STOA Working Breakfast

Innovative methodologies in

earthquake disaster mitigation

Participants' booklet

STOA Working Breakfast

Innovative methodologies in

earthquake disaster mitigation

Participants' booklet

Wednesday 27 January 2016, 08:00 - 09:00

European Parliament, Brussels

Room A3H-1

2

Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/workshops/earthquake

3

CONTENTS

1 PROGRAMME ....................................................................................................................... 4

2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5

3 CHAIR ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Renata BRIANO, MEP, STOA Panel .................................................................................... 6

4 SPEAKERS ..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 PAOLO GASPARINI, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF NAPOLI FEDERICO II,

NAPOLI, ITALY; CEO OF AMRA SCARL, ITALY ...................................................................... 7

4.2 ARTUR PINTO, EUROPEAN LABORATORY FOR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT (ELSA),

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION .......................................................... 10

4.3 STEFAN WIEMER, DIRECTOR OF THE SWISS SEISMOLOGICAL SERVICE (SED), ZURICH ... 12

5 ABOUT STOA ............................................................................................................................ 14

5.1 MISSION................................................................................................................................. 14

5.2 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................. 15

4

1 PROGRAMME

Chair: Renata BRIANO, MEP, STOA Panel

08.00 – 08.05

WELCOME SPEECH

Renata BRIANO, MEP, STOA Panel

08.05 – 08.15

THE ROLE PLAYED BY RECENT EUROPEAN PROJECTS TO INCREASE SEISMIC

SAFETY IN EUROPE

Paolo GASPARINI, Professor Emeritus, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy; CEO

of AMRA Scarl, Italy

08.15 – 08.25

MITIGATION OF SEISMIC RISKS IN EUROPE: THE ROLE OF THE EUROCODES

Artur PINTO, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)

Joint Research Centre, European Commission

08.25 – 08.35

FUTURE CHALLENGES IN REAL-TIME EARTHQUAKE RISK REDUCTION

Stefan WIEMER, Director of the Swiss Seismological Service (SED), Zurich

08.35 – 08.55

Q&A SESSION

08.55 – 09.00

CLOSING REMARKS

Enrico GASBARRA, MEP

5

2 INTRODUCTION

Earthquakes are often devastating in terms of loss of life and environmental damage. Despite

the recent scientific evolution, earthquakes are still the most unpredictable and feared

natural disaster.

In fact they seem to occur without any previous warning. They also last a few seconds, but

they can cause severe human losses and material damage.

It is not possible to predict earthquakes. However, their physical consequences are highly

predictable once we know which are the potential seismogenetic sources that may affect an

area and the physical and human characteristics of that same area.

Earthquakes are widespread in Europe. The most destructive events occurred in the

Mediterranean countries, particularly Greece, Italy and Turkey, which are in the collision

zone between the Eurasian and African crustal plates.

Albania and Romania have also experienced major earthquakes. Smaller earthquakes are felt

by other nations, although there is generally little damage.

Though we cannot prevent earthquakes from occurring, their affects can be quite minimised

through effective prevention measures and reduction of vulnerability.

Given that the low term and the medium term impacts of the earthquakes are very serious in

several aspects of life, Member States have tried to establish national policies and take proper

measures in order to minimise the seismic disasters.

On the other side, important international organisations make their own efforts for the

development of technologies and policies that will lessen the effects of earthquakes.

From its side, European Union supports a number of initiatives and tries to launch a basis for

co-operation and technical evolution in the same field.

The aim of this STOA working breakfast is to underline the seriousness of the seismic risk in

Europe, to present the measures and the initiatives that have been taken in national level

regarding earthquakes, as well as the relevant activities and initiatives taken by the

European Union institutions and other international organisations.

6

3 CHAIR

Renata BRIANO, MEP, STOA Panel

Renata Briano is a Member of the European Parliament since July 2014. She is Vice- Chair of

the Fisheries Committee and a substitute member of the Committee on Environment, Public

Health and Food Safety. She is also the Vice-Chair of the “Biodiversity, hunting and

countryside” intergroup in the European Parliament.

She is graduated in natural sciences (1983-1989) and she worked as Researcher at the

Institute for Educational Technology CNR in Italy.

She was appointed as Councilor for the environment and sustainable development, wildlife

management and hunting-fishing of the Province of Genoa (2000-2010) and Regional

Minister for the environment and sustainable development of the Liguria Region (2010-

2014).

Key message

Earthquakes are one of the most detrimental natural disasters. Though is not possible to

predict earthquakes their physical consequences are highly predictable: they can cause

heavy material damage and human losses.

The seismic risk in Europe is high. Considering the theory of plate tectonics the highest

earthquake hazard in Europe is widespread in southern-eastern areas. Although we cannot

prevent earthquakes, we can reduce the vulnerability of the European population by the

adoption of prevention measures.

Preventive and real-time actions focusing on reduction of vulnerability are an essential way

to decrease the earthquake risk.

7

4 SPEAKERS

4.1 Paolo GASPARINI, Professor Emeritus, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli,

Italy; CEO of AMRA Scarl, Italy

Paolo Gasparini is Professor Emeritus at the University of Napoli Federico II and Chief

Executive Officer of Analisi E Monitoraggio Del Rischio Ambientale (AMRA). He has been

Professor of Geophysics at the University of Napoli Federico II from 1970 till 2012, President

of the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior

(IAVCEI) (1991-95) and Director of the Mt. Vesuvius Volcanological Observatory (1970-83).

Author of more than 150 papers published on peer reviewed journals, his more recent

scientific interest is focused on the application of early warning methods to decrease the

effects of natural hazards, on risk management problems, quantitative probabilistic risk

assessment and multi-hazard multi-risk models.

Professor Gasparini has directed several large national, European and international projects.

They include the Italian Geodynamic Project (1974-76), involving more than 70 universities,

the National Group of Volcanology of the Italian Civil Protection (1996-2002).

Paolo Gasparini has been the scientific coordinator or has been in the managing team of

several Framework Programmes of European Projects such as the FP5 TomoVes (Seismic

Tomography of Mount Vesuvius) and PEFIRVES Project and the FP6 NaRAs (Natural Risk

Assessment) and SAFER (Seismic Early Warning For Europe) Projects, the FP7 REAKT

(Methodologies for Earthquake Real Time Risk Reduction). He is presently leading the

HORIZON 2020 SHEER (Shale gas Exploration and Exploitation induced Risks) Project.

He has been member of the Advisory Group for the Environment of the European

Commissioner of Research, of the scientific committee of the Pole Gestion des Risques of

PACA region, France and advisor of the French Government and the Italian Government on

issues related to sustainable development and risk management.

8

He was the secretary of the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting (ICEF) set

up by Italian Civil Protection, in the aftermath of L’Aquila Earthquake, and of the ICHESE

Commission established by the Italian Department of Civil Protection and the Government

of Emilia-Romagna Region to estimate the possibility that the 2012 Emilia earthquake

sequence has been affected by the nearby traditional hydrocarbon operations.

Key Message

The continuous expansion of population and the growth of complex lifeline systems make

our world increasingly exposed to seismic risk. The world’s urban areas are becoming hot

spots of global risk change, because of the continuous increase of population and of

complexity of lifeline systems.

Europe has a long history of destructive earthquakes mostly concentrated in the peri‐

Mediterranean area. The tragic events of Izmit (Turkey) in 1999, L’Aquila (Italy) in 2009 and

the Emilia (Italy) earthquake in 2012 are only some recent examples. Most of the European

cities will not be affected by a dramatic increase of population. Nonetheless, they face

increasing levels of risk because of the growing industrialization and networking of

infrastructures, lifelines and economies.

In many cities exposed to high earthquake hazard, a substantial proportion of the population

still lives in buildings that do not meet modern earthquake‐resistant standards. As a

consequence, a primary target for Europe must be the decrease of both human and

financial/infrastructural potential losses caused by earthquakes.

Although the US and Japan have populations exposed to similar levels of high earthquake

hazard, the relative vulnerability of the European population is some 10 times greater than in

Japan, and 100 times that of the US. The protection of critical infrastructure and life‐lines is

one of the priorities of the EU.

Preventive actions, such as retrofitting of structures, are essential, but they are not sufficient

and cannot be applied easily on a large scale. Real‐time actions focusing on decreasing the

physical vulnerability and exposure of populations are a viable way to reduce earthquake

risk.

These actions require the development and the use of probabilistic forecasting,

(characterized by high probability gain and very low absolute probability values), of early

warning, rapid loss and damage evaluation considering the evolution of vulnerability and

risk with time.

In this field the FP6 SAFER (Seismic Early Warning for Europe) project was the first large

project in the Western world on Earthquake Early warning to join seismologists and

engineers in the development of a general framework for the applications of early warning

methods.

9

Its successor, the FP7 REAKT (Strategies and tools for Real Time EArthquake RisK

ReducTion) has improved significantly the efficiency and the reliability of these methods and

their capability of protecting structures, infrastructures and people. In REAKT the end‐user

perspective has been carefully considered in the evaluation of each component of real time

risk mitigation chain, including all the uncertainties.

Thanks to the close integrations of several end‐users in the projects REAKT has evaluated the

feasibility of application of the developed methods to different strategic targets.

These projects were the first steps towards a unified information that would be extremely

valuable for supporting the decision making process.

The implementation of methodologies of real time mitigation of earthquake risk is an

objective feasible in Europe, since that its territory is covered by many high quality seismic

and accelerometers networks, managed by national and European agencies particularly fit

for short term forecast and, in some cases, specifically designed for seismic early warning.

10

4.2 Artur PINTO, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA),

Joint Research Centre, European Commission

Artur Pinto is the Head of Unit of the Joint Research Centre - European Laboratory for

Structural Assessment (ELSA), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, which

addresses safety and security issues in the Construction and Building Sector.

He has contributed to the development of the Eurocodes, the European standards for

structural design (especially Eurocode 8 – Seismic Design), and follows their implementation

and further extension to new materials, efficiency issues and considering also structural

robustness.

His research and policy-support group provides pre-normative technical guidance resulting

from direct research and networking with key institutions in Europe and abroad, bridging

the gap between research and standardization and supporting EU policies for the building

sector focusing on safety and security against natural and manmade hazards.

Artur Pinto has a doctoral degree in Mechanical Engineering from the IST, Technical

University of Lisbon. He has over 250 scientific and technical publications. He lectured in a

few post-graduate courses at European Universities and has been member of the scientific

board of several international conferences. He has also been a key-note speaker at several

international conferences.

Key Message

Reducing loss of life to suitably low thresholds is always the primary concern in seismic

protection; however, in our present societies, acceptability of risk is largely an economic

issue. This brings seismic protection to a multi-performance objective, where the estimated

consequences of earthquakes are throughout minimized, including the time necessary for

recovery (resilience).

11

The European Commission has financed in the last two decades several research projects in

the field of earthquake risk management and has also strongly supported the development

of European standardization for the design of new and retrofit of existing buildings, bridges

and other civil structures.

The publication of the Eurocodes in 2010 by CEN (European Committee for Standardisation)

represents a key milestone in the European standardization process and provides Europe

with an advanced instrument for the implementation of European legislation in the

construction sector and for increasing the competitiveness of the construction industry in the

internal and external markets.

The European standard for Seismic Design, known as Eurocode 8, addresses new and

existing structures and constitutes the key technical tool to mitigate seismic risk in Europe. It

is also the result of exemplar cooperation between research and standardization, as most of

the recent research results were incorporated in the code.

An ongoing standardization mandate from DG GROW will lead to a second generation of

these standards, bringing in further harmonization, new materials and innovative

methodologies for design and assessment.

The Joint Research Centre has recently carried out a series of research and demonstration

tests on full-scale buildings and bridges as part of a series of research projects financed by

the European Framework Program FP7, which will be illustrated in the presentation.

These projects embrace new concepts and technical solutions currently being developed at

European and worldwide level, such as earthquake damage-free/tolerant structures and the

incorporation of dissipative devices.

This opens up new research areas and creates the conditions for further innovation in the

building sector. The results of these tests serve as a basis for the development of new

European design guidelines and rules to be incorporated in the standardization process.

The availability of adequate and modern standards and guidelines for the design of new

buildings is certainly a key element in the medium/long-term reduction of seismic risk in

Europe; however, it is well known that most of the damages caused by earthquakes are

mostly a consequence of the collapse and damage of existing buildings without appropriate

earthquake resistance, which require retrofit or replacement.

Therefore, appropriate conditions should be created to speed up the renovation of such

building stock in European seismic prone zones. This should be undertaken together with

the rehabilitation of buildings for improved energy efficiency and sustainability, while

taking into consideration other aspects in the context of a life-cycle analysis.

12

4.3 Stefan WIEMER, Director of the Swiss Seismological Service (SED), Zurich

Professor Wiemer is the chair of seismology at the department of Earth Science, ETH Zurich,

and the director of the Swiss Seismological Service (SED, www.seismo.ethz.ch). Born in 1967

in Germany, he graduated from the Ruhr University in Bochum in 1992 and earned his PhD

in geophysics from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks in 1996. In 1997, he was awarded a

fellowship by the German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and moved to Tsukuba,

Japan. In 1999, he progressed to the SED as a research associate, where he initiated and led

research groups on statistical seismology and induced seismicity. He was promoted to titular

professor in 2007 and appointed as a full professor and SED director in 2013.

His expertise and research interests include probabilistic seismic hazard and risk assessment,

time-dependent processes, earthquake predictability and operational earthquake forecasting,

earthquake early warning and induced seismicity related to GeoEnergy applications. He

published more than 120 articles in international peer reviewed journals since 1994 (h=33)

and supervised 16 PhD students at ETH.

Stefan Wiemer contributed in a wide range of community service positions. He is a member

of the Swiss academy of sciences and was the Swiss delegate in the European Academies

Science Advisory Council working group on carbon capture and storage. Currently he is

serving as advisor to the Dutch State Supervision of Mines on the problem of induced

seismicity in Groningen, and is a member of the ERC Consolidator Grants evaluation panel.

During his career, Stefan Wiemer initiated, coordinated or participated in a wide range of

research and development projects at national or international scale. In 2009/10, he was the

project manager of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

initiated Private-Public Partnership for earthquake risk assessment worldwide (GEM, the

Global Earthquake Model). He also was a leading Principal Investigator and participant in

many large-scale European projects (NERIES, NERA, SHARE, GEISER, REAKT, IMAGE,

EPOS, DESTRESS).

13

Key Message

For more than 100 years, seismology has worked in pretty much the same way: damaging

earthquakes could not be predicted beforehand with any confidence; after they occurred it

takes hours to days in order to understand what has happened and determine the impact.

Warnings were not possible. While after-the-fact information and damage assessment is

clearly important, there are strong limitations to the value of this information.

New information technologies, much denser seismic networks, an improved understanding

of the physics and statistics of earthquakes and also changing risk perception of societies will

in my view lead to a paradigm shift in the way earthquake information could be processed,

analysed and distributed in a near-real time environment. Earthquake hazard and risk will

be appreciated not as a constant in time, but a rapidly evolving risk landscape.

Operational Earthquake Forecasting tools will highlight periods and regions of elevated

seismic risk with gradually improving accuracy, albeit still with large uncertainties and

missed events. In the near future, smart cities will contain literally tens of tens of thousands

of cheap wireless seismic sensors, the Internet of Things will connect buildings, cars,

appliances and also people to a continuous changing risk landscape.

While an earthquake ruptures along a fault, event information and sometimes early

warnings about imminent arrival of damaging shaking will be readily available to anybody

and anything connected to the Internet. A smart building will know that it will experience

significant shaking and whether it has suffered any damage; it will also know the likelihood

that another event may hit in in the next 24 hours. How will it inform occupants about its

safety level? Will smart phone applications inform me about the best actions to take when

dangerous shaking or a tsunami wave is imminent, taking into account the strength and

location of the building that I am in, and the place that I am in the building?

Across many nations in Europe earthquakes remain the natural hazard with the largest risk

profile, both in terms of human and financial losses. I will argue in this presentation that

seismology, civil defence and society in Europe is not yet ready to take advantage of these

emerging capabilities for enhanced earthquake information and not prepared for the

scientific, technical, societal and legal challenges these changes will bring along.

To move real-time seismology forward, the quality, density and robustness of seismic

networks and processing tools needs to be much improved, enabling networks to deal with

the challenges of big data and automated decision making under uncertainty.

14

5 ABOUT STOA

5.1 MISSION

The Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Panel forms an integral part of the

structure of the European Parliament. Launched in 1987, STOA is tasked with identifying

and independently assessing the impact of new and emerging science and technologies. The

goal of its work is to assist, with independent information, the Members of the European

Parliament (MEPs) in developing options for long-term, strategic policy-making.

The STOA Panel

The STOA Panel consists of 24 MEPs nominated from the eight permanent parliamentary

committees: AGRI (Agriculture & Rural Development), CULT (Culture & Education), EMPL

(Employment & Social Affairs), ENVI (Environment, Public Health & Food Safety), IMCO

(Internal Market & Consumer Protection), ITRE (Industry, Research & Energy), JURI (Legal

Affairs) and TRAN (Transport & Tourism). Ms Mairéad McGuinness MEP is the European

Parliament Vice-President responsible for STOA and member of the Panel. The STOA Chair

for the first half of the 8th legislature is Paul Rübig, with Eva Kaili and Evžen Tošenovský

elected as 1st and 2nd Vice-Chairs.

The STOA Approach

STOA fulfils its mission primarily by carrying out science-based projects. Whilst undertaking

these projects, STOA assesses the widest possible range of options to support evidence-based

policy decisions. A typical project investigates the impacts of both existing and emerging

technology options and presents these in the form of studies and options briefs. These are

publicly available for download via the STOA website: www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/.

Some of STOA's projects explore the long-term impacts of future techno-scientific trends,

with the aim to support MEPs in anticipating the consequences of developments in science.

Alongside its production of 'hard information', STOA communicates its findings to the

European Parliament by organising public events throughout the year.

Focus areas

STOA activities and products are varied and are designed to cover as wide a range of

scientific and technological topics as possible, such as nano-safety, e-Democracy, bio-

engineering, assistive technologies for people with disabilities, waste management,

cybersecurity, smart energy grids, responsible research & innovation, sustainable agriculture

and health. They are grouped in five broad focus areas: eco-efficient transport and modern

energy solutions; sustainable management of natural resources; potential and challenges of

the Internet; health and life sciences; science policy, communication and global networking.

15

5.2 ADMINISTRATION

Director-General - Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS)

Anthony Teasdale

Director, Directorate C, Impact Assessment & European Added Value

Wolfgang Hiller

Head of Unit - Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA)

Theo Karapiperis

Head of Service - STOA Secretariat

Zsolt Pataki

Head of Service - Scientific Foresight

Lieve Van Woensel

Administrators

Nera Kuljanic

Mihalis Kritikos

Gianluca Quaglio – Seconded National Expert

Assistants

Serge Evrard

Rachel Manirambona

Damir Plese

Anne Villers

Trainee

Liliana Cunha