Science-Policy Interfacing and Community-Building for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Area of Natural Hazards

Abstract

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is at the heart of international and EU policies, which involve a wide range of actors and cover multiple threats of natural and man-made (accidental or intentional) origins. In the natural hazards sector, the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather/climate events, as well as a range of geohazards, are triggering a high level of research worldwide. DRR research covers various risk management features supporting policy development and implementation. In this respect, a huge body of knowledge has been developed in successive EU Research and Development Framework Programmes in the last 15 years. In addition, networking initiatives connected scientists, policy-makers, practitioners, industry and civil society representatives in order to boost research uptake, identify gaps and elaborate research programs at the EU level. Research and networking efforts are crystallising into a wide community-building effort that gathers the above-mentioned DRR actors. This chapter will provide a general overview of these initiatives.

1. Introduction

1.1 General framework

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) policies follow an integrated approach to the management of natural and human-made hazards focusing on prevention, preparedness and response, recovery and learning [1]. The 2015–2030 Sendai Framework for Action [2] “Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters” adopted by 168 UN member states sets a voluntary commitment towards the improvement of disaster resilience and disaster risk reduction as essential ingredients for the achievement of poverty reduction and sustainable development. It closely relates to EU disaster risk management policies, in particular the EU Civil Protection Mechanism [3]. Disaster risk management is also addressed through the EU Internal Security Strategy [4] and the resulting European Agenda on Security [5] and Consumer Health Protection policies [6]. In addition, climate-related disasters are covered by environmental and climate policies (DG ENV through the Flood Directive [7] and DG CLIMA through the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (Figure 1) [8, 9].

Figure 1.

International disaster risk management landscape (from an EU perspective).

Further development and implementation of these policies represent a complex and ambitious challenge as they involve a wide variety of players. It involves countries with specific national approaches (national action plans) for dealing with crises. These are also differently organised in terms of disaster risk management capabilities to be adapted to the diverse context. The European Union (EU) framework represents a means and a real opportunity to discuss possible ways to improve coordination and knowledge sharing among the various national approaches. It enables the development of a common EU vision strengthened by a joint strategy and its implementation in this field. This requires bringing together key scientific, policy and industry actors (including SMEs and start-ups), practitioners (e.g. first responders, police representatives, fire fighters, civil protection units), NGO’s, citizens as well as other stakeholders.

1.2 Civil protection policies

The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) aims to facilitate reinforced cooperation and coordination between the European Union and the EU Member States (MS) in the field of civil protection, to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing, preparing for, and responding to natural and man-made disasters. It supports and complements the efforts of the MS for the protection, primarily of people but also of the environment and property, including cultural heritage, in the event of disasters. Built upon these policy instruments and on principles of solidarity, the UCPM targets the development of an integrated approach to disaster management. The overall mechanism takes due consideration of laws and international commitments and exploits synergies with relevant Union initiatives such as the European Earth Observation Programmes (Copernicus). The UCPM is operationalised through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and RescEU in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed capacities from the MS and trained experts. It also recognises the role of regional and local authorities in disaster management. Outside the Union, disaster response is coordinated with the United Nations and other relevant international actors. Finally, the use of military means under civilian direction may constitute an important resource to disaster response.

On technical grounds, the UCPM is working towards a general policy framework on disaster risk prevention aimed at achieving a higher level of protection and resilience against disasters by preventing or reducing their effects and by fostering a culture of prevention. From this perspective, it promotes the review of risk assessment, risk management planning conducted at national/regional level, and the development of an integrated approach, linking risk prevention, preparedness and response actions. Among the priorities is the action to improve the knowledge base on disaster risks and facilitate the sharing of knowledge, recommended practices and information, which is one of the core objectives of the recently launched Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network.

The UCPM is also financing actions related to preventing, preparing for and responding to disasters. These include EU Civil protection training programmes, regular large-scale exercises, exchange of experts, prevention and preparedness capacity-building projects (through annual calls for applications), logistical and transport support for response missions, the development of crisis response capacities under RescEU.¹

At the international level, the UCPM is closely related to the Sendai Framework for Action 2015–2030 [2], which sets out an ambitious set of priorities to place disaster risk reduction as a key element of sustainable development efforts, to define further steps to reduce existing and emerging risks and foster disaster resilience. As stressed in Council Conclusions on this matter, the EU supports a framework that strengthens the contribution of disaster risk management to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by promoting the use and development of innovative technologies and encouraging a more systematic and reinforced science-policy interface in disaster risk management. These objectives are supported by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations expressed in the special report on extreme events.²

1.3 EU strategy on adaptation to climate change

The EU strategy on adaptation to climate change [8] highlights the consequences of climate change and the need for adaptation measures. It gives priority to early, planned and coordinated action rather than reactive adaptation. The Strategy highlights the need for exchanges of best practice on how to best adapt to climate change, also taking into account global impacts that, for example, lead to disruptions in the EU of supply chains, or impaired access to raw materials, energy and food supplies. Its overall aim is to contribute to a more climate-resilient Europe by enhancing the preparedness and capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change at local, regional, national and EU levels, developing a coherent approach and improving coordination. The Strategy features a novel international component, aligning with the Paris Agreement and other relevant international policies. A close coordination between climate change adaptation and disaster risk management and policies is also required. Several of the actions proposed, including those related to international aspects of adaptation, are of direct relevance and in full synergy with DRR.

1.4 Water and marine policies

Specific policy instruments are in place in the water sector related to extreme hydrometeorological events such as floods and droughts, in particular the Water Framework Directive [10], which provides a legal tool to address water scarcity,³ by requiring long-term planning of water resources, economic tools to incentivise efficient use of water resources and specific measures on water abstraction and water efficiency. The strategic approach has been taken forward with the 2007 Commission Communication on water scarcity and droughts [11]. The WFD includes all elements needed to address adaptation to climate change. The definition of water status allows to cater for climate change impacts, and the cyclical approach to regularly update River Basin Management Plans provides the opportunity to constantly re-assess the actual status of water bodies and take the most effective actions to preserve them. The 2019 Fitness Check of EU water law has shown that the Water Framework Directive is flexible enough to address also drought and water scarcity issues, as it requires Member States to achieve the overarching goal of good status of all their waters, and when needed drought management plans should be elaborated and implemented. Finally, the above-mentioned EU strategy on adaptation to climate change calls for the wider use of drought management plans.

Flood prevention and management are tackled by the Flood Directive [7], which requires EU Member States to assess and manage flood risks, with the aim of reducing adverse consequences for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in Europe. The Floods Directive, which coordinates its objectives with those of the WFD, has no deadlines (in recognition of the ever-changing nature of flooding risk), but it provides a mechanism for assessing and monitoring increased risks of flooding, taking into account the possible impacts of climate change, and for developing appropriate adaptation approaches.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive [12] is the EU’s main tool for marine environmental protection. It looks at all pressures on the seas and ocean and brings them together under one umbrella to tackle the cumulative impacts of human activities in one strategic framework. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires EU Member States to set up marine strategies in respect of the marine region of the Member States’ marine waters to achieve “Good Environmental Status”, one of the criteria of which is the level of chemical pollution in the marine environment. This includes acute pollution events, such as discharges, spills and emissions of hydrocarbons and other harmful chemicals from ships or offshore oil and gas installations, or shipping accidents involving loss of containers. The 2020 report on the implementation of the Directive has shown that a reduction of such events has occurred in the Baltic and Northeast Atlantic regions but more efforts are still needed in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions.

1.5 Serious cross-border threats to health

The protection of human health is a matter, which has a cross-cutting dimension and is relevant to numerous EU policies and activities. The Commission should ensure, in liaison with the Member States, the coordination and exchange of information between the mechanisms and structures established under Decision 1082/2013/EU [6] on serious cross-border threats to health as well as activities that are relevant to preparedness and response planning, monitoring, early warning of, and combating serious cross-border threats to health. Apart from communicable diseases, a number of other sources of danger to health, in particular, related to other biological or chemical agents or environmental events, which include hazards related to climate change, could by reason of their scale or severity, endanger the health of citizens in the entire Union, lead to the malfunctioning of critical sectors of society and the economy and jeopardise an individual Member State’s capacity to react. The legal framework set up under the above Decision should, therefore, be extended to cover other threats and provide for a coordinated wider approach to health security at the Union level. In the context of this Decision, an important role in the coordination of recent crises of Union relevance has been played by an informal group composed of high-level representatives from Member States, referred to as the Health Security Committee, which plays an important role in responding to health threats (notably in terms of crisis preparation, exercises on CBRN events and the listing of pathogens and chemicals which pose a health threat) whilst the European Centre for Disease and Control (ECDC) provides risk assessments for communicable diseases and biological incidents. To address the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission adopted diverse measures such as guidelines on EU Emergency Assistance on Cross-Border Cooperation in Healthcare related to the COVID-19 crisis and recommendations on a common Union toolbox for the use of technology and data to combat and emerge from the COVID-19 crisis, in particular concerning mobile applications and the use of anonymised mobility data.

1.6 Critical infrastructure protection and critical entities resilience

The EU Security Union Strategy for 2020–2025 stresses the importance of ensuring resilience in the face of various risks. The smooth functioning of the internal market depends on the reliable provision of services that are essential for societal and economic activities in various sectors. Those essential services often are reliant upon one another, thus disruptions in one sector can generate severe and long-lasting effects on the provision of services in others. Those situations have significant consequences for individual EU Member States and across the EU, and the functioning of the Internal Market. It is therefore important that entities providing essential services and the infrastructure they rely on are resilient against natural and man-made threats. The EU Directive on the resilience of critical entities (CER Directive) underpins these services [13] in ten sectors (energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructures, health, drinking water, wastewater, digital infrastructure, public administration and space) and creates a framework to ensure greater harmonisation of rules and to support Member States in ensuring that critical entities are resilient against disruptive incidents, no matter if they are caused by natural hazards, accidents, terrorism or public health emergencies. The CER Directive introduces an obligation for Member States to have a strategy for ensuring the resilience of critical entities, carry out a national risk assessment and identify critical entities. Those critical entities will be required to carry out their own risk assessments, take appropriate technical and organisational measures in order to enhance their resilience and report disruptive incidents to national authorities.

2. DRR actors/interfacing

Our societies nowadays have to deal with complex and transboundary crises within which a more systemic approach with strict interconnection between risk reduction and sustainable development is needed. Partnerships and collaboration are mandatory to jointly address these challenges, in research, policy development and their implementation [14].

As described in Section 1 of this chapter, risk reduction of any kind of disaster is regulated by a number of international, EU, national and local policies and strategies covering various sectors and features, such as awareness raising, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, monitoring and detection, response and recovery. In this respect, the implementation of international policy initiatives (e.g. the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction) requires cross-border and cross-sectoral cooperation as well as enhanced collaboration among different actors and strengthened knowledge covering the whole disaster management cycle, from prevention and preparedness to response and recovery (and learning).

Policy and research development and implementation, require establishing dialogues between a wide range of actors, naturally including policy-makers and scientists, as well as practitioners, civil protection units, industry/SMEs and civil society. While different sectors (e.g. health, civil protection, environment, security) face common features regarding the overall crisis risk management cycle (from prevention to preparedness, detection, response and recovery), they have all specific needs and practices related to their field operations, which condition the proper transfer (and implementation) of research outputs. In other words, this diversity of actors requires that dissemination and communication of project results be tailor-made to different sectors and matching policy needs. The large span of research (and capacity-building) projects often leads to fragmentation of knowledge and sometimes to dispersion of resources (e.g. risks of duplication, insufficient critical mass, etc.). The high level of fragmentation of information often leads to a poor awareness of policy requirements by research and industry communities and a poor transfer of research results to policy and stakeholder communities. There is hence a strong need to establish a mechanism enabling better information exchanges with regular updates for all possibly interested organisations and effective interactions among projects and between different communities. The transfer of knowledge and synergy-building needs are manyfold, they concern interactions among policies (covering various sectors), scientific disciplines, and interfacing about science, policy and “users” (e.g. practitioners). This transfer also requires efficient relays from the international/EU to the national levels (e.g. through advisory groups/committees linked to policy entities (UN, EU, Ministries/Agencies), as well as from national to regional/local levels where operational actions take place in case of disasters.

Bringing together multiple actors from various sectors and disciplines has a very strong impact on various aspects of science-policy interactions. From the policy viewpoint, access to research and innovation at different levels in the policy cycle (design, development, implementation, review) relies on various research dynamics (programming to uptake) in which all DRR actors should in principle be involved (Figure 2). This interfacing mechanism has been used in the water policy sector for more than 15 years [15, 16] and is operational in many policy sectors including DRR. It contributes to enhanced cross-sectoral collaboration, cross-border interactions and cross-discipline dialogue and networking between the scientific community, research institutions and programmes, fostering a faster transfer of results from science into practice. It has a close link with research and capacity-building programmes and networking initiatives referred to in Section 4. This long learning process is expected to be strengthened in the forthcoming policy/research programming cycles.

Figure 2.

Science-policy interfacing.

Complementing this interfacing mechanism, the fact that various DRR actors are now used to work together in research and/or capacity-building initiatives naturally tends to create strong synergies among projects from different origins (i.e. funding by different financial instruments). Besides the direct impact on improved societal resilience and strengthened capacities of first responders in all operational phases related to any kind of natural and man-made) disasters, this move to project clustering has a high potential in terms of building up a critical mass of resources and issuing stronger recommendations to DRR policies actors. This has an impact on cross-border coordination of the disaster risk management cycle and governance from international to local levels. This trend is now embedded into community-building developments (see Section 4) and contributes to enhanced exploitation of the latest scientific results and integrated technologies into enhanced understanding of high-impact hazards and improved prevention, preparedness for mitigation, response and recovery tools. Another important lesson learned is related to networking involving as many DRR actors as possible to exchange information and experiences, thus strengthening the interfacing depicted in Figure 2. What remains to be developed is a mechanism to build-up an international network of (international/national/regional) networks. Such entities readily exist but the situation remains fragmented, which is largely due to the fact that civil protection policies are of regalian nature, which may limit larger networking. In this respect, UNDRR might have a role to play to encourage and implement such network of networks. Coming closer to the regional/local levels would have a strong impact on enhanced understanding and improved knowledge and situational awareness of disaster-related risks by citizens, empowered to act and consider innovative solutions, thus raising disaster resilience.

3. DRR research trends

3.1 Introduction

Within the EU Horizon Europe Framework Programme (2021–2027), the Cluster 3 “Secure Societies” funded and is currently funding research actions that support the implementation of EU policy priorities relating to security, including disaster risk reduction and resilience and improving cross-sectoral aspects of crises in various sectors. The Secure Societies programme includes four thematic areas one of which is called “A Disaster-Resilient Society for Europe” (referred to as DRS in this chapter). Within this thematic area, there is an established culture of comprehensive collaboration at the international level, taking due account of the transnational dimension of different natural and man-made hazards and their drivers (such as climate change). Cooperation includes developing tools and technologies, sharing knowledge, experiences, expertise and mutual learning on disaster-risk management, with synergies sought with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM). With an annual budget of ±30M€, the Secure Societies programme’s DRS thematic area funds research projects related to societal resilience and disaster risk governance, technologies for first and second responders, and support to interoperability.

The development of multi-hazard disaster preparedness and response plans is required, together with strategies to ensure their implementation on national, regional and local levels, be it through regulation or incentives. Examples of solution-oriented research developed within the Disaster-Resilient Societies area (DRS) are manyfold, the following section gives some examples of current trends that are taken from the Work Programme of the Horizon Europe Secure Societies Programme.

3.2 Current trends

3.2.1 Societal resilience

Societal resilience-related research focuses on various types of areas, one of which is on improved understanding of risk exposure and its public awareness in areas exposed to multi-hazards. The awareness of multiple hazards (natural and man-made) and the understanding and assessment of risks and their consequences is a critical and fundamental step towards the development of local, national and international policies and strategies within all phases of the disaster risk management cycle, in particular preparedness. The availability of reliable scientific data and information (including historical occurrences and climate projections) to anticipate future disaster events or crisis situations, considering uncertainties inherent to natural systems characterisation, and effectively supporting decision-making processes at all levels represents a global challenge for both the research community and governance institutions. Actions at national/local and global/regional levels rely on knowledge of risks in all their dimension and changeable nature. A strengthened understanding of risks by the population (and decision-makers) is therefore needed, based on both records of past events and forecasts and projections (with quantified uncertainties) that reflect consideration of evolving trends and dynamics over time and space. This is particularly acute in the case of multi-hazard risks, that is, occurrences of several disasters either in cascade or at once. Moreover, the work needs to be complemented with improved knowledge on how risk awareness and actions are influenced and shaped by diverse aspects such as past events, cultures and traditions. The understanding of multiple disaster risks (and related awareness) relies on knowledge gained about historical data and information about past events and related lessons learned as well as the ability to forecast and assess future risks under uncertainty (including impacts of pandemics, as well as global change, including climate trends and earth system and environment dynamics). These complex interactions between human decisions and multiple hazards require novel risk assessment approaches such as agent-based modelling and systems dynamics methods. This will result in improved preparedness actions built upon these analyses (e.g. defining evacuation routes, responsiveness of health services, etc.). Social media also plays a role in disaster analytics. For example, an increasing number of location-based social network services can provide time-stamped, geo-located data that opens new opportunities and solutions to a wide range of challenges by analysing the extracted public behaviour responses from social media before, during and after disaster events. When using social media data, the design for data collection and analysis has to respect fundamental rights, privacy and data protection and analyses have to take related societal effects in online and offline environments into account as well as possible disinformation and fake news. Also, risk awareness, understanding and preparedness are unequally distributed along a wide range of variables (socio-economic, cultural, regional, etc.) that may generate drawbacks and conflicting issues with respect to groups’ vulnerability.

Improving societal resilience to disasters or crises relies on various features related to the preparedness of citizens, communities, education systems, public administrations, business companies and practitioners. These concern, in particular, ways to react and informed decisions to take in case of an event. Individual, public and multi-level actions are needed in disaster risk management and they have huge implications on potentially reducing losses and increasing the operational capacity of responders, along with significant impacts on the emergency planning and management phases and its relation to continuous operations and existing safety management. In particular, the level of awareness of EU citizens of the risks in their region is an indicator for measuring progress in increasing public awareness and preparedness for disasters and in the implementation of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism legislation. Besides the required risk understanding, research is needed in several domains. With regard to public administrations, it is relevant to conceptualise how to increase risk awareness by building processes capable of fostering a long-lasting coalition with citizens around the objective of reducing vulnerability. This implies the definition of action protocols and models of responsibility that mobilise the intervention of individual employees of public administrations. With regard to business companies and practitioners, it is relevant to integrate their emergency activities in the local context. With regard to citizens and communities, it is necessary to design preparedness actions enabling the empowerment of citizens (including particularly vulnerable groups), their communities and NGOs through bottom-up participatory and learning processes. This includes school/university curricula and professional training and trust building among local actors, integrating relevant traditional knowledge, incorporating a gender perspective where relevant, best practices, guidelines and possible changes of regulations, to allow participatory actions. Difficulties in communication to the public in preparedness (and response) phases require the consideration of legal aspects, along with investigations into innovative practices, forms and tools that will enable the more effective sharing of information, taking into account possible risks of disinformation and fake news. These will support citizens in acting efficiently by themselves, through enhanced collaboration and communication and improving information exchanges between local authorities (including first and second responders), vulnerable populations (e.g. socio-economic groups, ethnic groups, people with illnesses or disabilities, children, elderly, hospital patients), and the private sector. Moreover, recent crises have shown that there is a large sense of solidarity among the population during a disaster or crisis situation. Many citizens who were not involved in disaster relief organisations before the crisis want to offer support to their fellow citizens and the broader community in times of crises. These initiatives of “spontaneous volunteers” are however most efficient if they are informed and trained and if their valuable contributions are coordinated with the authorities and first and second responders on the ground. Preparedness plans, tests and continued adaption on how best to manage spontaneous volunteers and integrate those into the response are needed.

3.2.2 Tools for integrated disaster risk reduction of natural hazards

In contemporary society, the capacity of communities and governments to manage expected and/or unexpected extreme climate events depends heavily on effective governance throughout the entire Disaster Risk Management cycle. This covers operational mechanisms ranging from short-term actions (e.g. early warning and forecast-based actions) to long-term adaptation strategies and resilience building, including nature-based solutions. A coherent integration between Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Adaptation policies and Sustainable Development Goals as fostered by the European Green Deal and major UN initiatives should result in a comprehensive resilience framework while improving synergies and coherence among the institutions and international agencies involved. The effective implementation of global and European risk governance and policies to enable integrated disaster risk reduction for extreme climate events requires a collaborative involvement in risk assessment and information sharing across involved institutions, including the civil and private sectors and the population. Cross-regional, cross-border and cross-sector agreements covering all phases of Disaster Risk Management can improve the knowledge about extreme climate events, such as forest fires, droughts, floods, heatwaves, storms and storm surges. In addition, improving effective prevention, preparedness and response rely upon specific national or local expertise and experience. It is important to overcome silos between technical and political authorities at all levels and advocate integration among involved actors. Multi-risk governance frameworks related to climate extremes, shifting from single to multi-risk thinking in governmental agencies, represent the key challenge for the future, considering how measures to improve the resilience of the built environment and communities may provide effective solutions to strengthen adaptation measures. Creating an overview of existing knowledge, integrating tools and developing new ones for resilience and emergency management should include careful planning for interoperability among many actors. It is important that solutions pay attention to societal side-effects of integrating data about emergencies, for instance, Apps, where persons concerned tend to share more willingly, but do not reflect the consequences of that. Thus, the development of data management tools for emergencies needs to respect fundamental rights, data protection and avoid function creep.

Another axis of research looks at enhanced assessment of disaster risks, adaptive capabilities and scenario building based on available historical data and projections. The assessment of disaster risks requires different types of actions ranging from soft measures to technologies. Simulation-based risk and impact assessments represent an effective approach to make science understandable to decision-makers and streamline national to local mitigation/adaptation actions. This is especially the case if they are integrated with evaluation tools for cost–benefit/effectiveness and multi-criteria analyses, data-farming experiments, serious games, and are tailored to meet end-user’s needs, to assess the effectiveness of alternative options in different phases of the Disaster Risk Management cycle. Specific risk assessments should be decision- or demand-driven and informed by scientific evidence, and there is a clear need to translate the results to ensure they are relevant, usable, legitimate and credible from the perspectives of the users. Co-design, co-development, co-dissemination and co-evaluation engaging the intended end users represent in this sense key features of improved risk, resilience and impact assessments. In the first place, the acquisition of data is an essential feature and this requires innovative solutions for faster risk assessment and reduction. This includes the identification of precursors for different types of threats, supporting the design or improvement of risk-targeted monitoring programmes. In addition, risk assessments themselves are primarily designed to predict the likelihood of a specific event, whereas what is of primary concern is the impact of that event on society, infrastructure, governance, etc. Numerous experiences gathered in the natural hazards area showed that an enhanced assessment of risks and scenario building may be improved by taking into account reliable data (both quantitative and qualitative) and historical occurrences, when available, including disaster loss data (studies of past events in particular low-probability/long-time recurrence events). This includes for example a higher completeness of the historical-geological records of volcanic eruptions, major earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. In the case of extreme climate events such as storms and related storm surges, or health crises (outbreaks, pandemics) the analysis should draw on the outputs of state-of-the-art climate projections, including by taking into account the uncertainties brought on by climate change and our state of knowledge of the key processes underpinning the functioning of the Earth system. In cases where there are not enough historical data and a high level of uncertainty, assessments and decision-making will have to rely on qualitative data. The action should take into account disaster loss databases and risk data repositories in Member States and relevant hubs.

4. International networking and community-building

Understanding and exploiting the existing linkages and synergies among policy initiatives such as the Paris Agreement [17], the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change [8], the EU Green Deal [18], the Sendai Framework [2] and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [19, 20] represents a global priority for future research and innovation actions in the field of natural hazards and man-made disasters. For the response side, international cooperation on research and innovation with key partners has the potential to identify common solutions and increase the relevance of outcomes. Enhanced cooperation and involvement of different sectors and actors are essential, including policy-makers, scientists from various disciplines, industry/Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), public administration (both at national and regional/local levels), credit/financial institutions, practitioners, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Civil-Society Organisations (CSOs), notwithstanding the citizen dimension. Cross-regional, cross-border and cross-sector agreements covering all phases of Disaster Risk Management can improve the knowledge about natural hazards, such as forest fires, droughts, floods, heatwaves, storms, as well as geohazards [21]. In addition, improving effective prevention, preparedness and response rely upon specific national or local expertise and experience. Like in research, it is important to overcome silos between technical and political authorities at all levels and advocate integration among involved actors.

Research project outputs in various sectors covering natural hazards materialise in many different ways, such as relevant scientific findings, the maturation of promising technology areas, the operational validation of innovative concepts or the support to policy implementation. Over the years, a strong security research community, driven forward by highly committed stakeholders, has been consolidated at different levels (international, European and national). Policy-makers, practitioners, industry, scientists and citizens (civil society, municipalities, etc.) are the pillars on which sound research agendas are built in. The dialogue among different actors guarantees not only that research addresses real needs, but also that the investment in research will deliver tangible results. One example of a wide community-building aiming to facilitate interactions within the research community and users in various areas of security research is the Community of Users for Safe, Secure and Resilient Societies (CoU) launched by the European Commission in 2014. This informal platform enabled to gather policy-makers, scientists, practitioners, industry/SMEs and civil society organisations at international and regional levels, creating dialogues around research in various thematic areas, including natural hazards, and building “bridges” among different sectors (areas, disciplines and actors), which was an essential step forward. Dialogues and events had a clear effect on enhancing the participation of practitioners in research projects, in particular by promoting research results that are relevant to them, including the most promising tools that might have the potential to be taken up by them, and ensuring that their expertise is made available to policy-makers. Synergies were also stimulated between research and capacity-building projects. In light of the positive impacts of this community-building, the initiative has grown up since 2019 into a more ambitious network of networks in support of Horizon Europe: the so-called Community for European Research and Innovation for Security (CERIS). This forum has a large scope with various thematic areas, with the following objectives:

• Raising awareness on major updates in relevant policy sectors and on results achieved by related research and non-research initiatives, analyse impacts and provide policy recommendations.

• Analysing identified capability needs and gaps in the corresponding thematic areas (within Thematic Working Groups and other networks) and prioritisation of related research orientations based, at least, on criticality and urgency, in order to produce recommendations for a civil security research agenda.

• Identifying solutions available to address the gaps, differentiating state-of-the-art technologies (off-the-shelf and Development & Integration products) and security research trends. It will also take into account other considerations, such as technological maturity, operational relevance, societal acceptance, cost-effectiveness, etc.

• Translating capability gaps and potential solutions into research needs (including scenarios linking research needs to capabilities and societal appropriation, Technology Readiness Levels, development roadmaps, research action types, perspectives of research uptake, etc.) and getting feedback from practitioners about prioritisation of the needs, inputs to research programming and involvement in research activities.

• Identifying funding opportunities and synergies between different funding instruments and propose measures to facilitate them.

• Identifying standardisation needs through existing networks/platforms and prioritise them in close consultations with policy-makers and practitioners.

• Integrating the views of citizens so as to promote responsible research and innovation which respects ethical considerations and civil liberties.

5. Conclusions

Enhanced risks related to natural hazards and their impacts call for enhanced capacities in risk and resilience management and governance, including instruments for better prevention and preparedness, technologies for operational practitioners, and where relevant for citizens, and overall for societal resilience. The increasing severity and frequency of geohazards (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides), of extreme weather events (e.g. floods, heat and cold waves, storms, forest fires) combined with health-related crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have demonstrated how societies have become more exposed and vulnerable to disaster risks as existing global inequalities often exacerbate both the exposure and vulnerability of communities, infrastructures, health systems, economies and nature. To enhance our resilience, research will obviously play a key role but the community work, gathering many different actors will need to be strengthened to guarantee that research outputs reach the users and find their way into innovation and market uptake pathways. This is certainly one of the greatest challenges ahead, which requires to work together and limit the fragmentation of sectors, disciplines, expertise, etc. as much as possible.

Regarding concrete impacts of research outputs on policy implementation, different situations may occur according to the type of regulations, either of regalian character (prone to Member States sovereignty) or linked to EU policies (binding character). In the first case, sectors concerned and related policy implementation are under the sole responsibility of National authorities, while the European Commission may provide support (e.g. through research funding) and facilitate coordination among Member States (e.g. through Advisory Boards, expert meetings, etc.); this is typically the case of security, civil protection and health sectors. In the second case, EU policies are adopted by the European Council (hence by the EU Member States) and Parliament, and transposed into National laws; examples of this are water policies (described in Section 1.4) and other EU policies of binding character. We may wonder what are the (positive or negative) effects of these different policy settings regarding the implementation of research outputs?

In the first instance (sectors of regalian character), research is developed as in other fields with the difference that some deliverables may be of a classified nature (EU-restricted or -confidential) and research outputs may be disseminated to National authorities via respective Advisory Groups or Committees, thus possibly supporting national policies. The uptake of research is hence very much pending upon matching needs and decisions by the National authorities. The fact that there are no EU-binding rules may represent a drawback in that research outputs from EU-funded projects might not match directly national needs. On the positive side, many projects are working on tools/technologies that may directly support national capacities, whatever the absence of EU-binding character, and are interoperable, hence usable at the international level (e.g. technologies supporting first responders’ operations in the case of a disaster). This is a direct effect of effective coordination on a voluntary basis, an example of which is the Union Civil Protection Mechanism. On the negative side, classified information, albeit shared with National authorities, will likely not have an interoperable character and respond to specific national needs with a less effective dissemination potential at the EU level (e.g. security-related methodologies). In this case, it is delicate to set metrics to check the effectiveness of research support to policy implementation because analyses must be done in consideration of each national policies and practices. This also applies to possible criteria comparing policy implementation costs versus research results.

In the second case (sectors prone to EU regulations), research is designed to respond to well-defined policy requirements that are embedded into identified EU policies. In other words, research outputs will support policy implementation needs that are common to all Member States. Under this circumstance, research uptake will be all the more facilitated that it will respond to national needs regarding the implementation of the (transposed) EU regulations. A typical case concerns the management of flood risks, the framework of which being set by the EU Flood Directive. While the national implementation is carried out at the river basin management level, common rules are applied at the EU level and research outcomes have thus more chances to find their way to concretely support policy implementation. In this case, metrics to check effectiveness of research support to policy implementation are easier to set because they deal with common policy rules at EU level and regular exchanges among research projects and policy implementers (in the case of water issues, from EU to river basin levels). Economic analyses to assess the effectiveness of research results on policy support are in such case facilitated because of the EU character.

Author note

Dr. Philippe Quevauviller is a research programming and policy officer at the Directorate General ‘Migration and Home Affairs’. The views expressed in this paper are his own and do not formally represent the views of the European Commission.