On June 23, 2015, Ph.D. students and senior academics from University College
London and from the Centre for Natural Disaster Science (CNDS) met to discuss keyissues of disaster research, strengthen collaboration between the research centres, and elaborate future joint research activities. 32 people participated in the workshop that was held in Bloomsbury Campus, central London. The full list of participants and their contact details is reported at the end of this report.
After an introduction, participants were split up in three groups. The idea was to discuss topics highlighted as important and interesting during the previous workshop organised in May 2015 in Uppsala, Sweden. The groups were to discuss the topics from an interdisciplinary perspective and to come up with a plan for a practical output (such as theoretical paper, working paper or draft of research project). The three themes were:
1.
Early warning systems: The first group decided to focus on the theme of the early warning system from a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary perspective
2.
Challenging the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015-2030 : The second group choose to discuss the new Sendai Framework in order to identify missing aspects and areas of improvement
3.
Core Areas in DRR : The third group identified core areas of disaster research worth to be further explored.
Discussions of each group are shortly summarised below.
Report by Gianluca Pescaroli, notes by Erik Persson
Group members
PhD Students: Alexandra Tsioulou (IRDR), Beatriz Quesada Montano (CNDS), Erik
Persson (CNDS), Gianluca Pescaroli (IRDR), Giorgos Michas (IRDR), Justine Uyimleshi
(IRDR), Linghui Zhou (Epicentre), Omar Ortiz (IRDR), Thanos Bantis (UCL), Ying Cao
(Visiting, IRDR)
Seniors: Peter Sammonds (IRDR), Robert Wicks (IRDR), Sven Halldin (CNDS)

Discussion
The group met with the clear intent to produce the basis for some common interdisciplinary papers. The objective was met, even if some practical questions have not been solved yet. Out team joined together members from different disciplines such as social sciences, engineering, geology, hydrology and geosciences.
This had two main effects: a) The early phases of the discussion were very difficult and the guidance of seniors was needed to keep it on track. b) It was clear that there is huge potential for breaking the disciplinary boundaries and creating new forms of collaboration.
The debate was hence intense but distinguished by the adoption of concrete actions for some common output in the medium term. We focused on Early Warning
Systems, as defined by UNISDR (2009). The following were the main issues discussed:
!
It was discussed the possible role of cascading and escalation as common framework for analysis.
!
We considered the possibility to analyse of a case of successful early warning system, from the perspective of the four key elements of peoplecentred systems, for example an earthquake case study in San Francisco (short time scale), and a flood case study in Prague (long time scale).
!
We considered the question of how could people with different capabilities respond to early warnings.
!
The central role of learning feedback in successful cases of early warning and the role of middle management.
!
We discussed the potential of estimation, communication and understanding of uncertainties. What is the probability of a system suffering a specific level of disruption?
!
Societal attitudes and perception towards early warning information were considered.
!
The feasibility of possible case studies was tested, including: the floods in
London (2013), the earthquake in Japan (2011), El Hierro case, Naples and
North California at large.
The session of brainstorming was used to define a common focus and a framework for future work. This result can be considered extremely positive for the short time available.

Planned Output
We identified a core question and topic: How learning feedbacks in early warning systems can limit social disruptions? This is an interdisciplinary problem.
Open matters can be referred to:
!
The need to develop a first full review of the existing literature; this could better highlight the existing state of knowledge.
!
How to provide a coherent organization of the content and, on the practical side, how to organize the labour.
Division of work (for key words)
We divided the work for key word as follows (workshop order):
George: Hazard perspective
PZK: Cascading, social disruption (vulnerabilities), information
Thanos: Vulnerability, floods, capabilities
Erik: What enables learning; uncertainty communication between professionals and practitioners
Ivy: Hazard impact
Beariz: Can past experiences be used to assess early warning (flood/earthquake)
Justine: capabilities; community based approach; information
Lyn: Hazard; Monitoring
Omar/Alex: Monitoring; Forecasting (tech)
Next Steps
This work will be developed in the medium term. This time frame will be in line with our previous commitments and existing doctoral duties. We will need to find a suitable communication channel (e.g. blog?) and define a way to stay in touch in order to push on the collaboration. The learning feedbacks in early warnings can limit societal disruptions? Following steps can be defined since now:
!
Understand who’s really on board.
!
Early review of state of art and organization of the paper/s.
!
Discussion and structure.
!
Complete paper.

Report by: Serena Tagliacozzo
Group members
PhD students: Serena Tagliacozzo, Colin Walch
Seniors: Lars Nyberg, Karen Da Costa, David Alexander
Discussion
The discussion group on the Sendai Framework consisted of five people with various levels of experience and different background.
After an initial debate on the opportunity to analyse barriers to the implementation of the Sendai Framework in Europe, it has been decided to decline this topic. Indeed, the European context is composed by a variety of emergency management systems and it would be difficult to analyse barriers to policy implementation without considering each country as a stand-alone case. The discussion identified some relevant aspects missing in the current framework, and argued that an alternative framework on those topics is needed. The main points discussed are:
!
In the current framework, a major emphasis is put on addressing disaster risks and on promoting resilience. Group participants agreed that the concept of vulnerability should be at the centre of the international debate on DRR. In addition, the theme of how governments and individuals create the risk in their environment (“disaster risk creation”) should be further explored.
!
The discussion moved on with a debate on power structures and marginalisation. The current framework lacks a discussion about how power structures lead to the marginalisation of social groups. However group participants think that a major emphasis should be put on this aspect. In particular we should be able to promote an inclusive type of governance, which does not create exclusion or marginalisation. This governance is believed to be able to reduce vulnerabilities to future disasters.
!
In relation to the point above, group participants noted that a discussion of the disaster politics is largely absent in the current framework. While the need of governments to reduce disaster risks is stressed, no mention is made to the fact that government create risk and exploit disasters for their own benefit. Little to no mention is also made to the topics of human rights violation and corruption that create the conditions for disasters to happen.
!
More generally, the current framework is designed to be a-political while it is acknowledged that disasters are inherently political events. Group participants think that a framework that does not account for the real

aspects of disasters will not be able to address disaster risk reduction issues properly.
!
For all the above reasons, we propose a new framework entitled as
Alternative Sendai Framework for the world as it is.
Two points can be define about the structure and the goal of the Alternative Sendai
Framework for the world as it is:
1.
The New Framework will include assessment/monitoring mechanisms to ensure that governments follow the directives indicated.
2.
The New Framework will propose a structure alternative to the current one.
Major emphasis will be put on: vulnerability reduction and creation, human rights and poverty reduction, marginalisation, accountability mechanisms, examples of good governance/balanced power structures, disaster politics.
Planned output
At the end of the group discussion, participants agreed on putting together a working paper sketching out the proposed framework within a timeframe of 6 months (by December 2015). Those interested in participating in the creation of this new framework are invited to contact one of the group participants.
Report by: Sara Bondesson, Jenni Koivisto, Frederike Albrecht
Group members
PhD students: Frederike Albrecht, Sara Bondesson, Gretchen Fagg, Jenni Koivisto,
Viveca Norén, Monika Rydstedt Nyman, Agnes Jane Soto Gómez, Hannah Swee
Seniors: Fredrik Bynander, Ilan Kelman, Charles Parker
Discussion
Disasters do not adhere to boundaries between natural, social and technological dimensions. Yet within academia, scholars are consistently fostered to contribute primarily to knowledge production within their own discipline. We are seldom encouraged to explore the boundaries of our own fields of knowledge. But given the multifaceted nature of disaster situations, such disciplinary divisions need to be overcome if we want to understand disasters better. Various kinds of knowledge are needed in order to understand how and when disasters come about, as well as what societies might do to mitigate them or hamper their effects. Hence, creating greater

cohesion across disciplinary divides is considered an important goal within disaster risk reduction research.
As a group, consisting PhD students from across a range of disciplines with a common interest in disaster risk reduction we discussed a range of topics we found interesting and that would merit more attention as well as ways forward to build more cohesion. We identified four areas to concentrate on:
Building Cohesion
Establishing a Theoretical Framework
Developing Recommendations
Feed-back Loop
Planned output
One possible way forward would be to write a joint working paper concentrating on one or more of the topics mentioned above. It could also include other “neglected areas” as identified by the researchers working in the two institutions, CNDS and
IRDR, respectively.
The workshop was an interesting opportunity to discuss key topics in DRR from a new perspective. Even if the time was limited, some practical outputs emerged and they could be the first step for maintain a closer collaboration in the future.
However, there are some key challenges to be considered in the short and medium term. First, we have to produce deeds not only words. Even if there was a high commitment during the workshop, the next phase of translating the good will into a scientific output will have to maintain the sustainability of time commitment and the main working priorities (e.g. doctoral theses). Secondly, the workshop itself was a great day but it cannot stand on its own. If we do not think and find a way to have a follow-up, the risk is to lose the potential accumulated since 2014. This point will be dependent in first instance from feasibility criteria. In conclusion, we have to discuss more at large what will be the goals for our collaboration in the long term. The good output of this first workshop let us hope for a long way together that could be used innovate and push on our disciplines.