Search

Natural hazard-related disasters are on the rise and have significant impacts on the public and private sector. Different mechanisms and instruments exist on the pan-European level to deal with them, including the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). Recently, the EUSF expanded its scope to incorporate public health emergencies and merged with the Emergency Aid Reserve to become the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve. It therefore became a multi-hazard and multi-risk instrument to assist countries during the emergency phase of disasters. As different types of hazards and risks are drawing from the same fund there is concern about what capitalisation levels have to be assumed to make it sustainable. Hence, it is important to understand to which hazards and risks the fund is most exposed and whether there are regional differences within Europe. To address these issues, this paper takes a risk-based approach and estimates the capitalisation levels needed for major hazards and risks, noting regional differences across Europe.

The potential for systemic risks arising from interconnected social, technical, and economic systems is becoming increasingly evident as climate change leads to more frequent and severe natural hazards and multi-hazard events (e.g., compound and cascading hazards) that can lead to unforeseen consequences on various levels. We present a large-scale macroeconomic agent-based model (ABM) designed to trace the spread of indirect losses caused by natural hazards across different regions and sectors. Using the Danube Region as a case study, we simulate economic and social ripple effects resulting from direct physical damages (i.e., loss and damage of capital stock) caused by various hazard scenarios, such as compound flooding, consecutive floods and droughts, and compound flooding and earthquakes. Our ABM is designed to capture micro-level behaviours and agent heterogeneity in terms of adjustment in response to direct damages both on the supply and demand sides of goods and labour markets, e.g., supply chain disruptions and reduction of production capacities. The ABM is calibrated on the NUTS-2 regional scale and incorporates dozens of industries. Using macroeconomic aggregates and a risk ratio metric comparing direct and indirect exposures, we quantify industries, regions and population subgroups most severely affected by indirect impacts on a short- to medium-term based on their positions within a wider economic network. We demonstrate that ABMs can be utilized to conduct participatory investigations of cascading risks that extend beyond individual impacts and encompass risk proliferation across both sectorial and regional boundaries. Our approach reveals latent vulnerabilities within economic networks that may pose potential risks, despite not being immediately apparent.

Multi-hazards as well as multi-risk management are increasingly gaining importance in research, policy, and practice, but present a challenging task. Focusing on governments as key risk bearers, we assume a multi-hazard and multi-risk perspective and address the question of how different natural hazards can influence fiscal risk and how fiscal risk can change over time due to other risk realizations (e.g., pandemics). We employ a risk-layer approach to analyze the changes in fiscal risk, comparing the fiscal stress associated with different hazards during distinct time periods and scenarios. In doing so, we address the question under which circumstances risk reduction or risk financing may be needed as well as how an iterative approach can account for changing financing resource levels for different hazards under different scenarios. We apply this methodology to the Danube Region which is exposed to different natural hazards and encompasses countries with different levels of fiscal resilience. Furthermore, the countries in the Danube Region were affected by Covid-19, which acted as an additional stressor and caused large economic costs. The analysis should demonstrate the flexibility as well as the relevance of the presented methodology to address multi-risks within a coherent framework. One of the main outcomes of the study is the appreciation of different fiscal resilience levels for different countries and the different types of disasters they are exposed to, which can inform the diverse strategies needed on a case-by-case basis but within a common framework to tackle current and future risks. The analysis should be therefore not only informative for the Danube Region and respective countries but also regarding the more general question under which circumstances risk reduction or risk financing may be needed as well as how an iterative approach can account for changing financing resource levels against multiple risks.

Indirect effects resulting from natural disasters, such as the follow-on consequences of initial destruction, are attracting growing attention. This is because economic losses in the aftermath of disaster events have escalated in recent years and are expected to continue to rise in the future. Despite this, the primary focus of most countries’ disaster risk management approaches remains centered on mitigating the direct effects of such events, with little attention being paid to strategies aimed explicitly at reducing indirect effects. As a result, there are limited practical solutions available for reducing these indirect damages. Most efforts remain theoretical, lacking real-world testing of frameworks specifically designed to reduce indirect risks. To address this gap, this paper aims to illuminate the issue by proposing and empirically testing how existing risk management frameworks designed for direct risks could be expanded to encompass indirect effects as well. In doing so, we create and use a framework to manage indirect risks in a collaborative process for dealing with major flood risk in Austria. We test specific challenges and explore ways to integrate the management of these indirect risks in a complex real-world scenario. Our findings suggest that linking indirect and direct risk management can be achieved with relatively modest effort. A precise systems definition proves particularly beneficial in this regard, as it can link disaster risk related dimensions with non-disaster related targets. This approach thereby opens up the possibility to explicitly include multiple dividends in the decision-making process about indirect risk management strategies.

The latest evidence suggests that multi-hazards and their interrelationships (e.g., triggering, compound, and consecutive hazards) are becoming more frequent across Europe, underlying a need for resilience building by moving from single-hazard-focused to multi-hazard risk assessment and management. Although significant advancements were made in our understanding of these events, mainstream practice is still focused on risks due to single hazards (e.g., flooding, earthquakes, droughts), with a limited understanding of the stakeholder needs on the ground. To overcome this limitation, this paper sets out to understand the challenges for moving towards multi-hazard risk management through the perspective of European stakeholders. Based on five workshops across different European pilots (Danube Region, Veneto Region, Scandinavia, North Sea, and Canary Islands) and an expert workshop, we identify five prime challenges: i) governance, ii) knowledge of multi-hazards and multi-risks, iii) existing approaches to disaster risk management, iv) translation of science to policy and practice, and v) lack of data. These challenges are inherently linked and cannot be tackled in isolation with path dependency posing a significant hurdle in transitioning from single- to multi-hazard risk management. Going forward, we identify promising approaches for overcoming some of the challenges, including emerging approaches for multi-hazard characterisation, a common understanding of terminology, and a comprehensive framework for guiding multi-hazard risk assessment and management. We argue for a need to think beyond natural hazards and include other threats in creating a comprehensive overview of multi-hazard risks, as well as promoting thinking of multi-hazard risk reduction in the context of larger development goals.

Cascading risks that can spread through complex systems have recently gained attention. As it is crucial for decision-makers to put figures on such risks and their interactions, models that explicitly capture such interactions in a realistic manner are needed. Climate related hazards often cascade through different systems, from physical to economic and social systems, causing direct but also indirect risks and losses. Despite their growing importance in the light of ongoing climate change and increasing global connections, such indirect risks are not well understood. Applying two fundamentally different economic models—a computable general equilibrium model and an agent-based model—we reveal indirect risks of flood events. The models are fed with sector-specific capital stock damages, which constitutes a major methodological improvement. We apply these models for Austria, a highly flood exposed country with strong economic linkages. A key finding is that flood damages pose very different indirect risks to different sectors and household groups (distributional effects) in the short and long-term. Our results imply that risk management should focus on specific societal subgroups and sectors. We provide a simple metric for indirect risk, showing how direct and indirect losses are related. This can provide new ways forward in risk management, for example, focusing on interconnectedness of sectors and agents within different risk-layers of indirect risk. Although we offer highly relevant leverage points for indirect risk management in Austria, the methodology of analyzing indirect risks can be transferred to other regions.

In our increasingly interconnected world, natural hazards and their impacts spread across geographical, administrative, and sectoral boundaries. Due to the interrelationships between multi-hazards and socio-economic dimensions, the impacts of these types of events can surmount those of multiple single hazards. The complexities involved in tackling multi-hazards and multi-risks hinder a more holistic and integrative perspective and make it difficult to identify overarching dimensions important for assessment and management purposes. We contribute to this discussion by building on systemic risk research, especially the focus on interconnectedness, and suggest ways forward for an integrated multi-hazard and multi-risk framework that should be beneficial in real-world applications. In this paper, we propose a six-step framework for analyzing and managing risk across a spectrum ranging from single- to multi- and systemic risk.

Aim: Land use is the most pervasive driver of biodiversity loss. Predicting its impact on species richness (SR) is often based on indicators of habitat loss. However, the degradation of habitats, especially through land-use intensification, also affects species. Here, we evaluate whether an integrative metric of land-use intensity, the human appropriation of net primary production, is correlated with the decline of SR in used landscapes across the globe. Location: Global. Time period: Present. Major taxa studied: Birds, mammals and amphibians. Methods: Based on species range maps (spatial resolution: 20 km × 20 km) and an area-of-habitat approach, we calibrated a “species–energy model” by correlating the SR of three groups of vertebrates with net primary production and biogeographical covariables in “wilderness” areas (i.e., those where available energy is assumed to be still at pristine levels). We used this model to project the difference between pristine SR and the SR corresponding to the energy remaining in used landscapes (i.e., SR loss expected owing to human energy extraction outside wilderness areas). We validated the projected species loss by comparison with the realized and impending loss reconstructed from habitat conversion and documented by national Red Lists. Results: Species–energy models largely explained landscape-scale variation of mapped SR in wilderness areas (adjusted R2-values: 0.79–0.93). Model-based projections of SR loss were lower, on average, than reconstructed and documented ones, but the spatial patterns were correlated significantly, with stronger correlation in mammals (Pearson's r = 0.68) than in amphibians (r = 0.60) and birds (r = 0.57). Main conclusions: Our results suggest that the human appropriation of net primary production is a useful indicator of heterotrophic species loss in used landscapes, hence we recommend its inclusion in models based on species–area relationships to improve predictions of land-use-driven biodiversity l

The European Union has some dedicated tools and mechanisms available to respond to natural hazard events including the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). It follows the objective of granting financial assistance to Member States in the event of a major disaster with serious consequences. In the latest EU long-term budget plan—the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021–2027—the EUSF was merged with the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) to form the new Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR). One additional significant change was made in 2020 which saw an extension of the scope of the EUSF. This extension allowed the EUSF to cover losses incurred due to major public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It is therefore now a multi-hazard and multi-risk financing instrument designed to financially assist during the emergency phase in case of an emergency event. We assess the consequences of these changes in the light of potential advantages as well as disadvantages compared to the prior EUSF structure. The results will be used to provide some policy recommendations as to how to move forward with the identified challenges. We especially recommend separating the EUSF from the coverage of large-scale public health emergencies and the emergencies covered by the EAR. Instead, we suggest establishing a new flexibility instrument that covers emergencies such as public health related ones as well as the ones within the EAR. The analysis gives some important insights, scientific as well as policy wise, about advantages as well as limitations of financial instruments that simultaneously should tackle different types of hazards and risks.

Contains fulltext : 282924.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Natural disasters, such as floods, can have severe consequences, especially as economies are becoming ever more interlinked and complex so that the cascading effects of disasters can amplify direct impacts. These trends are expected to continue in the future due to climate change and changing socio-economic structures. It is therefore important to promote climate risk management strategies that also deal with indirect effects due to natural disaster events in a proactive manner. However, there is a lack of studies which investigate the agents involved in climate risk management geared towards the indirect effects of disasters and how these indirect effects are or can be dealt with. We address this gap via a detailed case study of the Austrian flood risk management apparatus. Based on a detailed stakeholder analysis, we compile a stakeholder map of those potentially involved in indirect flood risk management as well as the relationships (or the lack thereof) among them. We further discuss current and future indirect risk management strategies and corresponding implementation barriers. Finally, based on the results obtained from the stakeholder process, we discuss and suggest possible ways forward to overcome these barriers to enable proactive management strategies for indirect climate risks. We find that although indirect risks are being considered in the Austrian flood risk management, they are managed to a marginal degree. To remedy this, we call for increased efforts in data collection, modelling and awareness raising and the revision of current financial as well as institutional structures. Greater focus should be put on interdependencies within systems as well as the adoption of long-term visions for establishing more integrated climate risk management against indirect effects.

Neisseria meningitidis protects itself from complement-mediated killing by binding complement factor H (FH). Previous studies associated susceptibility to meningococcal disease (MD) with variation in CFH, but the causal variants and underlying mechanism remained unknown. Here we attempted to define the association more accurately by sequencing the CFH-CFHR locus and imputing missing genotypes in previously obtained GWAS datasets of MD-affected individuals of European ancestry and matched controls. We identified a CFHR3 SNP that provides protection from MD (rs75703017, p value = 1.1 × 10-16) by decreasing the concentration of FH in the blood (p value = 1.4 × 10-11). We subsequently used dual-luciferase studies and CRISPR gene editing to establish that deletion of rs75703017 increased FH expression in hepatocyte by preventing promotor inhibition. Our data suggest that reduced concentrations of FH in the blood confer protection from MD; with reduced access to FH, N. meningitidis is less able to shield itself from complement-mediated killing.

Natural disaster risks are among the greatest threats of the 21st century putting political, social and economic systems increasingly under pressure and at risk of instability (UNDRR/CRED 2020). Especially in recent years, the cascading effects and risks associated with such events have received great attention as economic losses and consequences have mounted (Handmer et al. 2020; Reichstein et al. 2021). Due to increasingly complex economic networks and interdependencies, natural disasters can result in large ripple effects including business or supply chain interruptions, changes in economic productivity or increased indebtedness. These so-called indirect losses can amount to or even exceed direct damages (Koks et al. 2015; Dottori et al. 2018). Climate change exacerbates the intensity and frequency of flood events. Accompanied by socioeconomic changes this leads to increasing flood damages. Therefore, more holistic and long-term disaster risk management (DRM) strategies that tackle indirect effects and which take into account climate change effects are called for. To implement these strategies, we require a deeper understanding of who could be involved in indirect flood risk management (FRM), which management strategies are already implemented and which should be implemented in the future, as well as what are the corresponding implementation barriers. These issues are addressed in this fact sheet in the context of Austrian climate risk management strategies discussing how indirect risks from floods are currently considered and how they could be proactively integrated on various scales (the discussion is based on Reiter et al. 2022).

This study provides an analysis and assessment of EU tools to respond to natural disasters. Particular attention is paid to the European Union Solidarity Fund and the potential synergies and overlaps with other EU instruments including the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism as well as Cohesion Policy. Also, the recent modifications to the EUSF including the extension to address major public health emergencies as well as the modifications linked to the 2021-2027 programming period are examined. Based on this assessment, policy recommendations are put forward.