d3.2 – european irm workshop reportirasmos.slf.ch/pdf/wp3_d32_ 20070417.pdf · natural hazards...

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Project no. 018412

IRASMOS

Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements

Specific Targeted Research Project

Priority VI: Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems

D3.2 – European IRM Workshop report

Due date of deliverable: 31/05/2008

Actual submission date: 15/07/2008

Start date of project: 01/09/2005 Duration: 33 months

WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research

Revision [1]

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)

Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

IRASMOS Round Table

January 25-26,2007

Chamonix, France

Final Report

IINNTTEEGGRRAALL RRIISSKK MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOFF EEXXTTRREEMMEELLYY RRAAPPIIDD MMAASSSS MMOOVVEEMMEENNTTSS ((CCOONNTTRRAACCTT NNOO.. 001188441122))

Impressum This report represents the results of the “Irasmos Round Table on Integral Risk Management”. As deliverable D 3.1 it is part of the the 6th framework program FP6 specific targeted research project “Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements – IRASMOS” and was funded by the European Union. Edited by Nicole Bischof, WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos With contributions by Massimiliano Barbolini, Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Italy Nicole Bischof, WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Michael Bründl, WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Cécile Coleou, Météo-France et Centre d'Etudes de la Neige, France Dominique Laigle, Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Unité de Recherche ETNA, France Florence Naaim, Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Unité de Recherche ETNA, France Mohamed Naaim, Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Unité de Recherche ETNA, France Jakob Rhyner, WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Hans Romang, WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos Jean-Marc Tacnet, Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Unité de Recherche ETNA, France © WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF, Davos 2007

Seite 2 von 31


Content

1 PREFACE 5

2 IRASMOS PROJECT OVERVIEW 7 Project Structure 8

3 INCENTIVE PRESENTATIONS 10

4 GROUP WORKSHOPS 12

5 GROUP WORKSHOP – RESULTS 13

5.1 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Snow Avalanches 13

5.2 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Rock Avalanches 15

5.3 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Debris Flows 17

5.4 Future Scopes: Spatial Planning - Pros and Cons 21

5.5 Future Scopes: Handling Uncertainties, Future Scenarios 23

5.6 Future Scopes: Decision-making Capabilities 25

6 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK 27

7 APPENDIX 29 A: List of Participants 29

Seite 3 von 31


Seite 4 von 31


1 Preface From January 25 to 26, 2007 the “Irasmos Round Table on Integral Risk Management” was held at the Hotel Alpina in Chamonix-Mont-Blanc, France. The Round Table was convened by the 6th framework programme FP6 specific targeted research project “Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements – IRASMOS” , and built one main milestone within the forthcoming of the project’s goals. In order to obtain a broad and critical overview on the issues of Integral Risk Management with respect to rapid mass movements, we wanted to interview scientists, practitioners, natural resource planners, natural hazards responsibles and decision-makers. Therefore, 26 experts from all Irasmos partner countries, namely Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Norway and Switzerland participated and discussed on current issues in the field of management of natural hazards. The group of participants was not only international but also interdisciplinary. To create a stimulating atmosphere for the diverse group discussions, specialists from the field as well as international scientists were invited as keynote speakers. The subsequent group discussions were moderated and recorded by scientists of the Irasmos project. The Round Table focused on different aspects of integral risk management of rapid mass movements in European mountain belts in general. Special attention was turned to future scopes of management of natural hazards such as dealing with uncertainties like climate change, the problems of decision-making and the pros and cons of spatial planning. Within this final report the group discussions and results from the Round Table are compiled. Additionally an overview including objectives of the Irasmos project is given and the different incentive presentations are summarized. We want to express our gratitude to all participants of this Round Table, without their magnificent interest the successful implementation would not have been possible. Furthermore we like to thank the Hotel Alpina, Chamonix for hosting us during the workshop. This Round Table was funded by the FP6 specific targeted research project “Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements – IRASMOS” of the European Union.

Seite 5 von 31


Seite 6 von 31


2 Irasmos Project Overview The risk-related characteristics of debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches encompass a broad range of causative factors, trigger mechanisms, process and runout dimensions, and possible mitigation measures. We recognize that substantial work has been carried out in terms of assessing hazard and risk from each of these processes, but find no evidence of a comprehensive approach addressing the range of possible process combinations in both space and time. IRASMOS is therefore intended to steer the focus on holistic, i.e. Integral Risk Management from Extremely Rapid Mass Movements and away from mere process-based research. Our research will not be guided by individual natural phenomena, but rather by finding effective ways to quantify and mitigate the total risk from several phenomena on the basis of presently existing knowledge. Therefore the key objectives of the IRASMOS project are:

• To critically review common practice in landslide hazard and risk assessments, focused on Extremely Rapid Mass Movements (debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches).

• To evaluate the sensitivity of risk as a function of varying hazard, vulnerability, and elements at risk.

• To quantify aspects of risk evolution, risk aversion, and the design life of risk-related products. • To address cause-effect relationships between Extremely Rapid Mass Movements and their

off-site and long-term effects in a multi-risk approach. • To develop methodological tools for an Integral Risk Management (IRM) with equal attention

to active and passive measures of prevention, interaction, and rehabilitation. • To propose IRM strategies for detecting, monitoring, and responding to Extremely Rapid Mass

Movements, given the constraints of data quality, availability, and analysis, especially given the limited allocation of technical, logistical, and financial budgets.

E X P E C T E D R E S U L T S It is anticipated that the recommendations towards establishing a common standard and best practice in IRM on Extremely Rapid Mass Movements made by IRASMOS will have positive impacts on research-based policy at both the regional and European level. We stress here, that we expect those impacts to be based on our recommendations, while understanding, that none of these are legally binding in any way. We envisage an easily achievable transfer of IRM objectives and strategies towards landslides in general, as well as other potentially hazardous natural processes or a combination thereof. On the local level, building codes and hazard zonation may benefit, be revised, or appropriately reformulated on the basis of IRM principles. The importance of risk sensitivity and risk evolution through time may warrant the implementation of obligatory regular quality reviews or audits to check whether hazard and risk maps are still up-to-date, or whether the local vulnerability to Extremely Rapid Mass Movements have changed substantially. The assessment of the design lifetime of various risk-related products will be an important asset for decision-support in this matter. On the European level, results of the IRASMOS project may provide impulses for research focal points in sub-priorities. Moreover, with the gradual dissemination and acceptance of such best practice, future calls in EU Framework Programs may want to consider further and specifically targeted focus on risk-related issues in natural hazards research and mitigation, especially where their cost-efficient implementation is necessary. This instance may also be of importance with regard to knowledge transfer and exchange in cooperation activities with Third and developing countries, e.g. in EU INCO initiatives. IRM principles can be applied to other risk-related issues and allow an ideal platform of comprehensively addressing natural, technological, and other unexpected hazards and risks. Several crosscutting issues may be developed with regard to various environmental safety regulations, and international cooperation in natural hazards and disaster risk management on the European level.

Seite 7 von 31


Project Structure WP1 – From cause to forecasting (Lead: A. Armanini) Aim of WP1 is it: (1) to review and compile the causes (disposition), trigger mechanisms, and inherent quantitative and qualitative thresholds of motion for Extremely Rapid Mass Movements with special attention to rock avalanches, debris flows, and snow avalanches; (2) to test the applicability of triggers and thresholds for inter-regional comparison with respect to environmental boundary conditions such as climate, relief, vegetation cover or human interference; and (3) to put together and evaluate international state-of-the-art methods and technologies of modeling and forecasting process of triggering mechanisms, runout, and damage potential of the selected rapid mass movements. WP2 – Countermeasures (Lead: F. Sandersen) Aim of WP2 is it: (1) to review and compile the range of existing technical, biological, and organizational countermeasures against Extremely Rapid Mass Movements; (2) to elucidate the range of effectiveness of these measures and to highlight their maximum protection potential against one or a combination of the processes considered; and (3) to forward recommendations on the future installation and implementation of countermeasures on the basis of cost-effectiveness, with the aim to using the optimal protection solution. WP3 – Hazard assessment and mapping of rapid mass movements (Lead: M. Barbolini) Aim of WP3 is it: (1) to review and evaluate state-of-the-art methods of hazard mapping of debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches; (2) to assess the sensitivity of the hazard from these processes to changes in environmental boundary conditions (e.g. climate change, increased structural protection measures, anthropogenic interference, etc); and (3) to propose best practice for hazard mapping of rapid mass movement as an integrated component in the risk formula. WP4 – Vulnerability (technical, social, ecological) (Lead: M. Naaim) Aim of WP4 is it: (1) to assess property damage and human losses due to debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches in selected alpine villages and regions; (2) to derive a catalogue of indicators for quantifying technical, socio-economic, and ecological vulnerability to these processes; and (3) to provide a simple means of weighting and merging these various types of vulnerability for integration into the risk equation. WP5 – Integral Risk Management (Lead: M. Bründl) Aim of WP5 is it: (1) To carry out a range of sensitivity analyses for the risk equation with special consideration of the research results from the previous WP’s; (2) to evaluate the inclusion of additional factors or alterations in the risk equation pertaining to risk aversion, multi-risk, and risk evolution; (3) to present a methodology for accounting the lack in data and resource availability and quality and to propose ways to overcome these shortcomings in the risk assessment of rapid mass movements; (4) to present Integral Risk Management (IRM) strategies for rapid mass movements, which combine cost-effective measures of pre-disaster planning and monitoring, immediate response capacity-building, and effective post-disaster rehabilitation, based on the selected test areas; and (5) to formulate recommendations as to apply the IRM strategies for other mountainous areas of Europe. WP6 – Consortium Management (Lead: J. Rhyner) Aim of WP6 is it: (1) to oversee and guarantee all managerial tasks related to legal, contractual, administrative, and public-relations duties of the project (Consortium Manager and Secretary); (2) to maintain internal and external communication(especially with the European Commission and contact points to other EU-funded projects); and (3) to oversee, review, and audit the scientific content and deliverables of all WP’s (Scientific Coordinator).

Seite 8 von 31


WHAT IS INTEGRAL RISK MANAGEMENT? Prevention and/or mitigation of natural disasters are prime objectives for guaranteeing sustainable development in mountain regions. Increases in population, land use, and tourist development gradually lead to expansion into previously unsettled mountainous regions, and thus, a higher proximity to potentially adverse natural processes. This increase in the number of elements of risk will increase the risk from Extremely Rapid Mass Movements without any concurrent change in environmental boundary conditions, which additionally may affect causes, triggers, magnitude or frequency of such processes. Additional effects due to climatic change may further affect these controls. The scientific novelty of the IRASMOS approach is that it integrates risk evolution and process superposition to address the feasibility of a comprehensive risk management solution. Decision support with respect to evaluating the geomorphic hazard from single processes is surely but the stepping-stone for a comprehensive risk-assessment framework. The proposed project thus attempts to go beyond such partial risk solutions. In its design it gives equal attention to prevention, intervention, and recovery. This holistic approach within a risk cycle has rarely been dealt with in a scientific sense. Though it promises to be most useful to decision makers and the involved public, since it is not solely technically based. Risk Cycle:

WHAT ARE EXTREMELY RAPID MASS MOVEMENTS? Population increase, natural resource demands, and the desire to experience recreation in pristine environments of high natural beauty lead to expansion of human activity into uninhabited mountain regions. Such regions are naturally subject to elevated morphodynamic activity characterized by high rates of erosion, transport, and deposition of water and (an-) organic matter. Owing to high relief and slope steepness, landslides, i.e. the downslope (and outward) movement of soil, debris, and rock materials under the influence of gravity, are often the dominant erosional agent. Under the term Extremely Rapid Mass Movements the following landslide and landslide-related processes are subsumed: Debris flow is a motion of poorly sorted debris inside a slurry-like watery matrix, which may support buoyant meter-sized boulders on the surface of the debris flow. Debris flows are phenomena of massive sediment transport in steep mountain streams, where motion of the granular phase is gravity-induced. Rock avalanching is the extremely rapid (>30 m/s), flow-like movement of large volumes (>106 m3) of rock being increasingly fragmented in the process. Snow avalanching is the rapid down-slope displacement of snow masses. Though in many regions clearly a seasonal phenomenon, the damage from snow avalanches is comparable to that from debris flows. These extremely rapid mass movement processes pose varying degrees of risk to land use, infrastructure, and personal security in many mountainous regions and should therefore be quantified using a framework of Integral Risk Management.

Seite 9 von 31


3 Incentive Presentations As an introduction to the daily issues and topics of subsequent discussion, an incentive presentation of 20 minutes was scheduled to each topic on both days of the Round Table. On the first day input was given to the three Irasmos processes rock avalanches, snow avalanches and debris flow by three incentive presentations from three different partner countries. Therefore we asked the presenters to choose an illustrative example showing the management process of snow avalanches / debris flows / rock avalanches their community or region. Within the presentations questions like these have been addressed:

• Who is involved in the management process, and how are the organizational structures? • How has the risk been analyzed and evaluated and how was the process of measure planning

and decision making? • Which measures have been taken into account in this example? • What have been the major problems?

Kalle Kronholm from the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute represented very literally a scenario of possible rock avalanches and resulting tsunami danger in Åknes in Møre og Romsdal county, Norway. The management of this rock fall involves different survey techniques, such as ground based radar and 2D resistivity-interpretation of depth of instable rock mass, to assess the hazard. The geotechnical estimation of a possible event seems to be very advanced and precisely. The biggest challenge seems to be the intervention and communication in case of an event, since the impact would be tremendous.

Topography of Aknes, Norway.

Seite 10 von 31


The process management of snow avalanches and especially the avalanche forecast was represented by Cecile Coleou from Meteo France. She explained very precisely the latest developments in forecast modeling methodologies and its application for the avalanche warning services in France. By this procedure the knowledge transfer from scientific innovation to practical application is warranted. The third presentation on the first day was given by Florian Rudolf-Miklau from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria. As a governmental institution this department is responsible for the management of natural hazards in Austria, institutionalized as the Austrian service for torrent and avalanche control. Within their management strategy not only an integral application of counter measures against natural hazards but also the implementation of communication strategies seems to be an implicit understanding in Austria. As a major challenge though, he pointed out the decision making processes on different institutional levels. The second day was dedicated to future problems and scopes such as dealing with uncertainties, problems in decision making or the pros and cons of spatial planning. The later two topics had been merged in the first incentive presentation given by Josef Hess from the forestry department of Canton of Obwalden, Switzerland, while the topic of dealing with uncertainties was developed within an experience-loaded presentation by Charly Wuilloud, Canton of Valais, Switzerland. Josef Hess was giving the presentation in place of Christian Wilhelm, who could not attend the Round Table due to professional obligations. The presentation was guided by pragmatic application rules and statements, which arise from many years of expert knowledge and practical know-how. Some of them are:

• For risk analysis data should be in a digital form (GIS) • Risk classification has to lead to simple risk types • Risk assessment should follow a clear and stringent procedure

• The most suitable measures depend on risk typeRisks and decisions should be communicated with understandable statements

Charly Wuilloud addressed the topic of dealing with uncertainties in managing natural hazards, and could therefore use his tremendous operating experience and the natural preconditions of the canton of Valais. Several glaciers and hanging glaciers threaten villages and infrastructure in this alpine environment. Very intense co-operation between scientists and responsibles is therefore essential to cope with these situations and be prepared for the management of a worst case scenario. The management of the unknown is omnipresent.

At this point, again, our sincere thanks are given to all presenters of the Irasmos Round Table. Without their contributions the workshop discussion would have been much less stimulated and inspired. Bisgletscher and the village of Randa, Valais.

Seite 11 von 31


4 Group Workshops We like to create a stimulating atmosphere during the workshop to share as much information and insights as possible. Therefore we will start with incentive presentations on both days to give some information about the topics to be discussed in group workshops. We will do our best that you not only contribute to the further progress of IRASMOS, but in return have the opportunity to get into touch with approaches from a variety of other European countries.

Day 1: Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Snow Avalanches, Rock Avalanches and Debris Flows We would like to encourage you to discuss with us themes like:

What are the problems in managing snow avalanches, debris flow or rock avalanches?

What are the challenges during your every-day-work? How could science support you in your duties? What are the most important ingredients to a “best practice” in natural hazards risk management?

Day 2: Future Scopes When dealing with natural risks, the handling of future developments and changes play a major role. This challenge could even increase, as the values at risk (settlements, traffic routes, etc.) are still expanding, even into potentially endangered areas, and the probability and the intensity of hazardous processes like floods or landslides might rise due to climate change. Is spatial planning the answer to these question? How to make the right decision or to deal with uncertainties? Best practice in risk management, which shall be developed within IRASMOS, should include a future scope. Therefore the workshop aims to discuss the following questions. Future Scopes: Spatial Planning - Pros and Cons What are the main obstacles for an appropriate consideration of natural hazards in land use planning? How can the science community support you? What are the future challenges? E.g. precision of models, evaluation criteria, consideration of counter measures? Future Scopes: Handling Uncertainties, Future Scenarios How are the uncertainties in natural risk management handled today in different European countries? What are the advantages / the disadvantages of the applied approaches, especially when focussing on future scopes? What could be improved, e.g. by science? Is there a common understanding and a need for “Best practice”? Future Scopes: Decision-making Capabilities

Which decision making strategies are known? Which of them are applied? What are the major problems in decision making? Which stakeholders are involved and do they speak the „same language“? Would it be useful to implement a decision-making methodology? Is it a political issue only, or could it be transferred into a structured process?

Seite 12 von 31


5 Group Workshop – Results

5.1 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Snow Avalanches

Moderator: M. Bründl

Discussants: M. Cordola, D. Goetz, C. Schneider, D. Bocchiola, P. Bouvet, C. Coleou (recorder). There were two major fields which were discussed:

1. What are the main limitations in short-term avalanche risk management including early warning, warning, artificial release, intervention measures like closure and/or evacuation, information about decisions? How can science support you? Results of discussions: Generally there is a good organization of forecasting and there are good tools at the massif scale. However, there are differences between countries and regions especially in terms of scientific support for practitioners. Although considerable improvements were made during the last years, there remain uncertainties on weather forecast. Practitioners wish to get a better early warning before critical avalanche situations. Further efforts should be put on improvement of snow pack modeling (snow drift and slab formation). The major gaps are at the local scale. The first one concerns information on snow pack and avalanche dynamics. Better knowledge is needed in the field of snow pack conditions and its effect on avalanche formation and avalanche dynamics. Further attention should be put on remote sensing of avalanches including seismic detection of released avalanches. The second important issue is decision support. Especially people who have the responsibility for road protection need to have clear defined tasks, responsibilities and help for making structured decisions. Documentation of decisions will become more and more important in the future. The practical handbook for local forecasters which is available in France is a valuable basis for an improvement in the future. In this context also documentation of avalanche events and the development of a historical database would be important especially in Italy. The third issue is the education of local forecasters. The education and training courses in two levels which are carried out in Switzerland since 2000 can be the basis for similar courses in other countries.

Seite 13 von 31


2. What are the main problems in long-term avalanche risk management (hazard and risk assessment, risk evaluation, planning of countermeasures)? How can science support you? Results of discussions: In Italy development of hazard maps is very different in the regions especially due to legislation. In two provinces development has already started (Trentino and Alto Adige). A technical guideline for hazard mapping was promoted by AINEVA (M. Barbolini) but it has not been taken fully into consideration by legislation so far. In other countries the communication of the residual risk and the determination of the effectiveness of measures are important issues in long-term risk management of avalanches.

Seite 14 von 31


5.2 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Rock Avalanches

Moderator : J. Rhyner Discussants:Ch. Wuilloud, K. Kronholm, S. Sauermoser, M. Barbolini (recorder)

The results of the discussion can be summarized as follows: Dealing with rock avalanche (RA) needs three steps:

1. Identification (detailed mapping ?) 2. Monitoring 3. Warnings and/or defending

1. Identification/mapping

• Susceptibility maps have been done in Valais, mainly based on geomechanical features (similarity with Randa RA);

• Susceptibility maps have been produced in some parts of Norway as well (also a tentative ranking of different possible RA has been attempted, in order to optimise economic resources);

• A project aimed to make an inventory of past RA has recently started in Tyrol, in order to have a possible indicator of susceptibility to RA

• Secondary hazard produced by RA (such as tsunami, lake formation, etc.) seems to be significant, and sometimes even more risky than the RA itself

• Tyrol has a map with old rock avalanches

• Italy: rock fall hazard maps based on Monte Carlo • Norway principally considers only return period for zoning (red when RTP < 1/1000) and not

pressure à rock fall can be treated like avalanches • Austria: no hazard maps for rock fall (just „brown“ zones).

2. Measurements

• In Valais, among the susceptible areas, the one affecting elements at risk have been instrumented and monitored; also monitoring of very large instable blocks is operational; à internet information platform GUARDAVAL -In Norway monitoring of the most serious situations (based on a tentative ranking, see previous slide) is running as well (see Kalle Kronholm‘s presentation);

• Measurements techniques for RA in can be considered rather well established 3. Warning/protection

• Each RA is a specific case; no general indicators (and threshold) for predicting the release can be defined until now;

• Rock falls are possible precursors for RA, especially if of increasing intensity; • Evacuation time are usually longer than in the case of SA and DF;

Seite 15 von 31


• Evacuation time has been used to construct structural defence structure (dams) in Austria. Evacuation time 2 months.

• If no structural defence measures can be realized after evacuation, the evacuation may well be permanent, since there is usually no „better weather“ enabling termination of evacuation

Summary

• Rock avalanches have the poorest data base among all gravitational processes • The mapping as for rock avalanches as well as for rock fall is very diverse and non unified in

Europe • Once a site has been identified as problematic, the observation possible by meanwhile

established sensors • Evacuations are highly problematic for the decisions makers since they tend to be long term

Seite 16 von 31


5.3 Management State of the Art, Problems & Solutions: Debris Flows

Moderator: H. Romang Discussants: M. Dall‘Amico, S. Hess, J. Lievois, F. Rudolf-Miklau, F. Zanetti, M. Naaim (recorder)

We discussed about current practice and further needs in prevention and intervention as well. To close the discussion we tried to list some points that should (or should not) be treated within IRASMOS.

Definition First, we tried to define the phenomena of debris flows.

• Distinguish between debris-flow and debris-flood ( from clear rivers to debris flows) • Torrential event with high concentration of bed load • flowing muddy materials with a larger component in it • Two phases moving at the same velocity

Prevention F. Rudolf-Miklau presented the Austrian approach. This was the basis for discussion and additional remarks from the other countries’ perspective. Austria Other countries Hazard mapping Works well, well developed, well

accepted Basis for land use planning, building codes, protective measures. The monitoring of processes should be improved

In principle agreement CH: It’s important to have process-specific hazard maps. I: Sometimes problems with quality of maps F: Do we have the right tools? All: Differences between debris flows from torrents and debris flows from slopes. For the latter improvements are needed

Protection measures

In principle the measures work well Protective forests highly accepted but we still have uncertainties on how it works Monitoring should be improved maintenance

CH: The question of effectiveness is important F: e.g. Impact forces, design, energy dissipation. Lab or trial and error

Risk mapping In general no risk mapping In special cases used to decide on investments for protective measures The risk acceptance is highly individual (e.g. familiarity with risks) Problem of communication, how to communicate risks? How to deal with residual risks?

All: CH, F and I have risk maps. CH: Thinking risk oriented Putting emphasize on risk quantification CH: Basis to decide on efficiency. But: tension between individual needs for protection vs public interest F: Principle “no problem – no mapping”

Seite 17 von 31


Summary Generally well positioned, accepted, etc. Needs: Assessment of debris flows from slopes, monitoring (processes, measures), effectiveness of protective measures, need for risk mapping etc. was discussed controversial

Intervention S: Hess presented the Swiss approach. Three political levels (cascade): confederation, cantons, municipalities

• Confederation and Canton: sciences, technical expertise • Municipality: local knowledge, responsibilities (!)

Measures:

• (LEMA) (Local emergency management agency) • Monitoring • Observation • Warning : information to population, evacuation, traffic closure, prescriptions for actions, • Awareness building • Canton help in preparing the intervention plan • Conf : research, monitoring, warning inputs (national level)

When the event occurs:

• Job of municipality : emergency organization, rescue organization • When the event become high: the LEMA supply the municipality , when the event become

bigger, the state emergency (and army, civil protection,..) support the local emergency • How useful are the warning as inputs : Avalanches (+), Storm (+), Large scale floods (+),

thunder storm (-), debris flows (+/-). • For the event management intervention plans are important.

Remarks from other countries

• I: the structure is very similar to Switzerland with + 1 layer • A: similar to Switzerland (district instead of canton) • F: similar to Switzerland without intermediate layer. • A: Alarm systems do not work. They’re not useful. No need for development. • All: Generally critical rating of alarm systems, but warning in general should be improved. • All: Crucial need for robust communication systems • All: Little experience with intervention plans.

Seite 18 von 31


What should / should not be covered by IRASMOS? A “must” in a best practice handbook

Not necessary anymore because clear

• Clear definition of debris flow • Overview of current methodology of

hazard mapping • How to calculate risk • Communication problems (robustness) • Intervention plan • Awareness building • Practical examples of the risk cycle • Communication : science – practice

• what is risk and hazard

Questions to be solved within IRASMOS

Questions to be solved outside IRASMOS

• Effectiveness of countermeasures • How to deal with risk: acceptance,

residual • Communication procedures in

intervention • Future scenarios (e.g. climate change)

• Development of scientific knowledge about debris flows triggering ( torrents vs slope)

• Impact pressure • Warning

Seite 19 von 31


Seite 20 von 31


5.4 Future Scopes: Spatial Planning - Pros and Cons

Moderator: M. Bründl Discussants: M. Cordola, D. Goetz, J. Lievois, S. Sauermoser, F. Cappabianca, D. Laigle (recorder).

The discussion focused on four questions:

1. How are natural hazards considered in land use planning in different countries? Results of discussions: There are different policies and laws in different countries and also different responsibilities, which can be roughly summarized as follows: In Austria the federal law provides the framework for hazard mapping, each province (Bundesland) has to make a hazard map. For land use planning there is no general federal law, but there are regional rules which prescribe how to consider natural hazards in the planning process as a hint. Hazard maps are almost ready in six provinces but not for all processes and not on an equal level. Financing of hazard mapping is provided by the state. In France all responsibility has the state. Hazards maps are developed by the state for the communes, the colors are comparable to those in Switzerland (red zone: building is forbidden, in blue it is allowed, the yellow zone gives indications for evacuation, the green zones shows where the forest has a protective function). The maps have a scale of 1:5’000 and are subject to negotiation e.g. by a major of commune who refuses to accept a certain hazard level for an area. In Italy procedures and methods for hazard mapping are different in every province. The responsibility for hazard mapping is attributed to the communes. At the state level there is a master plan in the scale 1:25’000 which is not compulsory. The guideline published by AINEVA (M. Barbolini) is not fully considered in the provinces and regions. Like in other countries the communes are in charge for hazard maps. In Switzerland there are official recommendations issued by the Federal Offices which are required to be used by cantons and communes. The responsibility for hazard mapping is at the cantons who itself are commissioning the communes. The actual work is done by experienced consultant offices. The map is in most cantons discussed by a cantonal natural hazards commission. At the cantonal level land use planning exists on a conceptual level (“Richtplanung”), on the communal level consideration of hazard maps in land use planning is compulsory.

2. Are there any obstacles in the consideration of hazard maps (in scientific, political, organizational sense)? Results of discussions: At the political and organizational level the dialog between experts and population is the most difficult part in putting hazard maps into practice. Explaining the uncertainties to Seite 21 von 31


the affected population as inherent part of hazard maps is a very challenging task for engineers and scientists from the field of natural sciences. Therefore a closer exchange and collaboration with people from social sciences might be helpful in many cases.

3. What are future challenges? Results of discussions: A big challenge in future will be how to deal with countermeasures and a subsequent modification of landuse planning. A general methodology is needed which harmonizes existing approaches in the different countries.

4. Recommendations for a Best-Practice Handbook Results of discussions: A Best-Practice Handbook should give hints how the “human factor” in land use planning should be considered especially in terms of the communication of uncertainties. A central question will be how people can be sensitized for hazard maps. An aspect which must not be neglected is the information from historical events (cadastre), interpretation of the terrain and local experience. This means that although models should be further improved their role should not be weighted to much.

Seite 22 von 31


5.5 Future Scopes: Handling Uncertainties, Future Scenarios

Moderator: H. Romang Discussants: P. Bouvet, C. Coleou, K. Kronholm, R. Sailer, C. Wuilloud, F. Zanotti, N. Eckert and F. Naaim

(recorder) The goal of the workshop was to discuss uncertainties in hazard and risk assessment of rapid mass movements, uncertainties in planning processes and decision-making, and uncertainties in the implementation of mitigation measures. First, possible sources of uncertainty were identified and classified. Second, the question of how to deal with these uncertainties was discussed.

1. Identification and classification of uncertainty sources During this brain storming session, each of the participants contributed to the list by adding possible sources of uncertainty from his experience. The discussion did not focus only on the description of the uncertainties but raised also to more generally encountered problems, such as trust building (scientist – decision-makers – affected people). The results of the discussion are summarized in the table below. Some additional remarks:

• The uncertainties about hazard and risk assessment were mentioned quite quickly. Obviously professionals dealing with natural hazards are aware of these uncertainties, due to a lack of data as well as to a lack of knowledge and methods. Of course the mentioned points do not represent a full list of all possible sources of uncertainty, but they give a good overview.

• The discussion then focused mainly on the fields of decision making and implementation. It seems that the growing influence of factors beyond technical and scientific analysis complicates the whole procedure, at least for engineers and scientists. Influences of politics and society, psychological effects, and particularly communication problems become pivotal for a successful risk management.

2. How to deal with these uncertainties? Based on the first step, strategies to reduce uncertainties were developed jointly. They were arranged as follows: Continue research, especially cooperate in science:

• Research work and products should be validated carefully before transferred to practice; a high quality of the research work have to be preserved.

• There is competition between the different institutes: This may limit the time for validation, but the concurrence situation may also be stimulating.

• Fund-rising should not be based on political lobbying but on good arguments Standardisation:

• It’s important to harmonize methods, to define standards, to develop (legal) regulation procedures etc.

• Nevertheless the uncertainties e.g. of standard methods should by communicate to the experts (not necessarily to public) in order that they can use the methods and interpret the results in an appropriate way.

Integrate stakeholders:

• include science practitioners, decision makers and people in the decision process

Seite 23 von 31

• take local information into account (e.g. when historic information in events)


• take decision acceptance into account • pay special attention to find the right local people

Trust building:

• staying at the same place (gaining credibility) • public information (participating debates)

Seite 24 von 31


5.6 Future Scopes: Decision-making Capabilities

Moderator: N. Bischof Discussants: J. Hess, F. Rudolf-Miklau, M. Naaim, M. Dall’Amico, Schneider, J.-M.Tacnet (recorder)

In an opening round everyone lined out his reference to decision making processes. The background of discussants was relatively diverse, since some had to make decisions in their every-day work, while others came from scientific background with much less operational practice. Then, we tried to figure out the different stakeholders in decision making and their responsibility. The following matrix could be outlined, but it was very difficult to identify the stakeholders and match them with their responsibility in the different fields.

The moderator had prepared some questions to discuss and if possibly find answer from an operational point of view:

• Which decision making strategies are known? Which of them are applied? • What are the major problems in decision making? • Which stakeholders are involved and do they speak the „same language“? • Would it be useful to implement a decision-making methodology? • Is it a political issue only, or could it be transferred into a structured process?

Seite 25 von 31


The discussion finally came to several common statements and conclusions, which were then

• The traceability and objectiveness of decisions was discussed and the paradox phenomenon

• methodology for decision

• irrational aspects during the decision

• ybody’s

• well known and

prepared for a plenum presentation.

of experts suggestions before and after an event was pointed out. Another controversy was built around the need for a consistent making. The mostly used approaches are economic methods. Controversy was existing, since the need for more communication between the stakeholders seems to be a big issue, and economic approaches are not the end of the system. “Two sides of the story” were identified: rational andmaking process seem to bring along problems. Is communication the key to solution? Improvements were identified like better cross-understanding, technical versus everlanguage, mediation and better communication between all involves parties. A practice handbook should include a selection of best practice examples, easy-to-use methodologies, communication advise or concept, new approaches like multi-criteria analysis.

Seite 26 von 31


6 Conclusion and Outlook A Handbook of Integral Risk Management for extremely rapid mass movements is intended as a key product of the IRASMOS project. This will be compiled as a type of Best Practice Handbook for quantifying and managing total risk from rapid mass movements given possible constraints set by known environmental and administrative boundary conditions. A comprehensive catalogue of triggers and threshold conditions for extremely rapid mass movements, countermeasures, and sensitivity of hazard, vulnerability, and risk indicators will serve as further measures for total risk assessment, allowing customized decision-support for prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation efforts in European mountain ranges. This product will be designed to aid resource and land-use managers, planners, and decision-makers. Its success may be measured by its general acceptance, evaluation or (book) reviews, citations or recommendations amongst practitioners, number of copy requests, or support enquiries. These measures of success can equally be applied to all other technical and non-technical reports, recommendations, reviews, and guidelines The results gathered in this Round Table on Integral Risk Management in Chamonix-Mont-Blanc will flow into the planning of the Handbook. Many important comments and requirements on the content from practitioner’s point of view could be collected and will influence strongly the outcome of this book. The invited practitioners and experts are representatives of the main target and user group of this best practice handbook, and expressed therefore their interest and willingness to support the formation of this product and the following review process.

Seite 27 von 31


Seite 28 von 31


7 Appendix

A: List of Participants Name Email Institution Place

Mr. Barbolini Massimiliano [email protected]

Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering Department

Pavia

Ms.

Bischof Nicole [email protected] Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF

Flüelastrasse 11 CH - 7260 Davos Dorf

Mr. Bocchiola Daniele [email protected]

Politecnico di Milano, Section of Water & Coastal Engineering (CIMI)

Milano

Mr. Bouvet Philippe [email protected] Restauration des Terrains en Montagne

5 rue Silos F - 05000 GAP

Mr. Bründl Michael [email protected] Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF


Ms.

Cappa-bianca

Frederica [email protected] Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering Department

Pavia

Ms.

Coleou Cécile [email protected] Météo-France / Centre d'Etudes de la Neige

1441 rue de la Piscine F - 38400 Saint Martin d'Hères

Mr. Cordola Marco [email protected]

Arpa Piemonte Corso Unione Souietica 216 I - 10134 Torino

Mr. Dall'Amico Matteo [email protected]

Universita degli Studi di Trento Cudam

Trento

Mr. Eckert Nicolas [email protected]

Centre National du Machinisme Agricole, du Genie Rural, des Eaux et des Forets, Unité de Recherche ETNA

F - 38400 Saint Martin d'Hères

Mr. Goetz Daniel [email protected] Meteo-France/ Centre d'Etudes de la Neige

1441, rue de la Piscine F - 38400 Saint Martin d'Hères

Mr. Hess Josef [email protected] Oberforstamt OW Flüelistrasse 2 CH - 6060 Sarnen

Seite 29 von 31


Mr. Kronholm Kalle [email protected] Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Engineering Geology and Avalanches

PO Box 3930 Ullevaal Stadion N - 0806 Oslo

Mr. Laigle Dominique [email protected]



Mr. Lievois Jerome [email protected] Office National des Forêts, Service de Restauration de Terrains en Montagne

6 avenue France F - 74000 ANNECY

Mr. Naaim Mohamed [email protected]



Ms.

Naaim Florence [email protected]



Mr. Rhyner Jakob [email protected] Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF


Mr. Romang Hans [email protected] Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research SLF


Mr. Rudolf-Miklau

Florian [email protected]

Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft Abteilung IV 5 Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung

Marxergasse 2 A-1030 Wien

Mr. Sailer Rudolf [email protected] Bundesforschungs- und Ausbildungszentrum für Wald, Naturgefahren und Landschaft

Rennweg 1 - Hofburg A - 6020 Innsbruck

Mr. Sauermoser

Siegfried [email protected]

Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung Sektion Tirol

Liebeneggstraße 11 A-6010 Innsbruck

Mr. Schneider Claude [email protected]

Société d'Aménagement de La Plagne

BP 57 F - 73214 La Plagne Cedex

Seite 30 von 31


Mr. Tacnet Jean-Marc [email protected]



Mr. Wuilloud Charly [email protected]

Département Transports, Equipement et Environnement

Bât. Mutua CH - 1951 Sion

Mr. Zanotti Fabrizio [email protected]

Universita degli Studi di Trento Cudam

Trento

Seite 31 von 31

d3.2 – european irm workshop reportirasmos.slf.ch/pdf/wp3_d32_ 20070417.pdf · natural hazards...

Documents