This project has received funding fromthe European Union’s Horizon 2020research and innovation programmeundergrantagreementNo700342.

Topic: DRS-10-2015: Disaster Resilience & Climate Change topic 2: Natural Hazards: Towards risk reduction science and innovation plans at national and European level

Project number: 700342

Project name: Enhancing Synergies for disaster Prevention in the EurOpean Union

Project acronym: ESPREssO

Start date: 01/05/2016 Duration: 30 months Deliverable reference number and title: D3.1 Reference scenarios according to the project challenges Version: 1 Due date of deliverable: 31/12/2017Actual submission date: 31/12/2017

Dissemination Level PU Public X

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

EU-RES Classified Information: RESTREINT UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

EU-CON Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

EU-SEC Classified Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

Note about contributors The following organisations contributed to the work described in this deliverable:

Lead partner responsible for the deliverable: GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam Kevin Fleming

WP leader responsible for the deliverable: Stefano Parolai (till Oct. 2017). Kevin Fleming (current)

Deliverable reviewed by: Mattia Leone (AMRA) Annegret Thieken (University of Potsdam) Lynn Schueller (DKKV)

Authorized by:

Giulio Zuccaro (AMRA) Other contributors:

Bojana Petrovic and Massimiliano Pittore (GFZ) Jaime Abad (BRGM) Lynn Schueller and Sina Marx (DKKV) Laura Booth and Anna Scolobig (ETHZ) Giulio Zuccaro and Mattia Leone (AMRA)

Page1of24

TableofContentsTableofContents.........................................................................................................................................1Abstract........................................................................................................................................................31 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................42 Scenariosandscenarioanalysis............................................................................................................63 Proposedscenarios...............................................................................................................................83.1 Challenge1:IntegratingClimateChangeAdaptation(CCA)andDisasterRiskReduction(DRR)..83.2 Challenge2:ReconcilingScienceandLegal/PolicyissuesinDRR..................................................93.3 Challenge3:Nationalregulationsforthepreparationtotrans-boundarycrises........................10

4. Closingstatements..............................................................................................................................12Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................13References..................................................................................................................................................14ANNEXIESPREssOThinkTank#1:BridgingDRRandCCA-FeedbackSynthesis........................................15Introduction–generalobservationsfromthematicdiscussion.............................................................15CCAandDRRinterface........................................................................................................................15

Generalconsiderationsfromnationalperspectives...............................................................................16Roleofscience........................................................................................................................................17Roleofpolitics.....................................................................................................................................17Roleofprivatesector/CriticalInfrastructures...................................................................................17Roleofcommunities...........................................................................................................................18

ResearchgapsandneedstobridgeDRRandCCA..................................................................................19

Page2of24

Page3of24

Abstract

The Enhancing Synergies for disaster PRevention in the EurOpean Union (ESPREssO) project aims todevelopa vision for researchprogramsdealingwithdisaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate changeadaptation (CCA).Aspartof this, theproject,withinWorkPackage3 ‘Developmentofhazard-specificscenarios for RMS’, is developing a scenario training exercise, named within the project the RiskAssessmentModelSimulationforEmergencyTrainingExercise(RAMSETE).TheintendeduseofRAMSETEistoencouragecommunicationbetweendifferentstakeholdersforthepurposeofinformationelicitation.

Thisdocument,D3.1‘Referencescenariosaccordingtotheprojectchallenges’,willoutlinethescenariosthatwillbeusedwhentheexerciseiscarriedoutduringthethreeThinkTanks.TheseThinkTanksarebeing held to collect information on stakeholders’ needs, perspectives and priorities, and existingknowledgeoflegal,policyandscienceapproacheswithinthecontextofthethreeESPREssOChallenges:(1) Integrating Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), (2) ReconcilingScienceandLegal/PolicyissuesinDRR,and(3)Nationalregulationsforthepreparationtotrans-boundarycrises.Therefore,eachscenariosetoutwillbedependentuponthechallengebeingconsidered intherespectiveThinkTank.

Theaimoftheseexerciseswillbetoencouragediscussionamongsttheparticipatingstakeholders,theresultsofwhichwillcontributetorecommendationsforfutureresearchactivitiesintheimplementationofmoreeffectivepoliciesinDRRandCCA,theinteractionbetweenscientificandlegalframeworks,andthebetterco-operationbetweennationalDRRandCCAauthoritiesacrossEurope.Therefore,whilesomeoftheexercisesandscenariosmayhaveanoperationalelementtothem,ingeneral,theywillbemoregearedtowardsplanning.Infact,thefinaloutcomes,orthedecisionsactuallymade,oftheexercisesarenotconsideredasimportantastheactualdiscussionsurroundingthereasonsforthedecisions.Itmaythereforebedescribedasacasewhere‘thejourneyratherthanthedestination’isofimportance.

Page4of24

1 Introduction

The aim of Work Package (WP) 3 “Development of hazard-specific scenarios for RMS” involves thedevelopment of a scenario-based training tool, previously referred to within the project as the RiskManagementSimulator(RMS),buthasbeenrenamedtheRiskAssessmentModelSimulationEmergencyTrainingExercise(RAMSETE).Theprimarypurposeofthistoolisforknowledgeelicitationabouttheissuesthat areof concern to the ESPREssOproject. It needs tobe emphasised immediately, therefore, thatRAMSETE is not meant to provide “operational” scenario training in order, for example, to testprocedures,butrathertoidentifyandexaminethemotivesbehindhigher-leveldecisionmaking,aswellasgapsandthepotentialforimprovementsinpolicies.

RAMSETEwillbuilduponexperiencegained fromapreviousECFP7project, SENSUM* (Framework tointegrate Space-based and in-situ sENSing for dynamic vUlnerability and recovery Monitoring). Thepurpose of the scenario-training exercise developed within SENSUM was to explore the level ofknowledge disaster management personnel from the test case countries (Turkey, Kyrgyzstan andTajikistan)hadabouttechnologiessuchasremotesensingandGISinpre-disastervulnerabilityassessmentandpreparation(SENSUM,2013a)andpost-disasterrecoveryplanningandmonitoring(SENSUM,2013b).Itthereforeprovidedameansinformationelicitation,forexample,byidentifyingcommunicationsgapsandlimitationsinherentwithintheirorganizationalstructures(SENSUM,2013a;2013b).

In the case of ESPREssO, RAMSETE is being developed within the context of the three ESPREssOchallenges:

• Challenge1:IntegratingClimateChangeAdaptation(CCA)andDisasterRiskReduction(DRR).• Challenge2:ReconcilingScienceandLegal/PolicyissuesinDRR.• Challenge3:Nationalregulationsforthepreparationtotrans-boundarycrises.

Arangeofscenariosarebeingdevelopedtodealwiththesechallenges.However,asillustratedinFigure1,thisdoesnotmeanthatagivenscenariowillbeonlyrelatedtoonechallenge.Forexample,ascenariomaybeproposedforthesciencevs.legalchallengewhichdealswiththeuncertaintiesassociatedwithCCAandDRR.Inthiscase,certaindecisionsmadesurroundingchangingstormactivity(challenge1)basedonthebestavailableknowledgemaynotinfactbethecorrectones,hence,whobarestheresponsibilityforanynegativeconsequences.

Theaimofthisdocumentistopresentthenatureofthescenariosthatareproposed,orhavealreadybeenused intheexercisescarriedoutduringtheThinkTankworkshops,organisedbetweenWP1andWP3.Therewillbethreeoftheseworkshops,whereaselectionofstakeholders(seeESPREssOdeliverableD1.1 “Stakeholder Engagement Plan: Overview of Tools & Activities”) will participate in a RAMSETEexercise.EachThinkTankwilldealwithoneofthechallenges(thefirst,dealingwithchallenge1,washeldinOctober,2017inBerlin,Germany).Thefollowingsectionoutlinessomecharacteristicsofscenariosandscenarioanalysis,includinghowscenariosmaybeclassifiedwithinthecontextofnaturalhazardsandrisk.Thisisfollowedbyadescriptionofthescenariosthemselves.WeconcludewithabriefdescriptionoftheRAMSETE,whosefinaldesign,afterallthreeworkshops,willbereportedindeliverableD3.3“Scenariodesigntoolbox”.

*http://www.sensum-project.eu/deSENSUMwassupportedwithintheFP7fundingframeworkoftheEuropeanCommission.

Page5of24

Figure1.Howselected‘specific’scenariosmayberelevanttomorethanoneoftheESPREssOchallenges.Notetheexamplescenariosgivenherearepurelyforillustrativepurposes,andmaynotbeusedintheRAMSETEexercisesundertakenduringtheThinkTanks.

Page6of24

2 Scenariosandscenarioanalysis

Oneofthemostimportantaspectssurroundingnaturalhazard/riskmitigation(disasterriskreduction-DRR) and understanding and preparing for the consequences of climate change (climate changeadaptation-CCA) isforthevariousstakeholders(e.g.,civilprotectionpractitioners, land-useplanners,theinsuranceindustry,infrastructureoperatorsandultimately,thegeneralpublic)tocommunicateandexchangeinformationwitheachother.Thisinvolvesunderstandingwhatthemainconcernsandgoalsofeachgroupare,andwhatresources(financial,knowledge,etc.)eachstakeholderrequirestofulfiltheirresponsibilities.Furthermore,itneedstobeconsideredhoweachsectorcanhelpandcomplementtheothersintermsofallpartiesachievingtheiraims,aswellaswhereconflictsintheirrespectivegoalsmayarise,callingfortheneedfortrade-offsbetweenthedifferentparties.

Theneedforsuchunderstandingcallsforameansofelicitingknowledgefromtherelevantgroupswithregardstotheissuestheyfindrelevant,andcreatingaforumwheresuchinformationcanbeexchanged.Onewayofachievingthisisviatheuseofscenariotrainingexercises.Scenarioshavebeendescribedas‘notafuturereality,butratherameanstorepresentitwiththeaimofclarifyingpresentactionsinlightofpossibleanddesirablefutures’(DuranceandGodet,2010).Thedevelopmentofsuchexercisesmaybedivided into scenario planning and scenario building, where scenario planning refers to the overallprocess of proposing plausible future environments, and using these environments for learning,examiningone’sthinking,andtestingdecisions,whilescenariobuildingistheprocessofbuildingupthe‘story’thatwillformthebackgroundtotheexercise(Chermak,2004).

Scenarioplanninghasfoundmanyuses,suchas(Bradfieldetal.,2005):

• crisismanagement,wherescenariosareusedassimulationstotestanddesignresponses;

• scientificcommunicationofthecomplexityofscientificmodels,theoriesandresults;

• publicpolicymakers,wheremultiplestakeholdersarebroughttogethertoensuretheirinvolvementinpolicydecisions,

• professionalfuturist institutesthatworktowardsanalysinganddisseminatingresultsaboutcriticaltrends;

• educational institutes that engage in research and development of future studies theories andmethods;

• businesses,whichusethisasalong-termplanningtool.

Consideringscenariobuilding,suchexercisesrequireasuitable‘story’,i.e.,ascenariotobebuilt,thatisrealistic,engaging,andflexibleenoughtoallowtheparticipantstoexploretheissuesbeingconsideredasopenlyaspossible,yetwithsomeconstraintssoasfocusontheissueathand.Itisthereforethescenariobuildingthatwillformthebulkofthisdocument.

Of theabove listeduses,publicpolicy,scientificcommunicationandcrisesmanagementarethemostrelevanttotheworkbeingcarriedoutinESPREssO.Asweareconcernedwithknowledgeelicitation,itmaybesaidthatitisnottheactualdecisionsmadeduringtheexercise,northeoutcomesthemselves,thatareofinterest,butrathertheissuesandcircumstancesinfluencingthedecision-makingprocess,aswellasthefactthat interactionsanddiscussionsaretakingplace.Onemaythereforedescribetheseexercisesascaseswhere‘thejourneyismoreimportantthanthedestination’.Thevalueofascenarioisthereforenotthatitcanaccuratelydescribefutureeventsorsituations,butthatitallowsthosetakingparttolearnandadapttochanges(LawsandMcLeod,2000).

Page7of24

Thescenariosemployed inthepreviouslymentionedSENSUMexercisehadanoperationalelementtothem, specifically, a predefined seismic event, with associated secondary effects and predictedconsequences, to which the participants had to respond. However, it was, as described above, ‘thejourney’thatwasofinterest.AsimilarattitudeformsthebasisoftheESPREssOtrainingexercise.Inthiscase, rather than the exercises necessarily being ‘operational’, they are more concerned withcommunicationbetweendifferentstakeholdersat‘higher’levelsofthedecisionmakingandresponsehierarchy.CommunicationisthereforetheprimaryinterestoftheESPREssOexercise(outlinedindetailin thefollowingsections),wherethethemesof interestare inresponsetothe issuessurroundingthethreeESPREssOchallenges.

Page8of24

3 Proposedscenarios

3.1 Challenge1:IntegratingClimateChangeAdaptation(CCA)andDisasterRiskReduction(DRR)

Challenge1isconcernedwithhowthereareperceivedtobegapsinCCAandDRReffortsatthelevelsofinstitutions,conceptsandresearch.Whenconsideringthescenariosforthistrainingexercise,whathadtobe kept inmindwas that the issueherewas centredonplanning, andnot ‘operational’ concerns.Therefore,when this exercisewas carried out at the 1st ESPREssO Think Tank (held in Berlin on 12thOctober2017),thedecisionwasmadeto‘create’afictitious,butrealistic,islandnation,theGrandDuchyofEspressoland,wheretheobjectivewastoincreasethewell-beingandsocialcohesionof itscitizens.Thismustbeachievedbymakingthebestuseofanallocatedbudget for increasingtheCCAandDRRcapacityoftheisland,whichinturnrequiredgovernmentrepresentativesofministriesdealingwithDRR(interior)andCCA(environment),aswellaslocalgovernment(whodealtwithboth)tocommunicateandnegotiatewitheachother,whilebeingadvisedbyDRRandCCAscientists(treatedseparately,butwithinteraction encouraged). Such interactions required an investment, but the hope was that themoreeffectiveoutcomeswouldjustifysuchexpense.

TheGrandDuchyofEspressoland(Figure2)isanislandwithadiversegeography,includingcoastalareas,mountains,avolcanoandrivers.Itissubjecttomultiplenaturalhazards,includingearthquakes,volcanos,landslides,floods,andstorms.Whilenaturalhazardssuchasearthquakesarestationary†,theintensityandfrequencyofhydro-meteorologicalhazards(storms,floods,and,indirectly,sometimeslandslides)willchangeovertimeasaresultofclimatechange,aswellasthegeneralclimateoftheisland.Thepopulationofthisnationliveindifferenttypesofbuildings,mostlylocatedinthecapitalEspressopolis,whilethereareextensivetransportinfrastructure(roadsandbridges),basicutilities(waterandpower),andcriticalassets(hospitals,schools,firestations).TheeconomyofEspressolandmostlyrevolvesaroundagricultureand fishing, and its currency is the Bean. It is the goal of the participants to consider DRR and CCAstrategiesthatwillleadtothe(fromtheirperspective)bestoutcome,meaningminimizingthenegativeimpactsofvariousnaturaldisasterswhileincreasingsocialwelfareandenvironmentalconditions.

†Note,bystationary,wemeantheprobabilityofanearthquakeofagivenmagnitudeisindependentoftime.

Page9of24

Figure2:TheGrandDuchyofEspressoland.Notetheactualscenarioexercisewasnotmeanttobe‘operational’butwasfocusedon‘planning’.

Three groups, referred to as teams, played the exercise simultaneously. Each team consisted of fiveparticipants, each with their own role, namely interior ministry, environmental ministry, localgovernment,andtworesearch,withoneeachforDRRandCCA.Eachrolehastheirownresponsibilities(asimplifiedrepresentationofastakeholdergroup)andduties (theiroperativecapacities).Duringthecourseoftheexercise,theparticipantswererequiredtonegotiatewitheachother,withthesciencerolesadvisingthegovernmentofficialsastothepreferredactionstobemade(pre-definedviaaseriesofso-called“actioncards”).

As mentioned, the object is to improve the well-being and social cohesion of Espressoland. This ismeasuredusingthreemetrics:shields,whichreflectDRRcapacity,leaves, indicatingCCAcapacity,andhandshakes,indicatingthesocialwell-beingandstrengthandwhosemaximizingisthefinalaimoftheexercise.Eachactionwillcontribute(orcauseadecrease)inthenumbersofeachmetric,whichwillbeagainadjustedattheendofeachroundwhentheeventsofthepreviousroundandtheresultingnumbersofshields,leavesorhandshakeslostaredetermined,dependentupontheactionsactuallytaken.

Theexercisewasdesignedtoconsistofthefollowing(general)periods:

• Adescriptionwasprovidedofa “virtual”5yearperiodprior to the startingpointof theexercise,wherethestateofEspressolandwasoutlined.

• Thiswasbe followedby six5-yearperiods‡ (or rounds)of approximately30minutes,whichwere(approximately)subdividedasfollows.

o Role-dependentinformationwasprovidedtothescienceparticipantsandgeneralinformationtotheentireteam(intheformof“informationcards”).Thebudgetandactioncardsappropriateforthat roundweredistributed,with some timeallocated toallow theparticipants to familiarizethemselveswithallcards.Then,approximately20minuteswasspentindiscussingwhichcardsweretobeused.Budgetwastheonly limitonhowmanycardscouldbeused§.Naturally, thebudgetwillnotpermitallpossibleactionstobeundertaken,hence,thisiswheretheinteractionsbetweenthedifferentrolesiscritical.

o Attheendoftheround,thecardstobeusedarepresentedandtheresultingnumbersofshields,leaves and handshakes determined. Then, the events that occurred during that round arepresented (a series of natural disasters/extreme events outlined in “event cards”) and thenumbers of shields, leaves and handshakes adjusted according to the losses endured. Theremainingtimewasspentontheparticipantsdiscussingtheirreasoningbehindtheirdecisionsandtheconsequencesofanyactionstakenwithinthecontextalsooftheeventsofthatround.Thissegmentoftheexercisewillbeamongstthemostimportantoftheentireexercise.

DetailsofthisversionoftheRAMSETEexercisewillbeprovidedindeliverableD3.3.

3.2 Challenge2:ReconcilingScienceandLegal/PolicyissuesinDRRChallenge2willbethefocusofthe3rdThinkTank(expectedtotakeplaceinMay,2018,inNaples,Italy.In this case, the proposed scenario (the nature of which is still being developed) will again involve

‡Note,duringthe1stTT,only4roundswereplayedduetodiscussionsoversteppingtheoriginallyallocatedtimes.However,thiswasnotfelttobeaproblembytheESPREssOteamasthediscussionsthemselvesweretheobjectiveoftheexercise,whichappearedtoprogressverywell.§Therewasasequenceinvolvedinwhichcardscouldbeused,withsomecardsrequiringearlieronestobeapplied.

Page10of24

Espressoland,butthistimethescenariowillinvolveanexpectederuptionofMountMocca(Figure2)andthepotential negative consequences. This scenariohasbeen inspired inpart by thepossibility of theeruptionoftheCampiFlegreicaldera,withinandaroundwhichthecityofNaples,Italy,isbuilt,andwhichhasgarneredagreatdealofattentionrecentlyowingtoseveralepisodesofupliftsincethe1950,leadingtoconditionsthatmaybefavourabletoaneruption(Kilburnetal.,2017).

Theissuesthatwillbeconsideredduringthisscenarioare:

• PossibilityofaneruptionofMountMocca,potentiallyendangeringthelivesandlivelihoodsofthepopulationofEspressoland.

• Willthedecisionbemadetoevacuatethearea?Willitbeanorder,orsuggestion?Howwillthisbemade?

• Howmuchinformationwillbeissuedtothepublic?• Howwilluncertaintiesbecateredfor?• Who will be responsible for any consequences of the evacuation (lost industrial production,

possibleaccidentsduringtheevacuations,mentaldistress,andgeneralinconvenience)ifthereisnoeruption?

Aswiththechallenge1scenario,thisexercisewillnotbeoverlyconcernedwithoperationalissues(i.e.,how theactualevacuation isundertaken,wherearepeoplemoved to,etc.),but rather it isa caseofcommunicationbetweenscientistswhoareadvisingthecivilprotectiondecisionmakers,andlegalandpolicymakerswhoareresponsiblefordealingwiththeconsequencesofanyorderedevacuation.

3.3 Challenge3:Nationalregulationsforthepreparationtotrans-boundarycrises

Atransboundarythreatisonethatischaracterisedbyitsconsequencescoveringareasthatcrossnationalboundaries.Suchacrisiscanescalatealongbothgeographicalandfunctionaldimensions,which,whencombined,definesthecatastrophicpotential(e.g.,BoinandRhinard,2008),andthereforeareofconcerntochallenge3,whichdealswithhowgovernmentscope(orotherwise)withsuchsituationsintermsofpoliciesandregulations.ThischallengewillbethebackgroundforthescenarioexercisetobecarriedoutinZurich,Switzerland,aspartofthe2ndThinkThank,on24thJanuary,2018.

Thescenariosemployedwillagainbecentredonan‘invented’landscapethatisthefictitiousEuropeancountriesofMacchiataniaandLattestan(Figure5).Thesecountriesshareacommonborderandbotharesubjectedtoarangeofnaturalhazards:earthquakes,floods, landslides,storms,aswellastherebeingpotentialforNaTecheventsinvolvingseriousdamagetoindustrieswiththeresultingextensivedispersalofpollutants(bothchemicalandradiogenic).Theparticipantsoftheexercisewillthereforebetaskedwithrespondingtoaseriesofextremeeventsofdifferenttypes,includingcascadingandNaTecheventsthatrequire a cross-border response. The ultimate aim is therefore tominimize the consequences of theevents that have occurred by carrying out themost effective response. Thiswill see the participantsneedingtocooperatewitheachother,theirrolesincludinggovernments(centralandlocal),andNGOsand European actors (the latter in form of the European Civil Protection Mechanism, CPM). Thegovernment characters will need to interact with their counterparts in the neighbouring (and alsoaffected)country,whiletheNGOsandCPMwillendeavourtocontributetothesituationinwhateverwaypolicyallows.

However,theactualeventspresentedarelargelyirrelevant,astheissuesofconcernarethepoliciesandregulationsthatareinvolved,bothinternally(forexample,centralisedversusdecentralisedsystems)andexternally(forexample,agreementsmayormaynotexistforbilateralassistanceintheeventofatrans-boundary disaster), as well as interactions that would arise with NGOs and the CPM. Therefore, the

Page11of24

regulationsandpoliciesfollowedbythesecountrieswillbepredefined,andoneofthemajoractivitieswillbehowtheparticipantsnegotiateanychangesinsuchpolicythattheybelieveisnecessary.

Althoughthepolicieswillbepredefined,theywillbebasedonrealisticsituationswithinthesixcountriesconsideredwithinESPREssO(Switzerland,Italy,France,Germany,DenmarkandtheUK).Thereforeeachset of policies will be a mixture of those followed by actual countries. However, what should beemphasised is that if thisexercisewere tobe conducted for thepurposeof truly seeinghowpoliciesbetweentwocountriesmaybealtered,itwouldsimplybeamatterofoutliningtheactualpolicies,realisticmapsandeventscenarios,andconducttheexerciseinthesamemannerastheonedescribedabove.

Figure5ThenationsofMacchiataniaandLattestan,asdescribedinthemap**tobeusedinthescenariotraining

exercisetabletopsheets.

**ThemapisgeneratedusingthetoolHexographer(http://www.hexographer.com/)

Page12of24

4. Closingstatements

ForESPREssO, it is thesurroundingpolicyandregulatory frameworkthat isbeingassessed,aswellasidentifying the barriers that exist that preventmore effective CCA and DRR activities. As said in theintroduction,itisthejourneyratherthantheactualdecisionsmadethatareofinterest,andwhichwillform valuable input to the guidelines and vision paper whichwill bemajor outcomes of the project(deliverablesD5.4‘ESPREssOguidelines’,D5.5‘ESPREssOVisionPaper’).AnexampleoftheinputprovidedbyTT1exercisetotheESPREssOGuidelinesandVisionPaperisreportedinAnnexI.

Page13of24

Acknowledgements

TheRAMSETEscenarioEXERCISEandassociatedscenarioshavebeendevelopedbyeffortsfromacrosstheproject,inparticular:

• KevinFleming,BojanaPetrovicandMassimilianoPittore(GFZ).• JaimeAbad(BRGM)• LynnSchuellerandSinaMarx(DKKV)• LauraBoothandAnnaScolobig(ETHZ)• GiulioZuccaroandMattiaLeone(AMRA)

AdditionaladviceandassistancewasprovidedbyMichaelHaasandStefanoParolaiofGFZ.WewishtothankthestakeholderswhoparticipatedinthefirstThinkTankinBerlin,whocontributedmuchhelpfuladviceastohowtheRAMSETEexercisecanbeimproved.

Page14of24

References

Boin, A. and Rhinard,M. (2008)Managing transboundary crises:What role for the European Union,InternationalStudiesReview,10,1-26.

Bradfield,R.,Wright,G.,Burt,G.,Cairns,G.andVanDerHeijden,K.(2005)Theoriginsandevolutionofscenario techniques in long range business planning, Futures, 37, 795-812, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003.

Chermack, T.J. (2004) Improving decision-making with scenario planning. Futures, 36, 295-309, doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00156-3.

Durance,P.andGodet,M.(2010)Scenariobuilding:Usesandabuses,TechnologicalForecasting&SocialChange,77,1488-1492,doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.007.

Kilburn,C.R.J.,DeNatale,G. andCarlino, S. (2017)Progressiveapproach toeruptionatCampi FlegreicalderainsouthernItaly,NatureCommunications,15May2017,doi:10.1038/ncomms15312

Laws,K.andMcleod,R.(2000)Culturalchangeinorganisationsthroughtheuseofscenarioanalysis:someresearchfindings,ICSTMInternationalConferenceonSystemsThinkinginManagement,ed.Altmann,G.,Lamp,J.,Love,P.,Mandal,P.,Smith,R.,andWarren,M.,8-10November,2000,Geelong,Australia,pp.335-340.

SENSUM(2013a)DeliverableD4.1End-usersassessment,FrameworktointegrateSpace-basedandin-situsENSingfordynamicvUlnerabilityandrecoveryMonitoring(SENSUM),FP7-SPACE-2012-1,Collaborativeproject:312972,65pp.

SENSUM(2013b)DeliverableD5.1Comparisonofoutcomeswithend-userneeds,FrameworktointegrateSpace-based and in-situ sENSing for dynamic vUlnerability and recovery Monitoring (SENSUM), FP7-SPACE-2012-1,Collaborativeproject:312972,38pp.

Page15of24

ANNEX I ESPREssO Think Tank#1: Bridging DRR and CCA -FeedbackSynthesisIntroduction–generalobservationsfromthematicdiscussionCCAandDRRinterfaceThere aredifferencesbetween the two communities: DRR community dealswith crisismanagement(althougheffortinpreventionandmitigationispromotedbypartofDRRscientificcommunity)whileCCAareplanningthelong-term.Thesolutionistobepragmatic:whendealinge.g.withchangeinprecipitation,youarealsodealingwithmoreseverestormsandmoreseverefloods.Onestrategy is toconnecttheextremeeventstoclimatechange.Sointhewakeofevents,theremightbeopportunitiestohavethetwocommunitiestotalktooneanother.

EUisriskyterritory,andscientistshavetobecareful.Afteranextremeeventwecannotonlyanswerwiththelongtermperspectiveandsolutions.Itneedstobeacombinationofshort-andlong-termvision.

CCAislimitedtoonlyclimatehazardswhileDRRcoversabroaderspectrumofhazards.CCcommunitydoes not have to dealwith the effects of CC, theDRR community has to dealwith them (in formofincreasedrisksandactualevents)BUTkeepinmindthatthecostsofCCcannotonlymanifestintermsofdamageduetohazardsbutalsointermsofchanginglivesandeconomicaswellasculturalvaluethatcommunitiescangenerate.

CCtouchesmanydifferentgovernmentalportfolios(water,healthetc.)notonlyDRR,thusdeterminingacomplexityintermsofwhoisinvolvedandwhatareasareaffectedbyglobalenvironmentalchange,thereforetransversal,horizontalcollaborationneedstobefostered.

Political,socialandcultural issuesneedtobeconsideredtounderstandthecomplexityofsynergizingCCAandDRRandthecontextinwhichitisevolving,alsowhenlookingattheglobalpicture(consumptionbehavior,migrationetc.).Thisisconnectedtothelocalpoliticalissuesandculturesoftheareaorcountryinquestion.Howdopoliticalpointsofviewinfluencehowprojectsandactionsareframed?

SHsdonotperceiveInternationalFrameworksandespeciallySendaihelpfulatallforsynthesizingDRRandCCAsincethestatementsinthedocumentaresobigandbroadthatthereisnostatementatallsothateverything thatwasdonebeforecansimplybeput“insideSendai”withoutmakinganychanges.However,BuildingBackBetterisunderstoodasanimportantissue,althoughthereisaneedtoframeinto an integrated approach thepre- (retrofitting) andpost-event (reconstruction)actions aimedat“BuildingBetter”,sincethesearetwokeycommonelementsinDRRandCCA.

Silos(inscienceandpolicy)createissuesindefiningactionstotake.Barrierstointegrationincludelackof information, lack of funding and their regulation. The great emphasis on CCA is bringing DRRcommunitytoget involved intheCCdomain(at leastas“strategy”toget funding: involvingaclimateinstituteinaDRR-orientedresearchtocovertheCCAdomain).

Climate change issue dominates, there is also ‘too much knowledge’ in that and there is no clearconsensusandnowaytonavigatealltheinformationthatexistsonclimatechange.Atthesametimeclimatechangeimpactsexperienceisnotverylong,asthereismaybe1-2decadesofresearchinthat.

TheimplementationofCCAstrategiesisverycostlyandthereisnomoneybehindthestrategyortheactionplan.Andexamplecomes fromthewatermanagementsectorwhichhashuge fundsavailable.WhatcanbedonetoimplementCCAmeasurementthere,istotranslatetheinformationofthescientists,putitintothecontextofwatermanagementInordertoimplementtheneededCCAmeasurements.

A“competition”betweenthetwocommunities isvisiblebothonpolicyandsciencedomains.Centralgovernanceisneededforintegrationinsteadofdepartmentsworkingindependently.Thediscontinuous

Page16of24

dialogue should be avoided as well as the competitive side through a continuous dialogue andcollaboration.

Areas on a regional level are often so diverse and different in geographical terms that it is hard tomaintainanationalframework/agenda.Theregionallevelshouldadaptthenationalframework/agendatotheirneeds.Activitiesonlyhavelongevityiftheyarepromotedbythelocalgovernment.Prioritizingfundsisacentralissuehere,especiallydifferencesbetweennationalandlocallevels,andespeciallyhowscientificcommunitiesimpactthatdecisionmaking.

Abalance between “soft” (e.g. awareness) and “hard” (e.g. engineered) DRR and CCAmeasures isimportant. Soft (non-structural) measures, focusing on society are economically preferable, sinceengineereddisasterpreventionmethodsareveryexpensive.

GeneralconsiderationsfromnationalperspectivesInGermany,thereiscompetitionbetweentheministryofresearch(climateservices)andtheministryofinfrastructure(weatherservices)andbothhaveagoodrelationshiptotheWMOwhichresultsindoublestructures.There iscompetitionalso inwhohasthecompetenceandtheknowledgetoadviceonthelocal/regional level and governmental bodies in charge of addressing research and implementing theactions. InGermany this is split into two different bodies. The understanding inGermany is that theclimatechangeadaptationisahorizontalaction,tobedealtacross-cuttingpolicyratherthatanewpolicyissue.TheGermanperspectiveisverymuchconcernedwithgovernancebetweenthedifferentpoliticallevels.Weneedaguidednationalriskassessmentprocedure.Weneedalliancesbetweenthegovernmentallevels,scientistsandemergencyresponseagencies.TheSwissmodelcanbeawayforward.Very decentralized measures and structures, and decisions need to bee viable in such governanceapproach.

ApositiveexampleofintegrationistheclimateservicecenterinAustriaNationalriskassessment:shiftfromfloodprotectionplanstoheatwaveplansastheywerealreadywellpreparedagainstflooding,goodexamplefordemonstrationofagoodcollaboration.TheAustrianperspectiveisthesameastheEuropeanperspective,whereCCAisseenasacoordinationeffortoftheministryofenvironment.CCAisseenasahorizontalissuebecausethefundsarenotwiththeministryofenvironmentsoyouneedtomainstreamthetopicintodifferentsectoralpoliciessuchase.g.healthorwatermanagement,butthismaycreateanunbalancedapproachtostakeholdersengagement, (onlyonestakeholderoutofhundred).Besidesthe horizontal coordination you need, depending on the governance of the country, a verticalcoordinationfromnationalleveldowntolocallevel.Atthelocallevel,astrategycanbedevelopedfittingintherespectiveneedsaccordingtotheframingactionplan.

InafewcountriessuchasNorway,CCAisbasedwiththecivilprotectionagencybutthisisduetohistoricaldevelopment.

In Italy, the national adaptation plan is being released (end 2017), the government and scientificcommunityhaveprepareddocumentandassessedtheimpactsofCCinthefourdifferentItalianregions.Heretheroleofthescientificcommunitywasverymuchtoprioritizeassessmentsofhazardsandrisks.TheintegrationisstilldifficultinItaly:despitetheeffortwithNationalAdaptationStrategyandPlan,anorganizationwhichiswellstructuredandorganizedtakingcareofclimatechangeisstillmissing(“ItaliaSicura”rolestillnotclear).Onthecontrary, there isastructuredandwellorganizedrelationshipwithuniversitiesandpublicresearchdealingwithnaturalhazards.DRRscientificcommunityhasacertainroleinthegovernancesystem,butithasonlycertainareaswheretheycanactivelycontribute,andCCdomainneedstobeintegratedinsuchsystem.

Page17of24

The experience from France is that oftenpolitical priorities are too quickly changed in thewake ofdisasters.Thereisaproblemwithurgentdecisionstobetaken,whichstandsintensionwiththeactualneedofthinkinglong-termforbuildingbackbetter,prevention,protectionandadaptation.Whichkindofpriority does the government have, and how do they rank different priorities? Is human lives moreprioritizedthaneconomiccostsandinfrastructure?FrancenowhasaMinistryforsocialandecologicaltransition, and for the first time there is the opportunity to address these issues from a policyperspective.Across-cuttingconcernaboutsocialandnaturalsustainability isemerging,pushingforagovernanceapproachthatneedstodealwithmanyareas:health,pollution,agriculture,etc.Intermsofscienceandpolicyinterface,itismandatorytoworkwiththemostuptodatedataonanyissuerelatedtoclimatechange.Theenergyregulationforbuildingisbecomingcentrallyplanned,whilethereisalotofCCAworkgoingonatthelevelofcitiesandlocalterritories,butlessatthenationalandregionallevels.

ReleaseofEuropeanreportsoonwith7casestudiesaboutCCAandDRRintegration.

TheactionplanoftheAfricanUnionhasaveryregionalapproachinimplementingtheSendaiFrameworkandrecognizetheimportanceofintegratingsustainabledevelopmentandtheSendaiFramework(doesitcomefromtheGreenClimateFundopportunity?).

RoleofscienceCCscienceshouldprovidestatisticalinformationonhazardsandrisksintermsofprobability,quantityetc.forimprovedriskandhazardsassessments

Weneedtochallengeandworkwiththeengineeringmindset.Weneedtobreakdownsilosfromanengineeringframework:optionsandchallenges.ThereisastrongengineeringbiasinmanyorganizationsdealingwithbothCCAandDRR.

Scienceshouldreduceuncertaintiesbutmoreimportantlycommunicateuncertaintiesproperlyforriskgovernance.Allpreventioninterventionsareveryexpensivethereforeuncertaintiescreatebarrierstoinvestments.

Uncertaintyneedstobetackledalsoaspartofpeople`sperception(exampleofhurricanesintheUS:communicationof(un)certaintiesvs.perceptionofrisk)

RoleofpoliticsForpoliticalactorsthetimeframeisterms,thusalowprobabilityforpoliticianstoinvestinlonger-termissuesalthoughtherearemanycasesofpoliticiansactuallyfindingpoliticalcapitalandsupportforlongtermCCAdecisionsaswell.Amorecomplexpictureofpoliticsisalsovisible(e.g.fromEuropeanandUNvision).

ThereispoliticalwilltocreatesynergiesbetweenCCAandDRRbutproblemofcompetingagendasofministries,departments,agencies,individualsonthebackgroundofeconomicinterests.

Politicaldecisionsaremadebyexpertsandpublicofficialsincombination,andthisframesthedecisionsthatpoliticianscanandcannotdecideon.

Roleofprivatesector/CriticalInfrastructuresPrivatizationofutilitiesandcriticalinfrastructurecreatesnewdilemmas.OfteninfrastructureisoldandstartingtofailbutthereisnomoneytorepairthemalthoughthesituationisexacerbatedthroughCC.

Page18of24

Whenutilitiesareprivatizedofficial reportsarereplacedbyconsultants` reports thenknowledgeofmunicipalitiesislost,nosynthesis.

There is a disappearing knowledge base,massive investment needed to re-establish data that wasalreadythere

There is a problem of devolution: coordination function vs. technical expertise in municipalities“ifweareacriticalinfrastructurethenthegovernmentneedstosupportus”.

RoleofcommunitiesThe community level knowledge (local knowledge e.g. from local response services and localcommunities)shouldnotbeneglectedandshouldbeintegratedinriskassessmentmaps(bottom-upandtop-downintegration).

Localgovernments’investmentsinsocietyandeducationisimportantasatapolicylevelthereistoomuchbureaucracy.ThecultureofasocietycanbeabarriertoDRRandCCAintegration.

Educationallowscommunitiestomaketheirowndecisionsandmakesthemawareofthedangers(e.g.duringevacuations,oftenpeoplechoosenottoleave,buteducationwouldhelptobuildtheknowledgeofthecommunityonwhyevacuationisimportant).

Communities should be engaged by using existing community structures (e.g. the UK Environmentagencytrytotohouseinchurchhallstheircommunityfloodawarenessefforts).

Page19of24

ResearchgapsandneedstobridgeDRRandCCA

Keyissues Gaps/needs Possiblesolutions

Commonknowledgebase

1. WithintheEuropeanCommission’sprojectsandactivitiestoomuchspaceisgiventoCCasopposedtoothernon-climaterelatedhazardsBetterunderstandingofDRknowledgebasefromCCcommunity

2. Synergiesfromdifferentstudyfields

3. DevelopnarrativesthatenhancethecollaborationofCCAandDRR

4. Scientistsalsoworkin‘silos’5. Long-termperspective:foresight,

whatpotentialfuturesarewelookingat?

6. NGOsareamajorplayerinCCAandDRR

7. Analysisofhorizontalandverticalgovernance:howtofacilitatetheinterfaces?

8. AslongascivilprotectionisatthejurisdictionofthenationalstatesorevenfederalstatestherecannotbeaEUdirectiveandintegrationwithCCisnotgoingtohappen

9. Promotesynergybetweenthescientistsandrespectivenationalministers

10. SustainabledevelopmentisoftenmissinginCCAandDRRdiscussion.Thethreeagendas(CCA,DRRandsustainabledevelopment)aimtointegratethethreepoliciesbuttheydon’tknowhowtodothis.Thereiscertainlyroomforinnovation(theanswerisnotthereyet)

1, 2, 3, 4. Horizontal integration within the sciencecommunity

5.ESPREssOVisionpaperasatimeline/roadmap

6,7.Promoteverticalandhorizontalcoordination(team-up localandregional/nationalauthorities+communityresilienceandbottom-upinitiatives)

8.Considerthatmayhavedifferentagendastoscienceandgovernment. Transnationalplansasbestpractice.CPMhastoadapttothetransnationalnatureofdisasters

9a. Ministers taking decisions based closely on thescientistsrecommendations(science-policyintegration).

9b.Anagency for the integrationofDRRandCCAasapossiblemechanismtoimproveCCAandDRRintegrationand greater communication between responsiblegovernmental authorities (e.g. ministry of the interiorandministryofenvironment)

10a. The three agreements are have to find a waythrough.Theyallhave indicators (the indicatorsof theSDGsdisasterresiliencearethesameasfortheSendaiFramework)andhavetofindawayhowtomonitortheindicatorsandhowtoreportonprogress.

10b.PromoteasingleagreementinvolvingDRRandCCratherthanhavingSendaiandParisseparately(thereisCCApeoplewhohavenotheardaboutSendai)

Fundingand

implementation

1. Increaseinvestmentsonresearch2. Alignfundingprioritiesatlocaland

nationallevel(Collaboration&coordinationfornationaltolocallevel)

3. HowmuchtheStateinput,needscontinuousdiscussionwithlocalstakeholders.Howmuchvaluevs.expenditure?Howmuchresourcestocommitin“peacetime”?Howtobuild-upreservesor“warchest”forDRR?

1a. Promote devoted DRR research projects and tointegratewithclimatechangeinformationandstudies1b. Promote National risk assessments studiesconsideringCCAdevelopments(morelong-termhorizon)

1c. Investment priorities: a. integrated monitoring,forecasting and early warning systems; b. preventivemeasuresinDRRconsideringCCcomponents(e.g.floodmanagementplans);c. rescuesystemsascivildefence,emergencyresponseoperators,firerescueteamsetc.;d.public participation in DRR (focusing not only onschools)andnon-structuralpreventionmeasuresbased

Page20of24

4. Hardmeasures(infrastructure)arestillnecessary,togetherwithinstitutionalframework

5. Lackofimplementationofriskreductionmeasurestohouses,infrastructures,etc.

6. LackofknowledgeontheimpactsofsomeDRRactivitiesmayresultinnotadequatefundingprovisions.

onearlywarning(lowcost,cansavemanylives);“Doublelayer” protection: e.g. protection of protectioninfrastructure;planningtheroutesofevacuation.

2, 3, 4a. Balance local government investments (e.g.educationprogrammesforthe localcommunities)withfunding for other activities required (DRR and CCAactionstoincreaseresilience).

2,3,4b.Support localgovernment inthe identificationoffundingpriorities,properbudgetassignmentandcost-benefitassessmentovertime(includingmaintenance)

2, 3, 4c. Investments should take into considerationmultiplebenefits(multi-riskissues),studiesshouldlookintotheseissuesandnotonlyregardingCCAandDRRbutalso regardingother issues that influencedaily livesofcommunities.

2,3,4d.Promoteinnovativemulti-institutional(national,regional local) funding articulation around the EU andnationalprioritiesonDRRandCCA,designedtoensuremutual support and effective implementation (e.g. inGermany theministry of interior cannot cover for thebudgetofthelocalgovernment).

2, 3, 4e. Develop CCA strategies at the municipalitylevel/localclimateadaptation

2,3,4f.CitiesshouldplayakeyroleinintegratingDRRandCCA, short- and long-termvisions (roleof citiesasfacilitatorsofchange)

2, 3, 4g. Building the disasters’ database for betterplanningperspective

5.Forcedbuildingcodesarethebestsolution

6.Trainingisanareawherelargeamountsofmoneyisinvested, very little is invested in measurement ofresults.

Page21of24

Scientificadvancem

ents

1. Afullanalysisofthehazardisneededtogetherwiththeevaluationofvulnerability

2. Overcomethelimitsoflargescalerisk-assessmentsand“zoning”approaches

3. Uncertaintiesofsciencebecomeabarriertoimplementation

4. Gomoreindepthwiththeanalysisofthecommongoods,stresswhatwehaveincommonasasociety

5. Designresearchprogrammersthatcontributetotheintegrationofthesetwoareas

6. Researchnonlocallevel:howurbanplanningcanintegrateclimatechange?Wherearetheentrypoints?

1a.PromoteresearchtobetterdefinehazardsandrisksconsideringCCaswell

1b.IncreasetheobservationnetworktoknowCCeffectsatlocallevel

1c.Integratedmethodsforriskassessment

1d. Link climate modeling and impact modeling (DRRknowledgebasecansupport)

1e.Involvementofcriticalinfrastructureoperators

2a. Develop fine-tuned risk/impact assessementapproaches(betterspatialandtimeresolutions)

2b.Cost-benefitanalysisofmulti-riskreductionactions(life-cycle perspective, including maintenance andupgradingovertime)

3. Work on reducing uncertainty, but alsocommunicatingtheconceptbetter.

4. Increase studies on : a. socio- and economicconstraints(immigration,foodsecurity,terrorism,mediacoverage); b. influence exerted by end-userstakeholders, victims; cultural constraints in decision-making process; disaster law and legislation area ingeneral;climatechange,migration&humanrights;useofnature-basedsolutionsforCCAandDRR.

6a. Research question(s): What are effectivemechanismsfora jointdesignofDRR/CCAmeasures inEurope?

6b. Scientific research should be made accessible forpractitioners.

6c. A very good knowledge of the local level and theprocessesisneededinordertopromoteintegration.Anentrypointneedtobeidentifiedwhenitcomestodesignand projects: e.g. in an infrastructure project anotherinformationregardingCCAcanbedrawnandtheprojectrespectivelyadapted.

Page22of24

Communicationandoutreach

1. Understandingofthetermsusedbythetwocommunities

2. Promotemechanismsthatfacilitatethedialoguebetweenthetwocommunities.Muchmoreinformationandknowledgemanagementisrequired.

3. Actionstodiffusescientificcultureandthespecifichazardsofacountrymustbeaddressedinschools,localcommunityandadministrators.

4. Lackofastandardizedwaytocommunicaterisktodifferentkindofpublic(includingmediaissue)

5. CivilsocietyneedstobeactivepartinimplementingDRRandCCA(relevanceofnon-structuralactions)

6. Understandperceptionofriskwithincommunitiesandtheirbehaviortoriskinformationandcommunication

1,2a.IncreasetheopportunityofdiscussionamongthedifferentcommunitiesworkingontheDRRincludingCC

1, 2b. Online portals/platforms that can enhance theintegrationofCCA&DRR

3,4a.Learntocorrectlycommunicatetopopulationandtocreateapermanent linkbetweenschools,residents,administratorsandscientists.

3, 4b. Residual risk communication is crucial (riskgovernance)

5. Raise motivation for change acting on culture andlifestyle (relevance of non-structural actions) e.g.transport,food,…

6. Research question(s): How to involve citizens onsynthesizingDRRandCCA?HowtobottomupDRRandCCA?