FORTRESS Cascading Effects presentation -Emergency Services Conference 2014

@FORTRESS_EUhttp://fortress-project.eu

Case studies of cascading disasters

Kim HagenTrilateral Research & Consultingkim.hagen@trilateralresearch.com

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Fukushima nuclear disaster

Disrupted electricity supply to the nuclear power plant

System for cooling the nuclear reactors could not function

Back-up transmission lineMismatched sockets

Firefighters became responsible for alternative water injections

Aftershocks

Earthquake Tsunami

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

FORTRESS

1. Identify and understand cascading effects in crisis situations

• Analyse relations and interdependencies between systems and actors

2. Build a modelling platform for cascading and cross-border effects

3. Develop an incident evolution tool/decision support tool

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

FORTRESS

1. Identify and understand cascading effects in crisis situations

• Analyse relations and interdependencies between systems and actors

2. Build a modelling platform for cascading and cross-border effects

3. Develop an incident evolution tool/decision support tool

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Case studies of cascading disasters

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Case studies of cascading disasters

• Frequency of crises

• Cross-border aspect of crises

• Presence and severity of cascading effects

9 case studies

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

List of case studies

• 2005 London attacks, UK

• 2000 Enschede fireworks factory explosion, the Netherlands

• 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan

• 1999 Galtür avalanche disaster, Austria

• 2003 Heatwave, France

• 2014 MH17 plane crash, Ukraine

• 2010 Eyafjallajokull volcanic eruption, Iceland/UK

• 2012 Hurricane Sandy, USA

• 2002 Central European floods, Prague, Czech Republic

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Approach and methodology

• Approach

• Pages of text

• Visual analysis

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Approach and methodology

• Excel sheet

• Triggers of cascading effects

• Time- when did what happen

• Unfolding of events and actions in crisis management

• Unfolding of the crisis itself

• Negative effects

• Sectors directly affected

• Sectors indirectly affected

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Blue arrow- direct causal relationYellow arrow- of influence onGreen line- subsequent steps but not a causal relation

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Blue arrow- direct causal relationYellow arrow- of influence onGreen line- subsequent steps but not a causal relationRed line- connects trigger in green column to the cascade it caused

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Approach and methodology

Uniform approach for categorising the triggers of cascading effects

• Disruption of

• Information relation

• Supply relation

• Organisation relation

• Malfunctioning of legal and regulatory relation

• Disturbance relation

• Relational conditions

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

What are common triggers of cascading effects and what are the implications for emergency management?

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of

• Information relation

• Supply relation

• Organisation relation

• Malfunctioning of legal and regulatory relation

2. Disturbance relation

3. Relational conditions

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of information relations: 12 times

• Congestion of telecommunication networks

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

London attacks-First responders reliant on mobile phones-Increase in call traffic (up to 250%)-Difficulties in organizing response efforts with hospitals, and in allocating additional resources

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of information relations: 12 times

• Congestion of telecommunication networks

►Importance of having separate reliable communication systems

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of supply relations: 8 times

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Galtür avalanche-Roads were inaccessible- no transport via roads-Not enough helicopters to bring emergency personnel and evacuate people-Helicopters had to be requested from neighbouring countries and NATO member states

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of supply relations: 8 times

• Supply of water

►Importance of access to resources

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of organisational relations: 11 times

• Decisions based on incorrect information

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Enschede fireworks factory explosion-Fire brigade asked SE Fireworks if fire safety measures were up to date-SE Fireworks claimed they were-Firefighters subsequent actions were based on this.

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of organisational relations: 11 times

• Decisions based on incorrect information

• Decisions proved to be wrong

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

London attacks-Meeting location for members of the Gold Coordination Group was changed-Congestion on roads and closure of underground-Senior officials experienced difficulties in getting to the new location-Impacted the strategic coordination to the attacks

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of organisational relations: 11 times

• Decisions based on incorrect information

• Decisions proved to be wrong

• Organisational responsibilities were not agreed upon

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Heatwave- France-No heatwave response plan was in place-Classification as an ‘emergency situation’ was delayed- it did not fit in the existing format-Poorly coordinated and inadequate response to the event

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

1. Disruption of relations

Disruption of organisational relations: 11 times

• Decisions based on incorrect information

• Decisions proved to be wrong

• Organisational responsibilities were not agreed upon

►Triangulation of knowledge provided by those who have a stake in the situation

►Importance of systematic organisation of both resources and people, between and within organisations, pre- and during disaster

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

2. Disturbance relations: 12 times

(unintended relations between systems or actors that come into being during a crisis)

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Fukushima-No electricity-Failure of pumps - reactors could not be cooled-Firefighters became responsible for cooling nuclear reactors.

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

2. Disturbance relations: 12 times

(unintended relations between systems or actors that come into being during a crisis)

►Known risks are valuable resources of knowledge that can be used in emergency planning

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

3. Pre-disaster relational conditions: 12 times

• Wider trends influenced specific behavior

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Fukushima-Nuclear power less profitable in Japan prior to 2011-Investment in cost reduction at the expense of safety measures-Inadequate diagrams and instruments related to safety protocols -Delay in responding to the accident

AP

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

3. Pre-disaster relational conditions: 12 times

• Wider trends influenced specific behavior

• Specific behavior influenced wider trends

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Floods- Prague-Political decisions – use of dams for the production of electricity-Flood models and structural barriers -Urbanisation -Gradual loss of flood mitigation practices

AP

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Analysis

3. Pre-disaster relational conditions: 12 times

• Wider trends influenced specific behavior

• Specific behavior influenced wider trends

►Triggers of cascading effects that have their origin in a pre-disaster period are more difficult to address during actual crisis management. However, they allow greater opportunities for the mitigation of risk.

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

Take home lessons

►Triggers of cascading effects can originate prior or during crisis

►Effective regulations can limit cascading effects

►Pre-crisis mitigation and preparation measures can limit the occurrence of triggers of cascading effects during crises

►Systems and human resources cannot be considered in isolation from each other

@FORTRESS_EU

http://fortress-project.eu

THANK YOU

If you have any further questions or would like to be kept up-to-date with the

project’s findings and events please contact:

kim.hagen@trilateralresearch.com

FORTRESS has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 607579.