1. 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

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

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

4. 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!

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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. … 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

11. Open data (Iceland Supersite)

12. Open data (Mt. Etna Supersite)

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

14. 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

15. 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”.

16. 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

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

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

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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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)

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Thanks for your attention and support !