trust you in return. Importantly, these do not operate independently. This means that in order to increase trust within your network, you need to shift your focus to signaling your own trustworthiness. Increasing others’ trust in you reduces uncertainty by creating a more stable and certain environment. Thinking in more Machiavellian terms, it also provides reciprocal leverage — the more trust they place in you, the less likely they will be to betray your trust (think mutually assured destruction as the underpinning of the entire Cold War). This is not setting yourself up to be taken advantage of; this is a strategic move that de-risks trust-building. And remember that which signals you send is one of the few things you do have control over. Build a trust staircase. Across substantial research on change (behavior change, culture change, you name it), one message comes through clearly: The best way to create lasting change is through repeated, small, reinforcing steps. Building trust is no exception — it requires evidence and reinforcement. Another way to increase the trust others place in you is to audition for it by finding opportunities to work together on a low-risk task, which gives you a chance to demonstrate your competence and integrity. For example, offer to jointly organize a lunch-and-learn series, where people (not just you!) can showcase their abilities. Look for situations that require minimal investments and for which the opportunity and failure costs are low. Demonstrate your own trustworthiness within that context and then, over time, build up to larger and more significant demonstrations to reinforce the trust you’re establishing. Engage in status-quo communication. Leaders know how important it is to communicate when things change. However, now, as things are in a constant state of flux, leaders also need to communicate about things that aren’t changing. Given that trust depends so heavily on predictability, leaders must recognize the critical importance of helping employees understand what they can count on. Doing so reduces uncertainty and creates a needed sense of stability. Assume one-size-fits-none trusting. Trust building, maintenance, and recovery work differently for different types of people, who fall into two broad categories: automatic trusters and evidence-based trusters. Automatic trusters approach a new relationship with at least some level of trust as the default, initially trusting the other party unless something happens to break that trust. This isn’t blind trust, but rather an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt. They’re minimally affected by fewer trust-building cues, and trust infractions trigger a challenge to their self-image, provoking a more severe and long-lasting backlash. Evidence-based trusters approach a new relationship with distrust as the default, not exposing themselves to risk until the other party has proven their trustworthiness. The lack of evidence characteristic of remote work makes it significantly more difficult to establish trust in virtual environments. Once trust is established (based on accumulated evidence), only major infractions are likely to significantly counter or undo that evidence. A critical first step is to not assume that others build trust as you do. With that in mind, you must do the homework required to know both your own and your counterpart’s approaches to trusting and put in the effort to adapt accordingly. If you’re an automatic truster and your counterpart is more evidence-based, you need to slow down your expectations and focus on providing that person with ongoing, repeated evidence of your predictability and trustworthiness. If you’re building the evidence for your trust case and your counterpart is trusting you on arrival, it’s critical that you keep an eye out for your own behaviors that may signal an infraction for them. Widespread remote work is likely to stick around for a while yet. Company leaders who want to maintain morale and avoid negative outcomes like increased attrition must take steps to establish (or reestablish) trust among their employees. By Mark Mortensen and Heidi K. Gardner Link to original post: https://hbr.org/2021/02/wfh-is-corroding-our-trust-in-each-other