Knowledge Sharing Workshop, Tiel The Netherlands, 20 September 2016

Transcription

1 Knowledge Sharing Workshop, Tiel The Netherlands, 20 September 2016 General Overview On 20 September 2016, the FORTRESS 1 consortium together with six other EU projects (INTACT 2, PREDICT 3, SECTOR 4, CIPRNET 5, CASCEFF 6 and DRIVER 7 ) focused on mitigating cascading effects during crises, held a knowledge-sharing workshop in Tiel, the Netherlands (See Agenda in Annex). The workshop provided a platform for the exchange of research outcomes between related European projects. The workshop had two overarching themes: 1) empirical findings for reducing cascading effects in crises and enhancing resilience, and 2) tools for supporting decision making before and during crises. The workshop provided an opportunity to discuss the latest empirical findings in the field of crisis management, resilience and the curbing of cascading effects during crises. The knowledge-sharing workshop was held back to back with the Domino workshop, organised by IFV, which provided a further opportunity for project representatives to engage with first responders. The event was attended by 35 participants from 11 countries. Apart from project representatives, participants were made up of first responders, crisis managers and individual experts, as well as representatives of various service providers such as water management, power providers and local business. 1 FORTRESS Foresight tools for responding to cascading effects in a crisis INTACT Impact of Extreme Weather on Critical Infrastructures PREDICT PREparing for the Domino effect in Crisis situations SECTOR - Secure European Common Information Space for the Interoperability of First Responders and Police Authorities CIPRNET - Critical Infrastructures Preparedness and Resilience Research Network CASCEFF Modelling of dependencies and cascading effects for emergency management in crisis situations DRIVER - Driving Innovation in Crisis Management for European Resilience - 1

2 Outcomes of the workshop 1) Empirical findings for reducing cascading effects in crises and enhancing resilience Following a brief introduction to each project by project representatives, the first panel sought to uncover key empirical findings from each project and to emphasise policy recommendations that emerged as a result of these findings. Project representatives proceeded to present a thorough overview of their respective projects, the tools they were developing and the process leading up to development. Although it was emphasised by the convenors that policy recommendations should be the main focus of the panel discussion, some projects had not yet formulated structured policy recommendations at this stage. This, it was later revealed, was due to the fact that some projects were still identifying gaps in the requirements for mitigating cascading effects during crises. However, project representatives were still able to elucidate the main hurdles (see Annex 3)at a regional and European level for integrating the tools being developed into existing response procedures and, more generally, the ways in which current policies and structures were ill equipped for dealing with critical events. The need for semantic interoperability between different sectors and crisis responders involved in handling a crisis was identified. In this respect, the need to create a European wide repository that feeds icons on maps and provides multilingual capabilities was also stressed. Another important issue that was raised, was the need to have more cooperative workshops and training events between first responders in a bid to, a) guarantee familiarity with different approaches to tackling crises, and b) to learn about each other s jurisdictional relations and responsibilities. For those projects that had not yet had the opportunity to structure policy recommendation, the panel and the accompanying discussions allowed them to frame their observations, system requirements and identified gaps in the form of policy recommendations that would further benefit their project goals and the goals of the first responders and crisis managers they work closely with. Two key concerns were brought up by participants in the ensuing discussion. In order to guarantee that the tools would be used, it is imperative that partnerships for preparedness are formed and, best practices for inter-sectorial cooperation need to be further developed. These recommendations, observations and discussions informed the joint declaration that was reevaluated and signed by the project representatives following the workshop. The declaration is a joint recognition of the requirements for mitigating cascading effects during crises and, a symbol of the joint commitment of project representatives to this ideal (see Annex for a copy of the declaration). 2) Tools for supporting decision making before and during crises The second panel provided project representatives with the opportunity to showcase the tools they had developed and, to explain the functionalities and the operative scenarios in which they would/could be used. Given that the workshop preceded the DOMINO event (held in the same location on 21 September), the panel provided participants with an introductory overview of the 2

3 tools they would be seeing in action the following day. It also allowed first responders, crisis managers and service providers present with the opportunity to critique the tools being displayed and question certain aspects that were not initially evident. This proved useful input for guiding tool simulations at the DOMINO event, as well as for framing the context of their use. One such example took place during the SECTOR project s presentation of their cross-border information support system. A first responder cast doubts over whether the tool would be able to integrate other information systems into its own system. These doubts were allayed by the SECTOR team s assurances that other systems could indeed be integrated and, were further justified when the SECTOR team were able to integrate the Dutch LCMS (Crisis management system) with their tool. A further outcome, was the discovery that the FORTRESS project s foresight incident evolution tool (FIET) can also be connected to SECTOR platform, indicating realistic integration between the tools being developed in different projects. A second important outcome of the panel highlighted that many tools shared similarities that pointed to common gaps and requirements in the current European structure for tackling cascading effects during crises. This in itself served as a form of validation that the separate research being conducted in the various projects present were identifying common denominators for the causes of cascading effects. These common denominators were again reflected in the common declaration (See Annex 2) signed and ratified at the end of the workshop by all the projects present. Finally, an opportunity to organize a session to explore the lessons learned in different EU projects has arisen at the upcoming ISCRAM conference in 2017 (see Annex 4). In this meeting the aim is to stimulate participants (scholars, practitioners, policy makers) present to discuss their project outcomes, deliverables and/or products, thus enhancing the continued cooperation between the projects represented at the workshop. 3

4 Annex 1 Agenda of the Knowledge Sharing Workshop Timings Session Registration Welcome and short introductions to the projects PANEL I: Reducing vulnerability and enhancing resilience against cascading effects: Empirical findings and policy recommendations Brief introduction of the main empirical findings [TBD] Main problems identified with regards to cross-border communication and cooperation [TBD] Lessons learned and policy recommendations [TBD] Note: Reference to outcomes of WPs in this regard Coffee Break PANEL II: Tools to support analysis of cascading effects and decision-making before and during crisis Brief introduction to the FORTRESS Scenario Builder (FSB) [TBD] Brief introduction to the FORTRESS Incident Evolution Tool (FIET) [TBD] How do they support decision making? Some examples from the FORTRESS project [TBD] The benefits of the tools in the analysis of cascading effects [TBD] Note: Reference to outcomes of WPs in this regard Coffee Break Final comments and closing remarks Dinner 4

5 Annex 2 Following the Domino conference in Zwijndrecht May 2015, the participating projects continued their collaboration, leading to the DominoII conference in 19 th -21 st September Presentation and discussion of results to date indicate continued interest and support for collaboration to continue to strengthen our mutual understanding of large-scale social and economic disruptions propagating from major crisis events - the "domino effect" also known as cascading effects. All participants recognize the value arising from our open cooperation and exchange in the preceding period. Therefore, 1. We affirm our continued commitment to our shared goal of improving the mitigation of the effects from all threats to European public safety, including natural and manmade hazards leading to failure of critical infrastructure and their cascading effects. 2. We recognise the need for wider collaboration and understanding between public and private organisations and citizens supported by an appropriate and sustainable European consensus mechanism. 3. We affirm that measures to strengthen safety in Europe are dependent on the willingness to share (Qualified) information between these vital partners. 4. We recognise that sharing of vital information is complex and requires preparation and innovation in partnerships, procedures and tools. 5. In order to achieve the necessary innovations we recognise that practitioners, researchers, policy advisors and industry developers must openly collaborate to deliver acceptable and workable solutions applicable in European member states. 6. Our conferences have established an ongoing and constructive dialogue around key themes identified by the participating experts. 7. We recognise and support the need to continue this dialogue for greater benefit through usage of the building blocks provided by the participating partnerships. 8. We support wider European inclusion of active Member State partners from critical infrastructure, Government, emergency services, research and development. 9. We recognise the need to continue to connect the outputs of collaborative innovation projects to the wider European and national policy actions. 10. We, the stakeholders in DOMINO, continue our commitment to promote the uptake of European collaborative project results delivering building blocks, concepts and examples for improved European Civil Protection, Safety and Security. 5

6 Annex 3 Knowledge Sharing Workshop and Subsequent Interviews (IFV) This annexe was developed by the NL/DE crisis teams, based initially on notes taken by them during the workshop, and then extended via interviews with project partners in the context of the Field Trial Validation activities at Tiel (IFV coordinating cross-border crisis teams). The full text is taken from FORTRESS report D8.5 Annexe 1 Netherlands Field Trial Results (IFV). Knowledge Sharing Between Experts The projects participating in the workshop and subsequent interviews were: CASCEFF predictive modelling of cascade effects, based on systems and dependencies. INTACT methods for CI vulnerability assessment and analysis of CI protection measures. FORTRESS foresight tools and models for responding to cascading effects in a crisis. PREDICT methodologies, models and software tools for managing cascading effects. CIPRNET research net sharing knowledge and training tools addressing cascading crises. SECTOR common information space supporting collaboration between safety partnerships. The discussions between these projects, and the subsequent interviews with experts they provided to the event (technical experts, information experts, crisis managers), initially focused their projects and systems, and what was being produced. Discussion then moved to challenges faced, results, and implications for Regional and EU policy in relation to collaborative crisis management. Interviews expanded the initial findings and show: Model Building in Partnership Preparing Partnerships Through Modelling: Vulnerability factors need to be fully shared amongst safety partners who may need to take part in response partnerships for preparedness are required, otherwise tools will not be supported or used. When modelling potential cascade effects, determined by relationships between crisis objects (nodes), the key actors in inter-sectorial networks must be fully engaged to exploit available knowledge. Supporting understanding of all safety partners can ensure more robust and dependable crisis / cascade models, and deliver shared resources of high value to all stakeholders. Models rely on probability derived from past cases, and from experts experience, and these may differ, so debate is required (collaborative modelling). Dealing with crisis (especially cascade events) requires experts to react quickly and effectively, so training is required, based on previous events (known outcomes), and based on shared models (inclusive preparedness). Federated modelling, simulation and analysis (and consequence analysis if addressing past events) can be used to build crisis teams understanding, and can also develop working strategies ion advance of crisis. Added tools and facilities such as the INTACT wiki, decision support tools, and the CIPRnet cascade trainer show that preparation of crisis teams and safety partners can better prepare them for using tools in active crisis events. Exploration of potential crises is an approach supported by several projects and shown to be of value (exploring crisis models, exploring interactive maps, etc.), and exposes the need to allow crisis managers and safety partnership to have free opportunity to explore, via models, without restriction (self development of understanding). Crisis Management Partnership and Civil Protection: 6

7 Cross-border partnerships for preparedness, as well as networking of partnerships (including research support) can help prepare the way for EU Civil Protection actions. The primary focus on responders is needed to reach the front line capacity. There is a need to further explore models of communication between sectors / networks so as to be able to then model cascades where multi-networks / multi-sectors are present. Discussion showed that the Dutch Safety Regions Act and its resulting safety partnerships (e.g. Schiphol, Tata Steel, Rotterdam Port) all show good communications and collaboration. Similar partnerships exist in different countries (e.g. Scottish petro-chemical), and could be better exposed as models of collaboration / interoperability to support policy in Civil Protection. There is a general lack of awareness of Critical Infrastructure (CI) and its role in cascade effects in a variety of crisis events (e.g. driven by extreme weather / SEVESO accidents, etc.). Sharing of information in crisis situations relies on both well-formalised and less formal exchanges. Tools such as the common information space provide flexible opportunities for sharing information (sources placed at disposal of partners who may use it as they wish), as well as organized integration, and the example can support reasoning about information sharing policies. Discussion suggested that EU common support tools should allow local autonomy; open architectures will allow usage of all valuable assets / building blocks; data required to ensure public safety should be made open and shared (open and linked data); translation between icon sets / terms. Key Policy Issues: General discussion of policy further emphasised needs to ensure: - Semantic interoperability. - Clarification of jurisdictional relations. - Cross-border exchange (e.g. via workshops). - Interoperability of models. - Exchange of risk data (open and linked data). - Models for inter-sectoral cooperation. - Share capabilities and categories etc. (map data). - Translation between icon sets at European level (semantic interoperability). 7

8 Key Functions for Shared Crisis Management: Discussion of practical information exchange emphasised: - the high value of being able to model resource relations (service dependencies) between entities; - the importance of informational relationships / communication; - the value of being able to separate conceptual level (e.g. power grid) from physical (mapped) manifestations (e.g. several towers, cable, links); - the ability to examine a cascade pathway from any selected node; - being able to run a simulation as a timed process to allow observation of likely cascade effects; - the criticality analysis based on known factors (e.g. bottlenecks, transmission capacity); - the need for learning by crisis managers to enable effective usage. Decision Support Information versus Automation: Automation of decision-making was a general concern. Discussion around deterministic versus probabilistic modelling indicated FORTRESS is designed to allow exploration of models by experts, and does not embed expertise, so does not remove the decision control from the relevant experts. Concerning mitigation, the FORTRESS tool is purely informational and designed for training, modelling, and decision support, so mitigate calculations are not included, again leaving decision making to (well supported) experts. Numerous comments indicate this was a significant strength, since several attempts to embed decision-making/ automated calculations seemed to meet with resistance from crisis experts. Crisis modelling and decision support systems should not offer prognosis, but should support experts in exploring potential impacts as part of planning for preparedness. Nonetheless, predictive modelling of cascade effects, based on identified systems/objects and dependencies was viewed as a safe and common approach. Improving Support for Decision Making Partnerships: Decision-making relies on identification of key decision points, and so models should be highly focused on known decision points, which can only be clarified through collaboration between multi-sectorial experts (safety partnerships). Discussion emphasized a general recognition of, and need for, for wider end user group involvement, including responders, water boards, urban developers, health care, factory planners, airport/harbour/transport, etc. so as to approach safety by design (using known crisis scenarios to inform design process). Discussion emphasized the need to honour the existing national risk-assessment approaches so as to ensure end user engagement and usage. Since the systems are mainly expert based, they are dependent on experts decisions. They should therefore be viewed as a combined: - training tool (used in exercises to allow learning about usage and adaptation), - preparation tool (co-design of scenarios, risk models, exploring scenarios for risk avoidance), - collaboration tool (crisis response plans, action plans). Discussion showed that much of the initial modelling has focused CI and systems, along with their interactions. There is not yet enough consideration of people and possible impacts upon them, and so they must be figured into the cascade process (impacts on citizens, measures to reduce impact or to plan recovery). Discussion recognized the need for a shared space for collaboration and information sharing, both as a support for planning, and for response. However, active and flexible interoperability relies on recognizing the language of each collaborating system, so that 8

9 without modification of legacy systems, information can be injected as required. Demonstration of the interoperability box linking different systems showed there is significant scope to extend the cascade modelling approach through automation of information exchange. The discussion focused the need for a common operational picture (COP) supported by maps of prior and current situations (what is happening on the ground). Combining Google crisis, WebGIS, QGIS and EDEN map data was shown as illustration, and was discussed as opportunities for enriched awareness by experts using cascade models during cascade progress. It was noted that live map feeds from COPERNICUS (EU crisis emergency mapping services, including radar images) was being organised on the spot (hackathon) for demo next day (see later). Discussion also evidenced clear appreciation of the flexibility of the common informatio0n space (CIS) concept, the freedom to share while preserving local control, the added value of COPERNICUS mapping for live scenario imaging, and the added value of decision support for experts planning mitigation and response. The use of CIS as a facility / service for secure data sharing was discussed and seen to be an attractive approach, both because it facilitates collaboration and shared awareness, but also because it does not require changes to local systems, and can keep crisis managers informed as cascade events proceed (enriches models). Maintaining Shared Crisis Models: Experts agreed there is a need to continually update and adapt models, for example to meet seasonal changes, and to respond to changes in preparedness, organisational change, equipment change etc. Experts can make changes and decide what are impacts on other parts of the model, so models have to be updated and maintained as part of a preparedness inventory (along with response plans etc.). Key Summary Points: General discussion and follow-up interviews showed there was support for EU policy from all of the systems being demonstrated, since they allow sharing of precious resources to avoid replication of existing investment. This is very much in line with the CEF approach (connecting Europe) based on smart building blocks (CEF Building Blocks and Digital Service Infrastructures / DSIs). Projects and their representatives also showed general agreement that the participating projects have allowed Emergency Management experts to discover how difficult modelling is, in reality, and how it can be used primarily as training aids, and as decision support aids in planning for risk avoidance, and crisis response, through more detailed and flexible examination of crisis and cascading effects. Showing entity relationship diagrams helps experts debate and agree the dependencies. Showing maps allows experts to consider the environmental features of interest (presence of kindergarten, proximity to LPG station, etc.), and so expand their understanding through collaborative exploration as a basis for decisionmaking. The observations and interviews highlight a range of opportunities to refine and progress the FORTRESS concept. 9

10 Annex 4 ISCRAM is a learned society for people interested in Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. The acronym was first used for the first international ISCRAM Workshop held in Brussels in From there on the ISCRAM Community expanded into a globally active community of researchers, academics, practitioners, policy makers with an interest in this new area. The ISCRAM Association's primary mission is to foster a community dedicated to promoting research and development, exchange of knowledge and deployment of information systems for crisis management. This includes the social, technical and practical aspects of all information and communication systems used or to be used in all phases of management of emergencies, disasters and crises. To this end, ISCRAM endeavors to: promote and facilitate cooperation among all parties involved in this domain, including researchers, practitioners and professionals, technical experts and other experts and policy makers; develop activities that contribute to the primary mission; promote and disseminate best practices and research results on the development, maintenance, delivery, and management of information and communication systems for crisis response and management; promote and facilitate leading-edge education and training in this domain. ISCRAM achieves these goals through conferences, research, education programs, and standards activities ISCRAM 2017 Platform to meet for EU projects The next ISCRAM 2017 Conference will take place on May in Albi, France. We are considering to organize a session to explore the lessons learned in different EU projects. In this meeting we aim to stimulate participants (scholars, practitioners, policy makers) present and discuss their project outcomes, deliverables and/or products. Would we indeed opt for such a session or track, then we will have to work closely together with the organizing committee of ISCRAM We invite the Domino participants of the knowledge sharing workshop in Tiel to explore with us the possibilities to organize such a track or session. For this purpose you can contact Rob Peters rpeters@vrk.nl for the end-users and Kees Boersma, f.k.boersma@vu.nl, Member of the ISCRAM Board. 10