Stefano Salvi Chair of the GSNL Scientific Advisory Committee Promoting better uptake of science for Disaster Risk Reduction: lesson learned from the Geohazard Supersites initiative Stefano Salvi Chair of the GSNL Scientific Advisory Committee

No. of disasters in the last 20 years Geohazards: 14% of total number of disasters CRED, 2015

However, geophysical disasters … killed more people than all the other disasters, 56%, i.e. ~40.000 people/yr caused losses for 40 B$/yr impacted 7 M people/yr CRED, 2015

Geohazards: a global challenge Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are much less frequent than hydromet hazards, but can have a much larger impact, direct on indirect, on many countries and economies. They can trigger cascading events which may even cause most of the impact. They are difficult to study and their global impacts are hard to predict and prevent. Action required: more scientific research!

Unexpected disasters! 2004 - Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami. Cost: 15 B$ 2010 - Christchurch earthquake. Cost: 40 B$ (20% of GDP) 2010 - Eyjafjallajökull eruption. Cost: 4.7 B$ 2010 – Haiti earthquake. Cost: 7.8 B$ (65% of GDP) 2011 - Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Cost: 300 B$ (6% of GDP) Action required: more scientific research!

A turning point Disaster Risk Reduction is fully recognized 2005-2015 – Hyogo Framework for action: little emphasis on the role of science in DRR 2015-2030 – Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Priority 1: Understanding Risk The fundamental role of scientific research for Disaster Risk Reduction is fully recognized

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction DRR should be based on the knowledge of all risk components (science-based decision-making). Actions: Generate new data and strengthen scientific capacities Open access to data and risk information Conduct risk-related research at all scale Capacity building of local communities and decision-makers Promote dialogue and cooperation among scientists, practitioners and decision-makers

The Geohazard Supersites and Natural Laboratory initiative Our goal is to improve, through an Open Science approach, geophysical scientific research and geohazard assessment in support of Disaster Risk Reduction. The partnership the global scientific community the satellite data providers (CEOS) the in situ data providers the decision-makers

How it works A Supersite is a high-risk area with important scientific problems. Once established, open access is granted to EO and in-situ data and scientific results. Then an Open Science (consensus) process is used to generate valuable scientific support information. The risk-relevant information is provided directly to the decision- makers through the national agency in charge.

… and it works! Hawaiian volcanoes – USGS Icelandic volcanoes – Univ. of Iceland & IMO Etna volcano – INGV - Catania Campi Flegrei volcano – INGV - Naples Western North Anatolian Fault – KOERI Taupo Volcano – GNS Science Ecuador volcanoes – Instituto Geofísico, EPN FUTUREVOLC MEDSUV MARSITE Greek Supersite – Proposal by ITSAK San Andreas fault Supersite – Proposal by USGS

Open data (Iceland Supersite)

Open data (Mt. Etna Supersite)

Observation for decisions (Campi Flegrei S) > 3 < -3 [cm/year] Ground deformation velocity increase Credits: IREA-CNR, MED-SUV Project

Science for decisions (Campi Flegrei S) Magma migration in a sill-like source at 3100 m depth, for a volume of 0.004 km3 Credits: INGV-OV, MED-SUV Project

Decision taken (Campi Flegrei S) Main decision making agency: Dept. of Civil Protection (DPC) Scientific institution in charge: INGV Decision The Supersite results led the decision-maker to raise the volcano alert level from “background” to “attention”.

Decisions to take (Iceland S) The possibility of a disastrous eruption as for Eyjafjallajokull in 2010, prompted for red alert for the flight airways. Credits: IREA-CNR, MED-SUV Project

Observation for decisions (Iceland S) Satellite data show the magma is migrating out of the ice cap

Science for decisions (Iceland S) Energy Dyke mapping Depth Magma volume Scientific results allow to forecast the evolution of the eruption

Science for decisions (Iceland S) Operational collaboration with decision-makers

Decision taken (Iceland S) Main decision making agency: Iceland Police, Dept. of Civil Protection Scientific institutions in charge: Iceland Meteorological Office, University of Iceland Decisions Lowering of red alert to orange and progressive return to normality.

Direct benefit on DRR Supersites are managed by national scientific bodies which operationally provide geohazard information to decision-makers within a national authoritative framework. The high quality of the scientific information is guaranteed by the enagagement of the wider scientific community within an Open Science approach. Supersites are focus areas where the scientist/decision-maker partnering approach can be tested to immediately benefit DRR, and from which this approach can be exported to other areas and countries

What we need to improve Expand and structure the management of the network Establish new Supersites in high-risk, lower-income countries Increase public awareness and public, evidence-based decision- making in DRR (e.g. exploiting social media and citizen science) Use common platforms to promote the collaboration between scientists and public decision-makers (e.g. the RASOR platform) Establish truly Open Science platforms and develop methods for knowledge sharing (e.g. Research Objects)

Recommended priorities: 1 Focused research. The data are now open. Now we need to use them to build value. An Open Science process is necessary, by which the scientific community is engaged in coordinated, focused research projects addressing the main scientific challenges for each Supersite. An important subject is the assessment of multiple hazards and of the consequences of concurring or cascading events.

Recommended priorities: 2 Networking and collaboration. We need to expand the scientific communities of the Supersites (scientific ecosystems), fostering the virtual and physical collaboration and the use of Supersite data provided by research infrastructures.

Recommended priorities: 3 Societal partnership. GSNL demonstrates that a rapid, direct societal benefit in DRR can be obtained by a structured cooperation among scientists and decision-makers. We now need dedicated instruments to better engage the civil society and also the private sector. Their awareness and perception of risks is fundamental for the success of any long term risk reduction attempt.

Thanks for your attention and support ! http://www.earthobservations.org/gsnl.php