In this interview for BORIS2, Daniela Di Bucci (Italian Civil Protection Department) and Aldo Primiero (Friuli-Venezia Giulia Civil Protection) talk about science in civil protection, collaboration across borders, and what they expect from BORIS2.
Interview conducted by Isabel Anger and Johanna Zweiger (Disaster Competence Network Austria, DCNA).
Daniela and Aldo, you both have a background in science and work in civil protection. How involved is the scientific community in civil protection in Italy?
Daniela: After the Friuli earthquake in 1976, the Italian commissioner for emergencies decided to work together with the scientific community and that kicked off the continuous collaboration of science and disaster risk management practitioners. This collaboration is ruled by law since 1992. Overall, science is intertwined with the Italian civil protection system at various levels: There are competence centres like research institutes that monitor various risks such as weather, seismic risk or volcanos day by day, but also advise during ongoing disaster events. Some research initiatives are funded by our Civil Protection Department, but we are, of course, also involved in EU projects – ideally right from the beginning for best results. There is also a Major Risk Commission which is a permanent commission that acts as an advisory body of the national Civil Protection Department and is composed of many experts from research institutes and universities. It is organised in eight sectors, focusing on volcanic risk, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, industrial hazards, etc. Of course, we are sometimes faced with discussions that are inherent to research: There might be differing results and opinions that don’t necessarily lead in the same direction. By law, we must refer to knowledge and products “which have reached a level of maturity and consensus recognised by the scientific community according to the practices in use”.
Aldo: On a more regional level, we involve the scientific community as well: With our regional civil protection office, we collaborate with regional scientific organisations and universities with experts such as meteorologists or geophysicists for monitoring, to optimise procedures and forecasting, but also for public communication. We want to create awareness for risks, so we organise events and use the scientific entities to help us explain phenomena to the public, also divulging recent studies and good practices on the prevention of risks.
We want to create awareness for risks, so we organise events and use the scientific entities to help us explain phenomena to the public, also divulging recent studies and good practices on the prevention of risks.
These are some interesting examples of how science and disaster risk management practitioners work together, not just when it comes to natural sciences but also beyond. Looking back on your experience, Daniela, how has science impacted civil protection in Italy on a national level?
Daniela: In the last decade, the involvement of science (the so-called STEM disciplines, in particular) has been very important. We’ve created civil protection plans based on scientific models, for example. Many of our activities are based on scenarios that come from the scientific community. We are pushing more and more for having probabilistic results because we want to know what the range of uncertainty is that accompanies the numbers that we base our decisions on. We know that this is not easy to obtain but it is important. We have also started to address something that is a problem in many countries and became evident during the Covid-19 pandemic: public opinion and dealing with scientific information, as Aldo also already mentioned. Consider climate change as an example: People hear opinions of two different sides and believe that both these opinions are equivalent, not considering the vast number of researchers backing one of these opinions. What we know now is that it is usually not an issue of not understanding what we communicate, it is that some people or groups do not care. So, it is a social science issue, a matter of behavioural science and psychology, thus, we are exploring how to involve experts from these fields. This autumn, for example, we are organising a conference on these topics to get more insights.
Many of our activities are based on scenarios that come from the scientific community. We are pushing more and more for having probabilistic results because we want to know what the range of uncertainty is that accompanies the numbers that we base our decisions on.
Let’s continue talking about collaboration: How does collaboration across borders look like for you?
Aldo: As we are a region with borders to Slovenia and Austria but also the Italian Veneto region in the west, we have common risks as we have common borders and, thus, collaborate a lot – on different levels. Joint protocols have been signed to improve communication in the operative centres and to arrange rapid procedures in the case of a disaster, so we can deal with these events without having to involve the national Civil Protection Department. Of course, we also exchange hydro-meteorological data to improve models that help us in our daily lives. Sometimes, when we need something urgent, having built good relations with our neighbours, we just call each other on the phone.
Daniela: We have agreements with countries that we share borders with but, as Aldo said, there is a lot of interaction at regional level, for instance, in terms of monitoring incipient forest fires. Volunteer associations also collaborate with their counterparts on the other side of the border, and there are shared exercises and other activities related to preparedness.
What kind of outcomes do you expect from BORIS2 and how will they benefit your everyday work?
Aldo: I find the comparison between planning approaches and varying thresholds of different countries, especially for hydraulic risks, very useful as every country has its own history with disasters. With the comparison, we can start to harmonise approaches and address existing issues. I also like the approach of going down to risk mapping on the local and urban scale with more details which is quite useful for emergency planning and response. We currently have long-term static risk maps showing the exposure. Adding details would definitely be helpful: For example, we have data on land use and know which areas are industrial areas in these maps but no details. If there is a flood and an industrial area is affected, it makes a difference whether we’re talking about a chemical production plant or a fishing company in this area. The other aspect is that in touristic areas, for example, the population of a town may be ten times more in summer compared to winter. Such dynamics are more part of the emergency planning than risk mapping.
Daniela: Concerning the topic of mapping, I agree with Aldo: There is potential but one must keep in mind that everybody already has some kind of platform or dashboard with data. The main challenge is to create something that can interlink with what is already there – and something that adds value. The second aspect of BORIS2, the multi-hazard approach on the border area scale, is a very good thing as it is an intermediate scale between regional and national levels. Figuring out the relationship of two major hazards, how one hazard impacts the management of the other hazard, is a challenge that we address in many fields. This is where I believe BORIS2 can really help.
At the BORIS2 kick-off in February, we talked about the ROADMAP2 project. This project aims at establishing a Community for the European Observatory (CEO) of good practices, to improve the knowledge, understanding and replicability of good practices in disaster risk management. What kind of synergies can be achieved through working together with the BORIS2 project? And what other cooperation possibilities do you see for the project?
Daniela: Identifying good practises is very helpful for other associations and countries to learn from another. I see adding these learnings from BORIS2 to the ROADMAP2 Solutions Explorer where we collect all kinds of good practices related to disaster risk management as a great synergy. Additionally, as CI3R is part of both BORIS2 and ROADMAP2 projects consortia, I see a lot of further cooperation possibilities there.
Aldo: We have an exercise planned as part of an Interreg project next year together with partners from Italy and Slovenia in the framework of Gorizia/Nova Gorica as European Capital of Culture 2025. I could see BORIS2 results and risk maps being used in the preparatory work of the exercise which aims to showcase civil protection culture and builds on a seismic scenario.
Thank you for your time and valuable input for the BORIS2 project!
The BORIS2 project represents the follow up of the BORIS project, funded under the 2020 UCPM Prevention and Preparedness call, and aims at assessing the seismic and the flood risks having cross-border impact-potential on the Italian-Slovenian-Austrian borders in a multi-risk perspective. Learn more.
Cross Border Risk assessment for increased prevention and preparedness in Europe: way forward