1. No category

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Creating Resilience Capability against
Critical Infrastructure Disruptions:
Foundations, Practices and Challenges
9:00-16:30, 13th April 2015
IDA Conference Center, Copenhagen Denmark
International Conference on Creating Resilience Capability against Critical
Infrastructure Disruptions: Foundations, Practices and Challenges
What are the key capabilities required for coping with major CI disruptions and how may such capabilities be
assessed? How are such capabilities related to physical, organisational and human resources, maturity of
emergency plans, social coherence and trust, risk perceptions and local culture and engagement?
Critical infrastructures (CIs) may be defined as those assets or systems that are critical for the maintenance of
vital societal functions, providing services that citizens rely on in their daily life - i.e. power and water supply
systems, healthcare, transport, electronic communications systems, banking.
At the conference a group of leading international experts in resilience approaches to coping with CI interruptions will present current perspectives – both foundational and practical – on the state of the art in this
rapidly developing field.
Programme
09:00 – 10:00
10:00 – 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 11:30
11:30 – 12:00
12:00 – 13:00
13:00 – 13:40
13:40 – 14:20
14:20 – 14:40
14:40 – 15:20
15:20 – 15:50
15:50 – 16:30
Registration and breakfast
Henning Boje Andersen; Igor Kozine (DTU Management Engineering):
Welcome and introduction to conference theme. Outline of EU READ project
Mads Ecklon (Head of Division of the Centre for Preparedness Planning and Crisis Management, Danish Emergency Management Agency - DEMA):
Resilience in a crisis management context
Hans Kleintjens (Senior Programme Coordinator at the regional fire service in Twente
Region, Netherlands):
Resilience Capacities: How to Cope with Major Disruptions in Electrical Power Supply
Paul Scobbie (Critical Infrastructure Resilience Unit of the Scottish Government - CIRU):
Critical Infrastructure Resilience – the Scottish Experience
Lunch/Buffet
Arjen Boin (Professor of Public Institutions and Governance Department of Political Science,
Leiden University, Netherlands):
Trans-boundary Crises and the Coordination Challenge: A Search for New Institutions
Kurt Petersen (Professor in Safety Analysis and Risk Management; Director of LUCRAM,
Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management, Sweden):
New Challenges in Resilience Assessment
Coffee, cake and refreshments
Linda Janet Bellamy (Director, White Queen Safety Strategies, Hoofddorp, Netherlands):
The Human Contribution to Resilience
Kathleen Tierney (Director of the Natural Hazards Center, professor in Dept. Sociology and
the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, USA):
Community Impacts of Critical Infrastructure Disruption: The Argument for Enhanced
Resilience
Panel discussion. Summing up
2
Who should attend?
Infrastructure managers /owners,
safety managers, technical / administrative leaders of key
services at municipal, regional and national level, press and
liaison officers responsible for communication and
community engagement in preparation for, during and
recovery after major crises/disasters, risk & safety
researchers and consultants.
Venue
The conference will take place at the Danish Engineering
Association’s Conference Center, Kalvebod Brygge 31,
Copenhagen - http://ida-moedecenter.ida.dk/
http://korturl.dk/3hg
Prices
Standard fee (after March 29) ……………………….
Early bird fee (till March 29) ………………………….
Standard student fee (bachelor, master’s, PhD).
Early bird student fee (bachelor, master’s, PhD)
€ 120 / 900 Danish kroner
€ 95 / 700 Danish kroner
€ 80 / 600 Danish kroner
€ 55 / 400 Danish kroner
Fees cover participation, breakfast, lunch and refreshments.
Registration: https://ida.dk/event/313683
Organizers
The conference is arranged by DTU/Technical University of Denmark in collaboration with the Danish Risk
Society IDA Risk, Copenhagen University’s Disaster Programme, and EU project ‘Resilience Capacities
Assessment for Critical Infrastructures Disruptions’ (READ) (http://www.read-project.eu/), and is co-funded
by the Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security-related
Risks Programme, European Commission – Directorate-General Home Affairs.
Organizing Committee: Henning Boje Andersen, DTU Management Engineering; Igor Kozine, DTU Management
Engineering; Nijs Jan Duijm, The Danish Society of Engineers; Kristian Cedervall Lauta, University of Copenhagen,
Changing Disasters; Rasmus Dahlberg, Danish Emergency Management Agency
Photos: Nordvand, Hofor, Banedanmark/T.Lytzen, FDM, Dong Energy, TV2; Visit Denmark
3
Abstracts
Resilience in a crisis management context
Mads Ecklon, Head of Division of the Centre for Preparedness Planning and Crisis Management at
the Danish Emergency Management Agency (DEMA)
Large scale incidents with far-reaching consequences happen. Traditional approaches have
addressed this issue through physical protection measures aimed at increasing assets’ robustness.
Today, however, new challenges have arrived that render the traditional approach inadequate.
Economic and social systems are becoming increasingly interdependent and thus increasingly vulnerable when key parts break down. Climate change is about to kick in with events exceeding the
magnitude and frequency of the past. New threats and hazards like cyber attacks and pandemics
spread fast in our hyper-connected world.
Within crisis management, we have to address this multidimensional risk picture and handle the
high degree of uncertainty. Focus must shift from separate and isolated entities towards an
approach that incorporates broad societal functions and systems.
Focus on resilience may help to meet the challenges that arise from an environment that is constantly increasing in complexity and unpredictability. However, to unlock the potential of resilience
in relation to crisis management, we must be able to translate the concept into concrete measures.
The question is how?
Critical Infrastructure Resilience – the Scottish Experience
Paul Scobbie, Integrator at Scottish Government’s Critical Infrastructure Resilience Unit (CIRU)
I will provide an overview of Critical Infrastructure Resilience (CIR), by explaining the role of CIRU in
coordinating CIR activity in Scotland.
Scotland’s political dimension in terms of the Devolution Settlement with the UK Government,
makes CIR a complex issue that requires careful consideration. Over the past six years, significant
cultural changes have taken place in the CIR arena. I will highlight some of these changes and consider the benefits they have brought to CIR in general.
I will consider three significant questions together – why is CIR important? who is involved? what
are we trying to achieve? In considering these questions, I will highlight Scotland’s CIR vision for
enhancing resilience in Scotland.
I will use four specific case studies to demonstrate the importance of CIR and the impact that disruption to critical infrastructure can have at a local, regional and national level.

The extreme Winter Weather of 2010/11, was a Pan-Scotland weather event that lasted 6
weeks and caused a cascade effect across all aspects of our critical infrastructure.
4



The closure of the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant in September 2013, was an
extremely challenging event that again caused cascade effect across a number of significant
critical infrastructure sectors in Scotland.
The North of Scotland power outage during the Spring of 2014, saw the entire electricity supply
to the North of Scotland shut down for a lengthy period. The cascade effect across all sectors
was clearly evident in this event.
Finally, a recent shipping incident off Scotland’s East Coast, provides an excellent case study to
focus our minds on the surprises that can occur at any time in our complex and interconnected
World. This challenging incident, required significant coordination at operational, tactical and
strategic levels across a number of emergency responder agencies, industry and Government.
In conclusion, learning from CIR related events is vital if we are to enhance our resilience in the
future. I will consider some of the most significant CIR related lessons we have learned in Scotland
in recent years.
Resilience Capacities: How to Cope with Major Disruptions in Electrical
Power Supply
Hans Kleintjens, Senior program coordinator at the regional fire service of Twente Region, the
Netherlands
Fire services have tasks in many kinds of crises that affect the wellbeing of the population. They
include, of course, fires and major accidents, as well as many others. Since 2009 emergency services
in Holland work together in safety regions. Since 2014 all the municipal fire brigades became part of
the safety region. All over Holland we have 25 of such regions. The safety region of Twente has
600.000 inhabitants in 14 towns. The city of Enschede is the biggest with 160.000 inhabitants.
In case of a crisis, Emergency services work together in a Crisis Staff, which consists of police, fire
service, medical service, municipalities, and specialists depending on the kind of the crisis. In case of
electrical power cut, the network provider is part of the crisis staff. The mayor of the concerned
town is the chairman of this crisis staff. He or she is responsible for the measures taken e.g. evacuation.
I will use three case studies of major power cuts in Holland the last decade, two of them in the
Twente region:



In the town of Haaksbergen 25th November 2005. 40.000 people were affected. It lasted 61
hours before the last houses were connected again. Cause: bad weather, heavy snow fall.
The 12th December 2007 an Apache helicopter hit a power supply line near the river Waal in
central Holland. 80.000 people were without electricity during 2 days.
The 5th January 2013 about 50.000 people in the city of Enschede including the city centre were
without electrical power due to a fire in an electrical substation.
5
Transboundary Crises and the Coordination Challenge: A Search for New
Institutions
Arjen Boin, Professor of Public Institutions and Governance Department of Political Science, Leiden
University, the Netherlands
We live in a world of transboundary crises: from climate change to urban terrorism, from traditional
security threats to cyber attacks. In preparing for these crises, the traditional domain of crisis management is quickly changing shape. One particularly important challenge is the strategic task of crisis coordination.
In virtually every assessment of responses to large-scale crises and disasters, coordination is identified as a critical failure factor. Not surprisingly, improved coordination quickly emerges as the prescribed solution. Coordination, then, is apparently both the problem and the solution. But the proposed solutions rarely solve the problem: coordination continues to mar most crises and disasters.
A major challenge besetting any effort to analyze coordination problems and successes is that it is
not always clear what is meant by the term ‘coordination’. It is thus hard to formulate a normative
framework that allows for systematic assessment of coordination in times of crisis. As coordination
is widely perceived as an important function of crisis and disaster management, this absence
undermines a fair and balanced assessment of crisis management performance.
This challenge becomes all the more pressing in a world that is increasingly characterized by transboundary crises, which outstrip the crisis management capacities of nation states. What is needed is
the formation of new institutions that can facilitate coordination of key players, both in the public
and private domain, nationally and internationally.
New challenges in Resilience Assessment
Kurt Petersen, Professor in Safety Analysis and Risk Management at Lund University and director of
LUCRAM, Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management, Sweden
In the last decade tremendous volumes of research have been published on assessment of single
critical infrastructure systems, like the power supply system. Recent research in assessment of the
consequences of disruptions of vital societal functions and services has identified severe flaws in
current knowledge and capabilities for assessing resilience when a holistic approach to societal
resilience is considered. Five dimensions of the challenges will be described and finally suggestions
for future development improvements will be presented.
The first challenge is that almost all research has been focused on single critical infrastructures. The
comprehensive studies of integrated systems of different infrastructures are very scarce.
The second challenge is that the generic problem of interdependence arises when dealing with multiple systems. Few methods are available for identification and more seriously for assessing the
strength of the interdependencies.
The third challenge is that at present models of the systems are available at various levels of complexity. The details in modelling power supply systems are very high compared to models of the
complete healthcare system. This is a challenge when integration is requested.
6
The fourth challenge is the problem of integrating simulation models of different critical infrastructure systems. Methods exist for single infrastructures both at structural and for some systems also
at a fully dynamic level. Methods for integrated systems are available at structural level, but unfortunately they are insufficient for resilience assessment. In principle, an integration of dynamic
models of two or more systems may be feasible, but due to combinatorial explosion they are not
working in practice. Some results are available when limiting the level of detail to encompass
capacities rather than a full dynamic simulation. This is an achievement compared to a simple structural simulation, but in many applications still insufficient.
The fifth challenge is that empirical research is limited to studies of the direct consequences of a
disruption. Results of this type are available in several societal domains. Assessments of indirect or
cascading consequences are more scattered or totally missing.
The conclusion is that there are needs to developing models of integrated societal systems, needs
for simulations models that are sufficient for resilience assessment and needs for methods treating
the total societal consequences of disruptions of critical infrastructure systems.
The Human Contribution to Resilience
Linda J. Bellamy, PhD Manager, White Queen Safety Strategies, Hoofddorp, Netherlands
The long-term viability of a Critical Infrastructure System (CIS) will ultimately depend on the Human
and Organisational Factors (HOFs) in the management and care that the CIS receives. The consideration of HOFs in system reliability has largely focused on failure - human error, management blindness and inadequate leadership – especially in relation to memorable disasters such as in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. More recently there has been a move towards identifying the positive aspects of HOFs in terms of ”resilience”. This HOF resilience can be considered to be
an additional dimension to the risk management principles that should be applied to all stages of a
sociotechnical system (design, construction, operation, & maintenance). In a recent European study
of human resilience in the control of major hazards the focus has been on resilient interventions by
humans - interventions that bring a system back to a stable condition and successfully sustain
operations in response to variation and change, both foreseen and unforeseen. It was found that
resilient intervention is characterised by a human mind that is vigilant for and aware of change and
which is switched on to what is going on at the moment, with insight into the important parameters
of people, the engineering and the environment. The organisation provides a framework for these
resilient minds by enabling thinking together by multidisciplinary, multicharacter and experienced
competent people, coming together on a task or project demand basis. Normative organisational
processes will facilitate the availability of information and the time to collect and evaluate it even in
response to sudden unforeseen threats. This includes hold points (stop and think) and second
opinions as well as built-in measures and safety margins in engineered systems that provide signals
and buy time. These things facilitate the making of good decisions and the countering of cognitive
biases – unconscious automatic influences which characterise quick non-reflective thinking about
possible outcomes and their likelihoods – which can lead to erroneous judgements and interventions. The key features of HOF resilience will be brought to life by quotes from case studies of individuals working in uncertain high risk environments.
7
Community Impacts of Critical Infrastructure Disruption:
Kathleen Tierney, Professor at Dept. of Sociology and Institute of Behavioral Science and Natural
Hazards Center, University of Colorado, Bouldee, CO, USA
By definition, critical infrastructure systems exist to support the functioning of societies and their
institutions. Research on disaster-induced critical infrastructure disruptions has revealed a range of
social and economic impacts, many of which have been unanticipated. With an emphasis on utility
and transportation “lifeline” systems, this presentation focuses on public expectations regarding
infrastructure performance; the ways in which lifeline disruptions can affect communities and businesses; and the importance of understanding risks associated with complex infrastructure interdependencies. Topics reviewed include loss-estimation analyses of the economic effects of earthquake-induced electrical power system disruptions in an area of moderate seismic risk; lifeline
impacts observed in various US disasters, including economic and community disruption resulting
from major floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes; and programs to mitigate potentially catastrophic
losses that could result from lifeline failures. The presentation concludes with a discussion of the
challenges associated with improving lifeline infrastructure resilience in the face of extreme events.
8
SPEAKER BIOS
Mads Ecklon is Head of Division of the Centre for Preparedness Planning and Crisis Management at
the Danish Emergency Management Agency (DEMA). He holds a Master’s Degree in political science
from the University of Copenhagen and an Honours Degree in political science from the University
of Cape Town. He is frequently used as keynote speaker and is guest lecturer at the Security Risk
Management Master Program at the University of Copenhagen.
Before joining DEMA, Mads Ecklon worked for the Danish National Audit Office and Defense
Command, Denmark.
With a decade of experience within the field of crisis management, his portfolio at DEMA encompasses crisis communication, crisis management, risk assessment, disaster response, preparedness
planning, guidance and development of analytical methods and business continuity. In addition,
Mads Ecklon is exercise manager for the biannual national crisis management exercise in Denmark.
Mads Ecklon and his staff are focused on developing solutions that not only look good on paper but
persist in the in the real world. By incorporating robustness, awareness, mitigation, unpredictability
and not at least resilience in DEMA’s approaches, he creates and promotes methods and guidance
that adds value towards a more resilient society.
Paul Scobbie is an Integrator with the Scottish Government’s Critical Infrastructure Resilience Unit
which is part of the wider Resilience Division.
Prior to Scottish Government, Paul was a Police Officer for 32 years specialising in mountain rescue,
firearms, search and operational and event planning. He has led and participated in a number of Scottish
and regional multi-agency planning and exercising groups.
In 2011 Paul joined the Scottish Government to assist in the delivery of a new strategy for Critical
National Infrastructure (‘Secure and Resilient’ – A Strategic Framework for CNI in Scotland). He has
specific responsibility for Communications, Transport, Finance and Government Sectors and represents
Scottish Governments interests on a number of UK national groups dealing with CNI. As part of a small
specialist team he has established a number of Sector groups in Scotland to assist in the delivery of the
strategy. These groups deliver an ambitious programme of work to understand and improve critical
infrastructure in Scotland and support arrangements in responding to disruptive events. “
Hans Kleintjens is a senior program coordinator at the regional fire service in Twente which is part
of the Safety Region Twente in the Netherlands. His tasks are on international cooperation. As a
region close to the German border, Twente cooperates with fire brigades of the German states of
Niedersachsen and Nordrhein-Westfalen. He is chairman of the group of five Dutch safety regions in
the provinces of Overijssel and Gelderland who cooperate with German fire services.
Since 2014 Hans Kleintjens is leading an expert group in Twente who is investigating the consequences for Holland of an underground oil leakage in a salt cavern in the nearby German town of
Gronau.
He is also working on internationalisation of the serious gaming for responsible authorities: mayors
in Holland and the chief executives of the districts in Germany. For that he cooperates with the
Dutch Research Centre of T-Xchange, the Polizeidirektion Osnabrück and the Bezirksregierung Mün9
ster. Previously, Hans Kleintjens worked as the fire chief in Oegstgeest, Teylingen and Almelo and
was head of the control room of the Utrecht Fire service. Hans Kleintjens studied Electrical Engineering at the University of Eindhoven and Business Administration at the University of Twente. He
has a Master’s degree in Crisis and Disaster management of the University of Leiden in cooperation
with the Dutch Fire School. Before he entered the fire service he worked as an assistant to the chief
professor of the University of Twente.
Arjen Boin is a professor of Public Institutions and Governance at the Department of Political
Science, Leiden University. He is an adjunct professor at the Public Administration Institute at Louisiana State University and a director of Crisisplan, an international crisis management consultancy
based in Leiden. He received his Ph.D. from Leiden University, where he taught at the Department
of Public Administration. He was a professor at Louisiana State University and Utrecht University.
Arjen has published widely on topics of crisis and disaster management, public leadership, and
public institutions. His most recent books include The Politics of Crisis Management (Cambridge
University Press, winner of APSA’s Herbert A. Simon book award), Governing after Crisis (Cambridge
UP, 2008), Crisis Management: A Three Volume Set of Essential Readings(Sage, 2008), Designing
Resilience (Pittsburgh UP, 2010), MegaCrises (Charles C Thomas, 2012) and The EU as Crisis Manager: Patterns and Prospects (Cambridge UP, 2013). He is the Editor for Public Administration, a
premier journal in the field. Dr Boin is a founding member of the European Societal Research Group.
Kurt Petersen is Professor in Safety Analysis and Risk Management at Lund University in Sweden
and director of LUCRAM, Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management. He
obtained his PhD in reliability engineering from the Danish Technical University in 1986. He has
been head of research at Risø National Laboratory and Danish Transport Research Institute in Denmark until 2005. From 2002 he was visiting professor at Lund University in Sweden and obtained a
full professorship form 2005. He has authored and co-authored articles, book chapters and other
publication.
Kurt Petersen has been the coordinator of four larger research projects financed by the EU framework programs. He has been the coordinator of a large research program, FRIVA Framework program on Risk and Vulnerability Analysis, funding by the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency, 20042011. He is currently coordinator of the follow-up research program, PRIVAD Program on Risk and
Vulnerability Analysis and Development, also funding by the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency,
2011-2016. Kurt Petersen is responsible for the PhD programme on Risk Analysis at Lund University.
Kurt Petersen is nominated as a board member of IAPSAM, International Association for Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, a board member of SEROS, Centre for Risk Management
and Societal Safety and University of Stavanger in Norway and member of three scientific advisory
boards in Norway and Sweden. His current research interests are risk and vulnerability analysis,
international crisis investigation and crisis management.
10
Linda J. Bellamy is a Human Factors Consultant and Managing Director at White Queen Safety
Strategies.
Dr. Linda Bellamy has a Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degree in Psychology. After
graduating she spent 10 years in university research and teaching at Leeds, Birmingham and Aston
universities in the UK. Subsequently she moved to consultancy, first managing the Human Factors
Unit at Technica (now DNV London), then building up the Human Factors division of Four Elements
Ltd (now ERM Risk), subsequently moving to The Netherlands to become a partner at SAVE consultants (now Oranjewoud), and finally starting her own company, White Queen Safety Strategies.
Linda Bellamy has developed a major hazard, safety management and human factors expertise and
provided consultancy services over the past 30 years to regulators and major hazard industry, especially onshore and offshore (petro)chemical, as well as for transportation systems and nuclear
power. She is currently Coordinator of a European SAF€RA project concerning human and organisational factors and resilience.
Kathleen Tierney is a professor in the Department of Sociology and the Institute of Behavioral
Science and director of the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, USA.
Kathleen’s research focuses on the societal dimensions of hazards, disasters, and risk. During her
career as a disaster researcher, she has conducted research on many natural and technological
disasters, as well as on the World Trade Center terrorist attacks.
Her current research focuses on the political economy of disasters and hazard risk reduction, community resilience, and post-disaster business and economic resilience. Her articles have appeared in
The Annual Review of Sociology, The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Sociological
Spectrum, the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, the International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and
other publications. With William Waugh, she co-edited Emergency Management: Principles and
Practice for Local Government (2007). She is currently a member of the US National Academy of
Sciences Committee to Advise the US Global Change Research Program. Her new book, entitled The
Social Roots of Risk: Producing Disasters, Promoting Resilience, was published in June 2014 by
Stanford University Press.
In 2014, she received the Charles E. Fritz Award for Lifetime Contributions to Disaster Research from
the International Sociological Association’s Research Committee on Disasters.
11