Institutional challenges for multi-risk governance ...matrix.gpi.kit.edu/downloads/Speyer_Conference_1207.pdf · multi-risk governance: comparative analysis of two ... The subsidiarity

Institutional challenges for multi-risk governance: comparative analysis of two case studies

Converging and Conflicting Trends in the Public Administration of the US, Europe and Germany Speyer, 19-20 July 2012

Nadejda Komendantova, Anna Scolobig, Charlotte Vinchon, Mendy Begoubou-Valerius and Anthony Patt

Separate natural hazards, however, are usually treated separately by scientists, engineers, disaster response managers and local authorities.

This leads to the spatial, temporal and causal relationships that often exist between these hazards to be neglected. The same is true for the consequences of these interactions.

Natural risks and disasters are becoming an interactive mix of natural, technological and social events

(e.g. Katrina, Fukushima Di-Chi nuclear accident, Deepwater Horizon Oil spill, etc.)

These relationships and unforseen negative effects may amplify the risk to a community

Multi hazards in Napoli

Sources: Barberi et al. 2008, AMRA-Napoli

Vesuvio and Napoli: 600,000 inhabitants at high risk

Test sites in Napoli: Camaldoli Arenella Fuorigrotta

Risks under study: Volcanic risk, earthquakes, floods, landslides, fires, pipelines

Natural hazards in Guadeloupe and their relationships

Multi-risk approach

•  Conjoint effects: different hazards may occur in close succession, with later events being more destructive owing to the area’s now enhanced vulnerability.

•  Cascade effects: disastrous events also often trigger or induce other phenomena, e.g., heavy rains may trigger landslides, earthquakes tsunamis

- 

Benefits of multi-risk approach in decision-making

Study of knock-on, domino and cascade

effects

Better coordination between authorities

involved

Risk reduction measures that are

more cost effective.

Identification of the “worst case scenario”

Synergies in institutional landscape

Analysis of multiple hazards together

Key research questions

•  Feasibility for multi-risk approach in two countries, marked by top-down and bottom-up governance

•  What are the social and institutional barriers to a multi-risk approach?

31/01/08 8

Methodology •  Stepwise comparison: (1) cross-country (FR, IT)

(2) case study level (Guadalupe, Napoli)

•  Cross-country –  analysis of the disaster “cycle” based on desk study –  focus on institutional frameworks

•  Case studies –  primary investigations: semi-structured interviews with key informants,

focus groups, workshops [in progress]

Guadalupe Napoli

France: General Framework Governance level Competencies

National level: Ministry of Interior and of Environment

Security issues, development of knowledge on risks and prevention tools

Regional level: regional and departmental collectivities

Risk prevention and management for assets like schools and public buildings, risk awareness building

Local level: cities and communes Major is in charge for civil security, knowledge of potential risks, prevention measures and actions in case of emergency

Key documents Covered areas Departmental Document on Major Risks (DDRM)

Major (in terms of human, economic and environmental assets exposed) natural risks for a given territory Processes, typology and driving forces as well as policies and guidance for a given risk Simplified hazard map All agencies involved and their responsibilities

Communal Synthesis Document (DCM)

All known risks within a town territory Written by security services of the perfect Contains information on risks and planned measures for prevention, protection and emergency for population

Italy: general framework

•  Mixed top down-bottom up governance framework •  National Civil Protection as overarching body •  Competence and functional centers (law decree 3593/2011) •  Subsidiarity principle

The subsidiarity principle in emergency management

C – great intensity and extent, require coordination and intervention at national level A – can be managed by municipal authority as part of their routine duties B – require coordinate attention of authorities at provinvial and regional levels

RID ANAS Autostrade

Telecom

RFI

Ente Poste

Trenitalia

ENEL

CNMCA

Vodafone Wind Tim

RAI

ENAC

National Fire Department

Armed Forces

Police Forces

Joint Committee State, Regions and

Local Authorities

Italian Red

Cross

State Forestry

Corps APAT

INGV

National Alpine Rescue Corps

(CAI)

Ministry of Health

CNR

ENEA

Volunteers’ Organisations

Head

Civil Protection Department

Coastal Guard

Once the Council of Ministers declares the “state of emergency” due to a type C event) the “Civil Protection operating committee” meets for the coordination of all the activities needed for coping with the situation. [source: AMRA]

(Some) key characteristics of risk governance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PREDICTION/FORECAST CAPABILITY

PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF HAZARD/RISK ASSESSMENT

PLANNING INTEGRATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

IMPLEMENTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PROCESSES

RESPONSIBILITY ON THOSE AT RISK FOR PROTECTION

Seismic Vulcanic Fire Hydro geological Pipelines

[Evaluations provided by the authors on the basis of the results of the desk study and semi-structured interviews. 1-7 Likert scale: 1 weak role, 7 strong role]

Barriers for multi-risk approach: preliminary results

1)  Irreconcilable governance frameworks: interagency cooperation and communication proved more effective in case of decentralized(e.g. hydro-geological risk) than centralized (e.g. volcanic) systems

0 2 4 6 8

NATIONAL ROLE

REGIONAL/RIVER BASIN ROLE

MUNICIPAL ROLE

PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE

Seismic Vulcanic Fire Hydro geological Pipelines

[Evaluations provided by the authors on the basis of the results of the desk study and semi-structured interviews. 1-7 Likert scale: 1 weak role, 7 strong role]

Barriers for multi-risk approach: preliminary results

2) Lack of unique strategy connecting hazard and risk maps, as well as geological reports to river basin plans to seismic requirements

Comparison between landslide hazard (P1,P2 and P3 representing increasing hazard levels) and risk maps (R1,R2,R3 and R4 representing increasing risk levels) in Napoli

3) Different historical evolution of science and innovation in diverse natural hazard contexts different methodologies and levels of uncertainty in the disaster cycle phases different management practices and regulatory frameworks [stronger barrier: hydro geological vs. seismic/vulcanic risk]

Vulcanic risk [single household vulnerability approach]

Seismic risk [single household vulnerability approach]

Hydro-geological risk [hazard/risk assessment approach]

4) Seismic and volcanic emergency plans are prepared by the National Civil Protection (type C events), hydro-geological plan by municipal authorities (at present not existent): there is NOT a unique emergency plan for Napoli!

Vesuvio evacuation plan: 600,000 inhabitants to be evacuated all over Italy

Vesuvio: emergency planning scenario

5) Gap between research and praxis

Preliminary conclusion

-  Decision-makers consider multi-risk approach as a valuable tool especially to identify priorities for risk mitigation.

-  But how to implement it (coordination agency and for all disaster cycle phases versus all hazards)?

Comments or questions?

Thanks!

More information: http://matrix.gpi.kit.edu/

[email protected] , [email protected]