Chapter 6

Conclusions
and final
recommendations

Online Version
6 Conclusions and
final recommendations

Authors:

Ainara Casajus Valles European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Montserrat Marin Ferrer European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Ian Clark European Commission, Joint Research Centre (Former)

Todor Tagarev Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria

Xavier Romão University of Porto, Portugal

Alfred de Jager European Commission, Joint Research Centre

Sara Pelaez University of Limerick, Ireland

Jaroslav Mysiak Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici

(CMCC), Italy / Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Italy
Gerassimos Papadopoulos International Society for the Prevention & Mitigation of
Natural Hazards, Greece
John Agius Critical Infrastructure Protection Directorate (CIPD), Malta

Casajus Valles, A., Marin Ferrer, M., Poljanšek, K., Clark, I., Tagarev, T., Romão, X., de Jager, A., Pelaez, S., Mysiak, J., Papadopoulos,
G., Agius, J., ‘Conclusions and final recommendations’, in: Casajus Valles, A., Marin Ferrer, M., Poljanšek, K., Clark, I. (eds.), Science
for Disaster Risk Management 2020: acting today, protecting tomorrow, EUR 30183 EN, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-18182-8, doi:10.2760/571085, JRC114026.

640
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

CONTENTS

1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
2 Recommendations for the audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
2.1 Tasks led by policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
2.2 Tasks led by practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650
2.3 Tasks lead by scientists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651
2.4 Tasks led by citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653
3 Future challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

641
1 Conclusions

The report Science for Disaster Risk Management 2020: Acting today,
protecting tomorrow studies the impacts of disasters on a wide range of
economic and social sectors as well as the consequences for the affected
communities and ecosystems. A comprehensive assessment of the disaster
impacts after an event enlarges our understanding of disaster risk and contributes
to making disaster risk management (DRM) more effective. This requires having
in place mechanisms of co-development and evidence-based governance that
capture the knowledge and needs of diverse stakeholders, which (1) supports an
early identification of risk drivers and (2) ensures the use of data and information
on past events to formulate effective prevention, mitigation and adaptation
measures.

‘Impacts’ consist of the direct damages and losses from an event (such as
deaths, injuries, physical damage to buildings or interruption of services), the
cascading effects that propagate, both in time and space, just afterwards, the
recovery costs and the opportunities that may arise after the event. The report
presents the usual consequences of disastrous events on five groups of assets:
population, economic sectors, critical infrastructures, ecosystem services and
cultural heritage. The consequences depend on:

— the hazard that materialises, its duration and its magnitude;

— the vulnerabilities and capacities of the asset and the whole system
where they are located;
— the actions taken to respond and recover from the event.

The authors of the report, and in particular those of Chapter 3, relate the impacts
to the indicators that measure progress towards targets A, B, C and D of the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, while introducing others that can
easily emerge in time and space. The report reviews methodologies to analyse
the impacts addressed, highlighting the challenges and potential opportunities
for strengthening risk and crisis management practices.

The report includes several past disasters, moving towards the identification
of practical approaches and potential solutions to these events. The study of
impacts represents an important opportunity for the DRM community to learn
about disaster risk, to understand how to better plan for future events and thereby
facilitate response and recovery. Information gathered about past events helps
to identify the failures in communication and in response protocols, the barriers
in governance, the lack of awareness and the gaps in knowledge and data. The

642
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

past events analysed by the authors show how the events triggered changes in
the policy framework, raised awareness and pointed out areas that should be
further developed by research.

Although progress has been made in recent years to improve the understanding
of disaster risk, societies, institutions and organisations engaged in DRM still
focus on emergency response and on the most immediate consequences of an
event. Prevention and mitigation actions seem to be undervalued in practice. For
instance, more efforts need to be made to integrate knowledge of ecosystems,
restoration and nature-based solutions into disaster risk planning policies. DRM
should evolve to reinforce anticipation as well as increasing the interconnection
of the various phases of the DRM cycle.

The complex nature of risk represents a challenge to identify which impacts

are relevant and require monitoring and response, especially for those that
emerge some time after the event or those that are geographically far from
the place where the hazard first occurred. Some impacts appear with time lag,
such as post-traumatic stress, disruptions of supply chains, biodiversity loss or
economic recession, and many others are triggered by primary impacts. The DRM
community has generally focused on the direct effects of hazards on the asset
exposed, although the lack of proper management of indirect consequences can
speed the propagation of these impacts to other sectors, services and assets.

Disruptions or limitations in services and economic sectors strongly shape the

socioeconomic and cultural dynamics of a place. These potential impacts should
be examined and prioritised based on the societal values of the place, to finally
choose which impacts are to be avoided. This will, in turn, determine what should
be protected and secured, and help define both recovery and preventive actions.

Intangible impacts are commonly overlooked. As they cannot be fully valued in

economic terms, intangible impacts are difficult to incorporate as part of disaster
risk management. In the medium and long-term, these impacts are frequently
difficult to identify while their rate of loss can be unknown. Furthermore, not
being able to recognise all the functions, benefits and value of the asset, as
happens with ecosystem services and cultural heritage, hinders the possibility of
managing their potential vulnerabilities. International strategies and frameworks
started to consider those assets, facilitating that these type of assets are included
in the political agenda of countries and regions. Nonetheless, guidance is needed
to cover them properly, both before and after a disaster. Given that damages

643
 and losses to ecosystem services, cultural heritage and other social values and
activities can be hard to compensate for and restore, a precautionary approach
is advised when planning and implementing DRM measures.

As a result, methodologies to analyse impact have been mainly developed for

direct and tangible damages and losses. These have reached different levels of
sophistication depending on the asset and the hazard under consideration. The
authors conclude that any methodology to analyse impact would rarely improve
or be fully used in practice without the data and the information gathered after
the event.

Data and lessons learned are not collected uniformly; they are kept by different
levels of governance, institutions and groups; and they are often not available
for other purposes beyond particular response or recovery actions. Lessons are
not always applied to enhance the whole system. Moreover, resources are rarely
assigned to maintain data collection and dissemination over time. Inconsistent
data collection and recording hinders its comparison and introduces uncertainties
when used in modelling.

The authors urge a shift from a merely short-term perspective, generally focused
on reacting to mitigate immediate consequences, towards a long-term view
by tackling the underlying drivers of risk (exposure, vulnerability and capacity).
The financial flow during the recovery phase should support and generate new
knowledge on how to influence risk drivers. Likewise, risk assessment should apply
longer time spans, which would help DRR and climate change adaptation groups
to integrate and exploit synergies when studying and tackling vulnerabilities.

The report shows diverse and innovative approaches in the collection and
sharing of loss and damage data, which should be further developed using new
technologies, such as remote sensing techniques, artificial intelligence, sensors,
drones and apps. Some of the options proposed facilitate the participation of a
variety of stakeholders, promoting a shared culture of risk.

The scientific community is particularly interested in making the most of the

data and information after a disaster, aiming to improve the capacity to predict
future events. The interdependencies between hazard intensities and damages
and losses when various assets are affected, either simultaneously or in cascade,
could be better understood with more organised and comprehensive collection
and use of impact data. This would enhance our resilience to future events.

644
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

At the same time, actions taken to prevent, mitigate, prepare for and/or adapt
to risk cannot be evaluated, and therefore improved, if baseline data is not
available. Specific data should be collected before the event to assess the
value and vulnerability of exposed assets. All of these call for the definition of
metrics and terminology, fully consistent when describing pre- and post-event
data, which would allow comparison between groups, sectors, hazards and
geographical areas.

Metrics, and their corresponding indicators, should be comprehensive to cover

different hazards and sectors. They should be applicable at the local level, and
coordination mechanisms should exist to ensure they are used for different
purposes and at various levels. There are already initiatives and databases in
place, such as the Risk Data Hub and the Disaster Loss and Damage Working
Group, which could be connected with the purpose of increasing the knowledge in
disaster modelling and mitigation, saving time and resources. At the global level,
there have been efforts to coordinate the indicators of the Sendai Framework for
DRR with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement.

The study of the impacts shows the effect of globalisation and the many
links between sectors and assets, at all levels of governance. DRM requires
different sectors and groups to be mobilised and work together. The co-design,
co-implementation and co-evaluation of DRM actions with a multidisciplinary
and cross-sectorial approach is crucial to increase resilience by designing and
implementing evidence-based policies. The costs of response, recovery and
reconstruction should be reported, for accountability, and compared with those
of prevention and mitigation, to support decision-making.

Differences in responsibilities, interests, language and experience often hinder

collaboration among stakeholders. Trust emerges as a prerequisite to overcome
these differences, supporting the diverse groups to learn and to create together
more comprehensive and widely accepted actions. Long-term partnerships and
clarification of roles would facilitate collaborations. Efforts have been made to
facilitate the science–policy interface, helping scientists and decision-makers to
jointly create disaster risk actions based on shared data and information. Still,
two major groups should be better engaged with the rest: citizens and the private
sector.

Citizens are acknowledged as fundamental for real action to be implemented,

although it is recognised that generally the current governance systems do not

645
 fully facilitate the integration of bottom-up initiatives. These initiatives should
serve to consult and empower citizens, tailoring the system to their needs,
abilities and limitations. Experience shows that communities are more easily
engaged during the recovery processes, owing to their urgency, but the situation
rarely extends over the medium or long term. In the face of growing globalisation
and climate change, communities need to be engaged to enhance resilience,
as decisions need to be taken in uncertain environments or when adaptation is
acutely required.

Together with citizens, the private sector needs to be engaged as an active

stakeholder, addressing its needs for data, information and knowledge before
and after an event and reinforcing its obligations in relation to disaster events.
Incentives could be developed for different groups, to make them feel part
of the activities to manage disaster risk ensuring private and public efforts
support an adaptive, inclusive and agile DRM system. Specific mechanisms
should be explored and created to guarantee that, in specific circumstances,
data from the private sector are shared with practitioners and scientists.

The report has also shown that more cooperation is still required within the
scientific community as well as with other stakeholders. The role of social
sciences and humanities has to become more prominent in relation to impact
assessment. At the same time, those disciplines have to make an effort to deal
with risk in an operational (and even quantitative) way, proposing approaches
for measuring social impacts.

646
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The past events described, and in particular the super case studies, show the
lack of preparedness of our societies to face some events that, although they
could be considered as being of low probability, have enormous impacts at
local and national levels. The report calls for cross-border partnerships and
collaboration at different levels of policymaking processes.

These different types of collaborations need to be carefully planned, putting

mechanisms in place to detect needs and proposals for action. These would
serve to jointly develop capabilities and share capacities. Coordination among
agencies and other stakeholders is therefore key. As said, all types of impacts
should be closely monitored during recovery, to avoid the emergence of new
impacts or the increase in vulnerability of some societal groups, sectors and/or
ecosystems. The first steps to reinforce capacities should start in the recovery
phase.

647
2 Recommendations for the audiences

The chapters and subchapters contain specific recommendations on the

topics they consider.

All stakeholders have roles to play, but some tasks require a particular group
or community to take the lead on them.

2.1 Tasks led by policymakers

Facilitate and promote collaborative processes to collect
input from practitioners, scientists, the private
sector and citizens.

● Design mechanisms to facilitate bottom-up approaches: open to new

types of leaderships the arena of decision-making and collaboration for
the implementation and evaluation of DRR measures.

● Collaborate with scientists and practitioners in the monitoring and

evaluation of non-structural and new approaches to preventing,
mitigating and adapting to risk. Take advantage of the post-disaster
phase to fund new endeavours that are in line with the vision and
medium-term strategies of the territory.

● Engage in discussions with other governance levels, within the country

and internationally, to promote more complete assessment of progress
in reducing risk, which requires indirect and intangible impacts to be
properly addressed. It is important to consider impacts on health,
ecosystem services and cultural heritage. DRM communities should
work on important challenges that hinder sustainability: the mitigation
of and adaptation to climate change, ecosystem degradation and the
loss of biodiversity.

● Work to ensure that a precautionary approach guides policy debates: the

benefits of prevention and mitigation action may be difficult to define
in the short term. Devote efforts to tackle the full spectrum of damages
and losses.

648
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Develop a policy frame to collect, store and reuse data and

information, including good practices and lessons learned,
during response and recovery processes.

● Design mechanisms to help knowledge flow across different governance

levels, particularly from the local level to the national, while scientific
support is enabled to more easily reach local and regional levels.

● Establish frameworks for the collection at the most local level possible,
as well as retrieval and sharing of data after an event among governance
levels. The framework should take into account the databases that
already exist on DRM, mainly sector-specific, alongside others that
are related to the specific context, as necessary to understand the
baseline situation (before the event). The databases can be national
or international, but the framework should be wide enough to consider
different types of damages and losses so that it can collect and use
data constantly. The frameworks should carefully regulate who and how
non-public organisations can take part of these activities, ensuring that
data is accessible and of quality for different purposes.

● Develop mechanisms for damage and loss data to be shared by the

private sector, without compromising or violating privacy.

● Engage with practitioners and scientists to understand the uncertain-

ty around the results obtained from analysis and forecasts. These dia-
logues would facilitate sharing of tacit knowledge.

Ensure proper monitoring and evaluation of the corrective

measures planned and implemented.

● Monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes implemented

should be specially reinforced, particularly after an event, engaging
diverse stakeholders. These evaluations are an opportunity to make
changes at the levels of projects, organisations and risk management
culture. This type of actions would enhance accountability and
transparency, reinforcing trust.

● Develop frameworks to identify and properly assess capabilities and

649
 capacity needs, and their development to mitigate and prevent risk. To
do so, consider the institutions already engaged in DRM by law and
explore how these can cooperate with other groups and organisations,
such as the private sector and citizens (individually and through civil
society organisations). The roles and responsibilities of the diverse
stakeholders and groups must be clarified while power imbalances are
addressed.

● Introduce innovative funding mechanisms to encourage and enable

alignment and joint investment between various public sector agencies
and public–private partnerships. Those partnerships serve to cover the
different dimensions of assets and the relation between them. Moreover,
sectors are usually divided into various subsectors, which should work
together to ensure resilience.

2.2 Tasks led by practitioners

Provide feedback to ensure that tacit knowledge is
endorsed by policymakers.
● Practitioners should take a more active role in the policy arena and in
particular in the prevention and mitigation of disaster risk. Practitioners
should channel impact data and lessons learned from response and
recovery to groups in charge of risk assessments and planning and
monitoring of measures to reduce disaster risk.

● Support decision-makers in the preparation of a comprehensive

framework for impact assessment. Propose procedures to collect
disaster impact data across sectors and governance levels for different
purposes. Work closely with scientists in the collection and analysis of
data after an event.

Be creative and perseverant in your tasks

embracing innovation.

● Practitioners should think outside the box when drafting preparedness

actions, including training and exercises, to be ready for the next
event, not for those that have already occurred. Pay particular
attention to thinking of more complex scenarios, including

650
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

cascading effects and compound events. Simulation exercises

should be carried out together with key actors, such as operators
and representatives of critical infrastructures, important industrial
sites, economic activities, and natural spaces or natural resources.

● Update the contingency plans and other initiatives, based on the

lessons learned from simulation exercises. Address impacts beyond
those that are direct and tangible. Work with operators of industries
and infrastructures, business representatives and nature conservation
groups to learn together and reinforce prevention, mitigation and
adaptation measures.

Help the scientific community with data and feedback.

● Support the knowledge flow among different administrative levels

and share your tacit knowledge with other groups, in particular
with scientists. Properly document lessons and experiences
learned, enabling others to compare, share and test them.

● Work to collect detailed data on response and first recovery stages

and ensure that they are available later for other purposes.

● Work with scientists to help the private sector and citizens to participate
in the implementation of innovative approaches to reducing risk, and in
particular to the collection and analysis of impacts.

2.3 Tasks lead by scientists

Continue research efforts on disaster risk dimensions
and management.

● Efforts should be devoted to improving the methods to capture indirect

and intangible impacts. For that, the scope of impact analysis should be
widened to accommodate cascading effects or to study compound events,
considering the links of the asset studied with others, in time and space.

● Engage in activities beyond risk analysis, such as risk identification, risk

651
 transfer, scenario building and strategic foresight. It is necessary that
the groups engaged in risk analysis are engaged in these exercises.

● Risk treatment requires special dedication. The cost and effect of

mitigation measures should be studied after an event, paying attention
to the causes and drivers that increase disaster risk. At the same time,
propose measures to prevent and mitigate losses and damages that
could be put in practice by citizens and the private sector. Here DRM
and climate change adaptation groups can easily collaborate.

● Methodologies for measuring the value of assets should be further

developed and adapted to address measuring loss in value.

● Research should be devoted to studying the socioeconomic processes

and factors that lead to impacts on the various assets presented in the
report, particularly at individual and community levels. There are few
studies on this topic in Europe.

● Further develop new techniques and methods to collect and analyse the
vast amount of impact data. Show their added value to policymakers
through examples and good practices.

Acquire additional knowledge by interacting with

other communities.

● Efforts are still necessary for different scientific groups and disciplines to
ensure relevant results are obtained. A good starting point would be for
different disciplines to work together to propose impact metrics to be
monitored (in time and space) after an event, which would be the same
as those to be used in forecasting risk. Propose these for drawing up and
updating a framework for impacts to be assessed. Support policymakers
in that endeavour, pointing out the opportunities and the challenges to
be overcome.

● Facilitate a culture of learning with the other stakeholders, and in

particular with the practitioners and the groups working in the field, by
testing new tools and approaches in various contexts. Go beyond the
traditional role of giving advice and transferring information.

652
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Make sure the knowledge is useful and used.

● Work to synthesise research results and define problems for non-expert
audiences.

● Together with practitioners, present the gaps in knowledge regarding

propagation of effects within sectors and assets in particular areas of
interest. During relief and response phases, support practitioners to
assess scenarios.

● Work with practitioners to make sure that models and tools to analyse
impacts are available and endorsed by them.

● Collaborate with practitioners in reaching citizens, before and after

an event, through educational programmes and communication
campaigns. Carry out research on how to mobilise different groups that
are traditionally not engaged in DRM.

2.4 Tasks led by citizens

Raise your voice for a more resilient future.

● Discuss DRR with family, friends and neighbours, and invite them to
participate more actively by volunteering, attending events at which
policies and programmes are presented to communities, speaking up
when plans and projects are open for public comments, and reward
political groups that have worked to reduce disaster risk, among other
ways.

Be active to reduce disaster risk at a local level.

● Become aware of the responsibilities and benefits of managing

disaster risk. Be well informed and be engaged in workshops, training
or discussions at the local level. Engage in disaster risk management
activities, through different organisations that are on the ground (such as
religious, communal groups or local environmental protection groups) or
specific projects that may arise from various institutions.

653
 ● Invest in individual and communal protection measures and evaluate the
measures taken.

● Facilitate the work of responders during an emergency, and avoid passing

on information that could be misleading or confusing.

Engage with other stakeholders in DRM activities.

● Contribute to damage data collection efforts, through platforms, social

media and apps. Be open to sharing both tangible and intangible impacts
to make the identification and analysis of impacts more comprehensive.

● Engage in disaster risk management activities, through different

organisations that are on the ground (such as religious, communal groups
or local environmental protection groups) or specific projects that may
arise from various institutions.

● Cooperate with policymakers in defining a vision for the territory,

especially in the post-event period. Keep in mind that some changes may
be required in the landscape and the functioning of the area to build back
better and exploit new opportunities.

● Participate in a DRM learning culture, in particular engaging in discussions

with scientists and practitioners to define and value intangible assets,
before the event.

● Various activities represent a business opportunity, which could be

exploited by small and new businesses, for example related to the
framework(s) for collecting, retrieving and sharing loss and damage
data and to the implementation and evaluation of new prevention and
mitigation projects at the local level.

It is worth mentioning that all four communities need to join in a discussion

of important but ambiguous terms, such as ‘resilience’, ‘impact’ and ‘affected
people’.

654
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

655
3 Future challenges

In the moment of writing, EU and the world is struggling to manage the many
and varied consequences related to the COVID-19 emergency. The pandemic
represents our present but other impacts could arise and materialise in the
next months and years while some underlying drivers of disaster risk could
intensify. Institutions and groups engaged in disaster risk management should
update their plans and protocols to the new risk landscape.

The availability of accurate and complete data which can be used for
different purposes remains key to draft and implement the strategies and
policies required to urgently address disaster risk and climate change. The
COVID-19 pandemic can be an opportunity for identifying relevant loss and
damage indicators and to learn criteria on how to consistently monitor them
in time and space. As it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding
of the impacts to really reduce risk in practice, efforts should also focus on
recognising and analysing intangible impacts.

Uncovering this type of impacts would support building broader scenarios

and more robust risk assessments, which would lead to a better prioritisation
of prevention and mitigation action. All aspects of our livelihood are at risk
but knowing how the impacts might evolve after a hazardous event helps
us to timely prevent, prepare and respond to in early stages and stop their
propagation. In a more connected world, where compound and cascading
events would be the norm, the borders within the EU seem to face although
the existence of two opposite movements: one that boosts for EU shared
goals and another that is mainly concerned about national politics.

Big data is a valuable resource for the future of disaster risk management
that should be promptly exploited, for which capacities and strategies should
be developed to protect data and timely process it. At the same time, urban
population is expected to continue increasing so particular efforts should be
devoted to count with data at the lowest level possible to plan appropriate
measures at city level. The technology for storing, manipulating and
communicating big data can have negative effects on the environment that
should be also addressed.

656
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Citizens can take a wider role in the use of data and information. By engaging
them in the interpretation and sharing of results, local knowledge would be
easily integrated in the analysis of data while awareness would probably
raise more easily among communities. New tools and products would need to
be developed for the collection, storage and sharing of data and information
on loss and damage but it is equally important to create and test innovative
approaches to maximise the use of these in practice. The increasing diversity
among communities and regions (in terms of age, educational studies, religion,
language, place of origin, etc.) should be considered.

Several groups would be interacting in the DRM policy arena, with their own
interests, possibilities and limitations, so resources should be allocated over
time for networks and coordination mechanisms to allow innovation and ensure
inclusiveness. As COVID-19 may intensity inequalities in our communities, it is
urgent to tackle the power inequalities that may exist among the members of
these partnerships and networks. All voices should be raised and considered
for recognising the great range of effects related to disasters and for disclosing
the benefits of the measures funded to manage risk.

657