Framework Development - Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework

Pia-Johanna Schweizer1, Lydia Cumiskey2, Janne Parviainen3, Sukaina Bharwani3, Max Steinhausen5, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler4, Quinhan Zhu4, Paul Einhäupl1, Benjamin Hofbauer1, Tracy Irvine6, Jacob Lane Huling1, Dug Cubie2 1. RIFS RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABILITY AT GFZ HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR GEOPSCIENCES (RIFS) 2. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK (UCC) 3. SEI OXFORD OFFICE LIMITED (SEI) 4. INTERNATIONALES INTSTITUT FUER ANGEWANDTE SYSTEMANALYSE (IIASA) 5. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BRAUNSCHWEIG (TUBS) 6. OASIS HUB LIMITED (OASIS) D3.1 Framework Development Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework Wednesday, October 22, 2025 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 2 Report overview Project number 101073978 Project acronym DIRECTED Project name Disaster Resilience for Extreme Climate Events providing Interoperable Data, Models, Communication and Governance Call HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01 Topic HORIZON-CL3-2021-DRS-01-02 Type of action HORIZON Innovation Action Responsible service European Research Executive Agency Project starting date 01/10/2022 Project duration 4 Years Period covered 1 October 2022 - 30 September 2026 Deliverable due date 31 January 2024 Deliverable submission date 31 January 2024 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 3 Document history Version Date Comment 1.0 28/11/2023 Initial Version 2.0 18/12/2024 For Internal Review 3.0 25/01/2024 Submission version 4.0 29/01/2024 Copy edit 5.0 31/01/2024 Final edit 6.0 22/07/2024 Revision 7.0 19/08/2024 Internal Revision 8.0 20/08/2024 Submission version 9.0 22/10/2025 Reworked version for upload to Zenodo Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 4 Executive summary This deliverable provides a state-of-the-art review of existing governance methods used within the context of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and serves as a proof of concept for the implementation of the Risk-Tandem Framework. It further outlines progress made so far with the governance analysis, needs assessments, and other conceptual development and engagement processes with the Real-World Labs (RWLs). Developing and applying the Risk-Tandem Framework is a central part of the DIRECTED Project’s goals, providing a participatory, co-productive, and integrative approach towards multi-hazard risks throughout the RWLs and beyond the scope of the Project. Specifically, the RWLs can be seen a testing grounds and springboard to demonstrate the value of the RiskTandem Framework, as well as refine it for its application in other settings and locations. The report is structured in the following way. The introductory section provides a brief outline of the Risk-Tandem Framework and its underlying methodology, describing its application to risk governance within the DIRECTED Project, and recaps existing approaches and challenges faced so far within the risk governance community. In the following section, we delve into the various risk governance frameworks implemented in DIRECTED for the integrated shaping of the Risk-Tandem Framework, to further demonstrate how the framework is applied to the context of the RWLs. Aligning with Task 3.1 in the Grant Agreement, our focus is on integrating advanced governance methods to enhance knowledge, foster co-creative user and stakeholder engagement, and ensure accountability. The Frameworks employed include the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, as an overarching conceptual landscape; the International Risk Governance Council’s (IRGC) Risk Governance Framework on risk governance in general; the SHIELD model (“Sharing Knowledge, Harmonising Capacities, Institutionalizing Coordination, Engaging Stakeholders, Leveraging Investments, Developing Communications”), aimed at synergizing DRM and CCA strategies; the Risk Layering Approach, quantifying and assessing the economic aspects of risk governance; and the Tandem Framework, guiding co-creation and coproduction processes. These frameworks are presented, and their various strengths and limitations are highlighted. In section three, the Risk-Tandem Framework is introduced as a tool to enhance communication and cooperation across institutions, sectors and scales of all actors involved in DRM and CCA. Combining and further enhancing the existing approaches through one unified framework further addresses the second part of the Grant Agreement’s Task 3.1, namely “merging the International Risk Governance Council’s Risk Governance Framework with the Tandem Framework developed by SEI, the Risk Layering approach put forth by IIASA, and scoping alignment with other governance frameworks for DRR and CCA planning and decision-making processes, such as the SHIELD model from the ESPREssO Project.” The conclusion and application section finally proposes first steps towards the practical application of the Risk-Tandem Framework to the various RWLs and the risk governance challenges they face. The main aim of this deliverable is to present the newly developed Risk-Tandem Framework. This is done by describing how state-of-the-art governance approaches have been synthesized with co-creative stakeholder engagement processes, and presenting the critical learnings from the research of value to practitioners, policy, and user communities in general. The deliverable features a methodology section, alongside a schematic description of how the framework will be applied throughout the remainder of the project. This deliverable is targeted towards a general audience interested in DRM and CCA approaches. However, scholars and general readers more focused on the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings supporting the development process of the Risk-Tandem Framework will find a deep dive into the various approaches synthesized throughout in Section 1 and 2. Practitioners and those most interested in its application, will find detailed information on the practical and co-creative relationship between Risk-Tandem Framework and the RWLs in section 3. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 5 Table of contents Report overview .................................................................................................................... 2 Document history .................................................................................................................. 3 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 4 Table of contents .................................................................................................................. 5 Table of figures ..................................................................................................................... 7 List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................. 8 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 11 1.2 Risk governance and the Risk-Tandem Framework .................................................. 13 1.3 Understanding risk ..................................................................................................... 13 1.4 On the issue of complex and systemic risks .............................................................. 14 2 Risk governance: Schools of thought ............................................................................... 17 2.1 Governing systemic risk: Approaches, frameworks, and methods ............................. 18 2.1.1 The institutional context of risk governance ......................................................... 19 2.1.2 IRGC Risk Governance Framework .................................................................... 19 2.1.3 SHIELD Model .................................................................................................... 24 2.1.4 Risk Layering ...................................................................................................... 27 2.1.5 Premising the need for co-production for risk governance ................................... 30 2.1.6 Structuring co-production through the Tandem Framework ................................. 32 3.1 Combining existing frameworks ................................................................................. 35 3.2 The emerging new Risk-Tandem Framework ............................................................ 38 3.3 Monitoring, evaluating, and learning through the Risk-Tandem Framework ............... 40 3.4 Application of the Risk-Tandem Framework in the RWLs .......................................... 45 3.4.1 Phase 1: Foundation ........................................................................................... 46 3.4.2 Phase 2: Growth ................................................................................................. 48 3.4.2 Phase 3: Learn .................................................................................................... 50 3.4.4 Phase 4: Sustain ................................................................................................. 51 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 6 4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 52 References ......................................................................................................................... 53 Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 58 Partners .............................................................................................................................. 74 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 7 Table of figures Figure 1: Integrating DRM & CCA by enabling interoperability in the DIRECTED project .... 10 Figure 2: Three categories of increasing complex risk. Source: Simpson et al. (2021) ........ 13 Figure 3: The IRGC Risk Governance Framework (IRGC, 2017, p.10) ............................... 20 Figure 4: The risk management escalator and stakeholder involvement (Renn 2015) ......... 22 Figure 5: The SHIELD Model revolving around the four disaster management phases (Lauta et al. 2018) .......................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Risk Layering approach for risk reduction and risk financing, based on analyzing loss distribution (i.e. a cumulative distribution function of losses). Hochrainer-Stigler et al. 2020. ................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7: The Tandem Framework for transdisciplinary knowledge co-production (Bharwani, et al., 2024) ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8: General categorization scheme of the Risk Layering Approach to position stakeholders’ current Risk Layer and management options. ............................................... 36 Figure 9: Combining existing frameworks - IRGC, SHIELD, Tandem and Risk Layering ..... 37 Figure 10: The Risk-Tandem Framework ............................................................................ 39 Figure 11: Application of Risk-Tandem in RWLs through four phases as part of Task 3.2 ... 46 Figure 12: The Stakeholder Action Grid .............................................................................. 49 Figure 13: Inter-connectivity between DIRECTED tasks in the RWLs. ................................ 50 List of tables Table 1: Indicators: Institutional Context ............................................................................. 42 Table 2: Indicators: Risk Governance ................................................................................. 42 Table 3: Indicators: Goals & Aims ....................................................................................... 43 Table 4: Indicators: Risk Management & System Boundaries ............................................. 44 Table 5: Indicators: Co-production ...................................................................................... 44 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 8 List of abbreviations ACRONYM DEFINITION CCA Climate Change Adaptation DRM Disaster Risk Management DRR Disaster Risk Reduction ESPREssO Enhancing Synergies for Disaster Prevention in the European Union IRGC International Risk Governance Council RWL Real-World Lab RTF Risk-Tandem Framework WP Work Package IAD Institutional Analysis & Development Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 9 1 Introduction Moving towards a disaster-resilient society, the DIRECTED Project aims to overcome silos, develop capacities and sustainable cooperation, strengthen multi-risk thinking, utilise synergies, and promote the concept of interoperability. In this context the Risk-Tandem Framework (RTF) supports Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) planning and decision-making processes and seeks to build long-term governance capacity for information and knowledge integration and interoperability. As defined by UNDRR (UN, 2017), DRM is “the application of Disaster Risk Reduction policies and strategies to prevent new disaster risk, reduce existing disaster risk and manage residual risk, contributing to the strengthening of resilience and reduction of disaster losses.” The global Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 guides the development of national DRM strategies or plans outlining goals, objectives and associated actions (measures) for reducing disaster risks. As such, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is the policy objective of DRM. The implementation of DRM and associated measures is often connected to a cycle which evolves through phases of prevention, encompassing mitigation (e.g., managed retreat, risk zoning, dikes/ levees), preparedness (e.g., early warning and forecasting systems, temporary flood barriers), response (e.g., evacuation centers, pumping equipment) and recovery (e.g., insurance, reconstruction). European level regulations target specific natural hazards, like the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), guiding the assessment and management of flood risk across EU Member States supporting the implementation of prevention and risk reduction strategies. The EU Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC) supports Member States in translating complex scientific data and analysis into advice and information to guide their DRM policies. Civil protection or emergency management policies and relevant plans from national to local levels, support disaster preparedness and response, and subsequent residual risk management. The EU Civil Protection Mechanism strengthens cooperation between EU members and participating states civil protection agencies to improve prevention, preparedness, and response to disasters and requires the development of National Risk Assessments. More frequent and extreme weather events like heatwaves, floods and droughts, are expected due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in global temperature increases and rising sea levels. Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) supports taking action to prepare for, and adjust to, both the current effects of climate change as well as predicted future impacts. The legally binding international treaty on climate change is the Paris Agreement 2025 aiming to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goal 13 addresses climate action. At the European level, the European Commission’s EU Adaptation Strategy (2021) outlines how the EU can adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change and become climate resilient by 2050. In response to global and EU level policies, Member States have developed tailored laws and frameworks for enabling climate mitigation and adaptation nationally. Climate risk assessments, National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), regional/local adaptation plans and sectoral adaptation plans are being developed by EU countries (see progress up to 2021 in EEA Report 2020). Examples of such adaptation measures include nature-based coastal protection to adapt to increased frequency and intensity of coastal storms, adapted farming practices to deal with longer periods of drought and hospital cooling measures to adapt to extreme heat. EU initiatives like the European Climate Risk Assessment, EU Mission on Adaptation and Climate-ADAPT Platform, aim to accelerate the implementation of such plans by facilitating knowledge exchange, guidance, and financing targeting regional and local authorities. Although DRM and CCA have emerged in different policy arenas, associated frameworks and policies do recognize the need for integration, alignment and coherence to capture efficiencies and synergies. However, gaps in governance, capacity, communication and data/modelling are hindering efforts to achieve integration between national to local levels (Islam et al. 2020). DRM and CCA clearly have common goals to manage and adapt to climate-related hazards, but the responsible agencies and institutional structures typically differ, making it difficult to align their risk assessment and management processes. Therefore, there is a growing need to facilitate collaboration and exchange across these domains to align the national, regional and local knowledge, capacities, policies and interventions to capture synergies across DRM and CCA activities, and efficiently manage limited financial resources. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 16 Further building upon the issue of biases and perception, it is also useful to interrogate the processes of what Kelman and Lewis (2012) describe as ‘disaster risk creation’, referring to the beliefs, values and acts of governance which contribute to ecological degradation, inequalities, and marginalisation of some. After all, socio-ecological systems are not neutral nor simply exist in the world, for they are of social origin (Walker and Cooper, 2011), despite their common representation through naturalistic metaphors (MacKinnon and Derickson, 2012). As such, their components, and relationships within are shaped by ideologies and relations of power. 3 Which, if assumed neutral by systems discourse, naturalise ‘a system’ in a manner that absorbs all potential for achieving change (Walker and Cooper, 2011; MacKinnon and Derickson, 2012). Climate sciences and acts of governance that may disregard the ontological consequences of certain epistemologies when placing climate as their object of study are an example of such processes. Indeed, the depoliticised naturalisation of a system that equally reproduces the issue whilst generating seemingly objective solutions for its management constitutes a discursive and expertly policed boundary to innovation and change (Schulz and Siriwardane, 2015). 4 Consequently, it is often not enough to measure and map a system. Instead, one must also seek transformations, novel approaches, and nonsystemic solutions, if assumed that the system itself is a part of the problem formulation (Schulz and Siriwardane, 2015; Walker and Cooper, 2011). Arguments as presented above create numerous challenges for those involved in managing systemic risks. These challenges include the need to reflect on the systemic dependencies that potentially unjust historical power structures have created, and accounting for the ambiguity as well as uncertainty involved in analysing systemic risks. Going beyond managerial, uniform, and simplified solutions, one must increasingly consider the systemic and complex nature of risks, including their correlating, cascading and transboundary tendencies in technological and social dimensions (Renn et al., 2022; Sillmann, et al., 2022). There is also a need to strive toward holistic approaches in terms of accommodating not only current risks, which remain multifaceted insofar as they are approached beyond hazards, from the perspective of the vulnerability paradigm (Bankoff and Hilhorst, 2022), but also by assuming a future-oriented perspective with regards to projected effects of climate change. This necessitates the commitment to collaboration and transdisciplinary engagement across the fields of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management, Climate Change Adaptation, and associated sub-disciplines and practices. Finally, one must accommodate considerations for uncertainty and ambiguity as well (Sillmann, et al., 2022; Berkes, 2017; Renn, et al., 2011). These topics thus premise the case for adaptive governance (Berkes, 2017) fit to address systemic risks and cope with uncertainties through transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral cooperation across scales (Sillmann, et al., 2022). In essence, in today’s interconnected world, risks and disasters are complex and connected globally through technology, the environment, and society. For example, a disaster in one country or region can affect supply chains and economies worldwide. Additionally, climate change and social inequalities are making these risks even more challenging. Therefore, we need a comprehensive and collaborative approach to understand and manage these risks, considering not just the direct immediate dangers but also the underlying social and economic factors and indirect effects of disasters. This approach is essential for effectively dealing with the complicated and interconnected challenges of our modern world. 3 Often in association with neoliberalism, in particular. 4 A process that Deleuze would call ‘folding’, and what Foucault would describe as the processes of subjectification via the operations of discourse and power that simultaneously reproduce the condition of reality and its subjects through the voluntary reproduction of hegemonic knowledge and practices. One could also borrow from Baudrillard and the concept of simulacra to explore the issues of representing reality through its abstractions that inevitably escape reality itself over the lifetime of a simulation in decision making. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 17 2 Risk governance: Schools of thought The concept of ‘risk governance’ evolved over time. As it was influenced by political and economic theories (Klinke and Renn, 2019), there was a marked shift in governance from state-centric towards market-oriented, following the displacement of Keynesian economics by the ongoing neoliberalisation of the public and private spheres since the 1980s (Jessop, 2002; Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009; Rhodes, 2007; Braun, 2014). As a result, governance has mutated into an ‘ad hoc assemblage that in advanced capitalism proceeds in a relatively aimless fashion, introducing “management” […] in a piecemeal and contingent way in response to a dynamic and changing world’ (Braun, 2014:51). More importantly, the absence of central states and the longue durée of capital has also led to the deployment of various free market-oriented legalities, policies, and ideologies shaping the social, geographical, political, and moral spheres to reconstruct a universe estranged from realities beyond the needs of the economy (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009). Hence, when risk governance theorists claim the increasing risks of the 21st century alone have necessitated the reshaping of risk governance toward multi-scalar engagement (for example, Djalante and Lassa, 2019), it is helpful to keep in mind that this has occurred during a period of societal development disenfranchising centralised controls within large parts of the Global North. Moreover, to contest reductionism associated with Cartesian dualism, the generation of new risks is inherent to the progress of modernity (instead of something that can be associated to ‘nature’), thus constituting a paradox for their management (Beck, 1992). Two challenges concerning implementing multiscale and polycentric governance should be noted. Firstly, following the fracturing, in some cases, of hierarchical governance into multiscale-networks and loose assemblages – a condition which Jessop (1998:8) described as the ‘heterarchy’ of autopoietic actors – has produced a landscape in which the applicability of once-popular Steuerungstheorie 5 to practice is limited in the absence of actors capable of steering. Put simply, it is arduous to establish shared priorities and objectives for policy and polity when public management relies on the self-organisation of relatively autonomous parts engaged in a constant process of negotiation to establish a resemblance of order (Jessop, 1998). Consequently, when theorists discuss the need to effectively steer and govern 6 , one must acknowledge that such processes take place against polycentric and poly-contextual backdrops characterised by the divergence of values, beliefs, and ideologies (Luhmann, 1997; Bevir and Rhodes, 2006). Secondly, risk governance is negotiated with multiple discourses often not shared by different disciplines and practices: the fields of DRR and CCA, for example 7 , are often isolated and siloed from each other in terms of terminologies, approaches and financing despite having similar goals (Mercer, 2010; IRFC 2020, Chapter 6). However, this is not to say that risk governance would be consumed by a status quo of administrative (nor discursive) chaos. For instance, some evidence from case studies in Europe and North America suggest that polycentric governance can be beneficial, with multiple levels of actors and governance supporting higher environmental benefits compared to monocentric governance (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Furthermore, as the German governance tradition reminds us, hierarchical controls and self-regulating systems are not always mutually exclusive, since actors within usually progress toward solutions by producing dialogic combinations of the rules and ordering principles available to them (Mayntz, 1998). Instead, the purpose of aligning with the anti-essentialist trend above is to point out that the polycentricity and poly-contextuality of governance systems remain intertwined with certain ordering principles. For example, despite the validity of the claim describing the European Union as a supra-nationalist network of networks (Leonard, 1999), its member states and organisations remain bound by its regulatory capacities and legal mechanisms (Shore, 2006). 8 5 As discussed by Mayntz (2006). 6 Applicable to risk governance and management, mentioned by Renn and Klinke (2019) as well. 7 Both can be in the sphere of risk governance. 8 Anecdotally exemplified by a policy relic that once sought to prevent the European consumers’ access to cucumbers below the ideal length of 30cm with a curvature of some 10mm for every 10cm as per the regulation No. 1677 of 1988. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 18 Among such principles, the underpinning values and ideologies should be of researchers’ primary interest as well. As critical theorists have pointed out (the hyper-bureaucratic theorising regarding the ontology of ‘a governance’), there usually exists a tacit commitment to free markets which continue to enforce the surrender of hierarchical powers over fiscal control (Davies, 2012), among others. Therefore, when Klinke and Renn (2019:2) continue to define risk governance as the marking of ‘institutional structures and socio-political processes that guide and restrain collective activities of a group, society, or international community to influence or direct the course of events or people’s behaviour when dealing with risk issues’, it is good to bear in mind that these structures and processes remain characterised by rules and hierarchies of power since the influence over polities and policies is unequally distributed across governance actors. 9 More importantly, it is necessary to spell out what can, in theory, be implicitly embedded ‘sociopolitical processes’ as described by Klinke and Renn; that politico-economically non-neutral and sometimes damaging policies, behaviours and ideologies shape not only risks but also limit the pathways which risk management may leverage (Lewis and Kelman, 2012). These arguments may also become useful in contesting the depoliticization and naturalisation of unnatural and inherently political systems in complex systems though, as discussed in the previous chapter. The concept of ‘interactive’ or social-political governance considers interaction as a mutually influencing relation between two or more entities including civil, private and public actors (Kooiman, 1999; Kooiman et al. 2008). Institutionalisation emphasises the interconnected process of patterns arising in people's actions, and how fluid behaviour gradually solidifies into structures, and those structures in turn structure behaviour (Arts et al. 2006), connecting with the idea of ‘structure-agency interplay’ (Giddens 1984; Kooiman 2016). To enable such interactive governance in practice, Sørensen (2013) argues that it can be meta governed through ‘soft’ reflexive law and institutional features to guide networks and partnerships if they cannot be institutionalised through ‘hard’ rules and regulations. With these in mind, one can now venture further into the practicalities of systemic risk management, and why these should be complimented via the methods of co-production. In summary, risk governance has evolved from state-centric to market-oriented systems, creating a more complex and varied approach to managing risks. This has resulted in siloed fields like Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, which all have a shared goal but vary in their focus and thus theoretical assumptions and output. Polycentric governance, though complex, can be effective, especially when informed by flexible, 'soft' norms and inclusive, co-productive approaches. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for managing the multifaceted nature of modern risks. 2.1 Governing systemic risk: Approaches, frameworks, and methods The complexities of modern risk landscapes as discussed above, has led to the emergence of holistic risk governance. Indeed, there is a need to strive towards adaptive and transformative governance that can, on one hand, manage systemic issues through knowledge integration, and on the other, cope with uncertainty (Hochrainer-Stigler, et al., 2023; Sillmann, et al., 2022; Berkes, 2017; Renn and Schweizer, 2009). Yet, it remains undecided how to translate these aspirations into policy options and action (Deubelli and Mechler, 2021). To bridge these gaps, we introduce some frameworks, methods, and approaches for complexity management, coping with uncertainty and ambiguity associated with systemic risks. While not the focus of this report, it is important to note that several modelling tools developed throughout the DIRECTED Project in the respective RWLs also 9 To refine – without contesting – their later argument that ‘no single actor in our societies possess the knowledge, capabilities, or resources to steer and manage complex risks that originate in complexityrich ecological, social, and economic systems’ (Klinke and Renn, 2019:2). Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 19 play a role in assessing, mapping, and supporting decision-making (see outputs by WP 2 and 5, particularly D5.1). 2.1.1 The institutional context of risk governance A conceptual landscape through institutional analysis and development Before exploring the various frameworks that inform and help construct the RTF, it is important to clarify the conceptual and ontological assumptions this work is based on. As an overarching conceptual landscape, the RTF builds on the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom 2010). As such, the IAD serves as a heuristic approach to understand what the relevant institutions of the RWLs consist of, how they function, and how they act under a given set of circumstances. The IAD provides a framework to analyse the institutional structures that govern each system, the actors that play a role in DRM and CCA in each RWL and the actors’ interactions, also identifying evaluation criteria for CCA/ DRM. The IAD focuses on key parameters of institutions, actor networks, multi-level interactions across administrative boundaries and vertical integration and governance modes. The analysis of institutions (e.g., regulations) and roles (e.g., catalysts, regional authority) will provide an overview of the enablers and barriers related to CCA/ DRM as institutions delimit capacity for social change. Having a good understanding of institutions is important because “they are intentional constructions that structure information and create incentives to act or not to act in a particular situation, thereby imposing constraints on the range of possible behaviour and feasible reforms. Interacting with physical and cultural conditions, institutions create incentives for social behaviour. This behaviour generates observable patterns of interaction, which in turn produce policy outcomes.” (Polski & Ostrom, 2017, p. 15) In the context of DRM and CCA, we can assume that various systems in a systems-of-systems perspective, most notably actors and institutions, act as separate entities that interact and influence each other. In this environment, diverse actors (individuals and organisations), especially those outside of governmental organisations, take various roles (e.g., intermediary or facilitator) that define their decision-making power under multiple formal institutions (e.g., law, regulations, contracts) and informal ones (e.g., norms, collective agreements, coordination arrangements). The institutional analysis literature, mainly the Institutional Analysis and Development framework (IAD), supports the analysis of these constellations in the RWLs. The IAD provides a systematic way to analyse institutional structures, thus providing a basis for evaluating and comparing alternative governance mechanisms. In summary, the IAD Framework is integral for understanding and developing the RTF, offering a comprehensive approach to analyse and evaluate the institutional structures, actor interactions, and governance mechanisms crucial for effective risk management in the context of DRM and CCA. 2.1.2 IRGC Risk Governance Framework The first framework to begin conceptualising governance issues facing complex risks is the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) Risk Governance Framework (2005; 2007), which refers to the components of risk governance as the totality of actors, rules, conventions, processes, and mechanisms concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analysed, and communicated, and how regulatory decisions are taken. In particular, risk governance provides a conceptual and normative basis for dealing with uncertain, complex, and/or ambiguous risks (Klinke and Renn, 2012), and is thus well suited for disaster risk and climate adaptation, and systemic risk management. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 20 Furthermore, the Framework’s comprehensive, multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach helps in understanding, analysing and managing risk issues through outlining, and enhancing existing risk governance structures and processes. The Framework includes: • Four interlinked elements: pre-assessment (identifying and framing risk issues), appraisal (assessing technical and perceived causes and consequences), characterisation and evaluation (making judgments about the risk), and management (deciding and implementing risk management options). • Three cross-cutting aspects: stakeholder engagement, risk communication, and contextual understanding. These aspects are crucial for the holistic management of complex risks. These components are analysed in detail hereafter. Pre-assessment – identification and framing The cyclical and iterative IRGC Risk Governance Framework begins with the phase of preassessment which refers to the identification of the breadth of issues that stakeholders and society may associate with a certain risk and the related benefits as well as existing indicators, routines, and conventions that may help to narrow down what is going to be addressed as risk and how it should be addressed. 10 There are four components to the phase of preassessment, namely: (1) problem framing, (2) early warning, (3) screening, and (4) determination of scientific conventions. Based on these four components, the phase of preassessment clarifies the various perspectives on the identified risk(s), defines the issue to be looked at and forms the baseline for how the risk(s) is/are assessed and managed. Appraisal – Assessing the technical and perceived causes and consequences of the risk Risk appraisal is the next step in the risk governance process. Risk appraisal includes two major components, i.e., risk assessment and concern assessment. Risk assessment establishes the scientific link between risk agent(s) and consequence(s). The final output of risk assessment is the estimation of risk regarding probability distributions of modelled consequences. To achieve this goal, three core components have to be assessed: the identification and estimation of hazard, the appraisal of exposure and vulnerability, and the estimation of risk. Hence, risk estimation can take the form of quantitative or qualitative assessment. Concern assessment, the second component of risk appraisal, contributes an assessment of risk perceptions, societal concerns, and socio-political impacts of risk appraisal. Characterisation and evaluation – Making a judgement about the risk and the need to manage it The characterisation and evaluation phase consists of two components - knowledge characterisation and risk evaluation. In this phase, the decision must be made whether a risk is acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable. Acceptable activities offer benefits with negligible risks. Tolerable activities are pursued for their benefits, yet require additional risk reduction efforts. Intolerable activities need to be prohibited or substituted. Relevant evidence for making an informed choice on tolerability or acceptability is collected. Risk evaluation applies societal values and norms to the judgement on tolerability and acceptability. Risk evaluation also determines the need for risk reduction measures. Management – Deciding on and implementing risk management options 10 For the following see for instance: IRGC. (2017). Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. EPFL. https://doi.org/10.5075/EPFL-IRGC-233739 Renn, O. (2008). White Paper on Risk Governance: Toward an Integrative Framework. In O. Renn & K. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance. Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 3– 76). Springer. Schweizer, P.-J. (2021). Systemic risks – concepts and challenges for risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 24(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1687574 IRGC, 2017; Schweizer, 2021 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 21 In this phase, all the information gathered in previous steps is combined. Especially the results of risk appraisal and tolerability and acceptability judgement are the basis for designing the appropriate risk management strategies. This phase consists of decision-making and implementation. Decision-making includes option identification and generation, option assessment, as well as option evaluation and selection. Option identification and generation discover potential management options for risk reduction. Option assessment investigates the future impact of each management option on economic, technical, social, political and cultural dimensions. Option evaluation assesses these options using multi-criteria analysis. The second major part of the risk management phase deals with the implementation of the previously selected risk management option. Risk management implementation deals with option realisation, monitoring and control, as well as feedback from real-world risk management practice. Option realisation puts the chosen risk management option into practice. Monitoring and control observe its performance and whether it has the desired risk reduction effects. Feedback from real-world risk management practice then makes ex-post evaluation of the selected management option possible. Figure 3: The IRGC Risk Governance Framework (IRGC, 2017, p.10). Cross-cutting aspects – stakeholder engagement, risk communication context Considering that risk management activities are implemented by a mix of public, private and civil society actors, the IRGC risk governance framework puts stakeholder engagement and communication at its core. Renn (2015) outlines the role of stakeholders in different phases of risk governance. During a pre-assessment phase the stakeholders can help to jointly frame the problem, define boundary conditions and set priorities by sharing their experiences and guidance on the process. For complex and systemic risk management, the establishment of Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 22 boundary conditions is crucial: it begins the process of outlining ‘the’ issue at hand and enables the examination of entry points for solution-making. This process will be further supported by other tools, as will be discussed later. During the appraisal phase, stakeholder inputs will share knowledge in a wider sense to inform the limits of knowledge and the risks being evaluated and understand the associated impacts for different groups. During the characterisation/ evaluation phase, stakeholders will discuss any results from the risk assessment and broadly discuss the acceptability and tolerability of risk reduction measures. In other words, it helps identify options that are not only technologically or economically feasible, but humanly and ethically acceptable across all involved stakeholders (a priority discussed by Cosens, et al., 2021 in the context of governing complexity). During the management (decision-making and implementation) phase stakeholders can provide support to identify, assess, and select different management measures/ interventions. Effective risk governance also requires the continuous process of risk communication. This involves the exchange or sharing of risk-related information, data, and knowledge among the diverse groups engaged in risk governance, such as scientists, policymakers, regulators, industry (including the insurance sector), consumers, and the general public (Florin & Parker, 2020). Risk communication and stakeholder engagement are distinct yet complementary processes supporting DRR and CCA. Effective communication is not a substitute for stakeholder involvement, it is a prerequisite, providing the knowledge base, allowing stakeholders to converse and become productive (Renn, 2015). Risk communication allows stakeholders to receive important information in a timely manner and can enable them to make informed contributions to the risk governance process by creating a deliberate two-way dialogue. Risk communication also involves explaining the rationale for decisions to wider stakeholders. Florin and Parker (2020) distinguish the goals of communication and its expected outcomes as literacy and behavioural change. Improving literacy through risk communication involves sharing information about the implications of the risks and related risk management measures, allowing recipients to build an understanding of the issues at stake. In many cases, risk communication approaches aim to go beyond the provision of information to changing behavioural patterns, such as the adjustment of existing risk management practices. As such, the IRGC Framework highlights that communication is needed throughout the process from risk assessment to all phases of risk management. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 23 Figure 4: The risk management escalator and stakeholder involvement (Renn 2015). Applications of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework and Lessons Learnt The IRGC Risk Governance Framework has been applied retrospectively to various risk issues ranging from the governance of genetically modified crops (Tait, 2008) and naturebased tourism (Kuenzi & McNeely, 2008) to nanotechnology (Roco et al., 2008) and shipping risks in the Arctic (Goerlandt & Pelot, 2020). In the following, a brief overview will be provided for an application of the IRCG Risk Governance Framework that touches upon issues related to DIRECTED and the Project’s focus on hydrological extremes. The Nagara River Estuary Barrage Conflict in Japan In this case study, the IRGC Risk Governance Framework has been applied retrospectively to water resources management issues which challenged the disaster risk governance system in Japan (Okada et al., 2008, p. 221). The Nagara River Estuary Barrage was designed for flood control and protection of water supply. However, local fisher people became opposed to the barrage and were joined by environmentalists. Unreconcilable conflicts arose between government officials, local citizens, and representatives of civil society organisations. This conflict “represents an example of a problem in which decision-makers were faced with difficult trade-offs between protection of public safety and important water resources on the one hand, and concerns about adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts of the barrage on the other.” (Okada et al., 2008, p. 221) A key takeaway from the case study is that conflicts may evolve as the premises and values that dominated the decisions in the early planning stages changed over time, leading to a disconnect with the public’s attitudes and values. The retrospective application of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework points towards the importance of “monitoring systems” for detecting emerging issues such as a shift in attitudes. Had there been an opportunity to identify, discuss and address these issues early in the project implementation, the ensuing lawsuits could have been avoided. Appropriate and “timelier implementation of the IRGC pre-assessment phase might have helped the conflict take a different path, leading to much faster resolution.” (Okada et al., 2008, p. 226) It is assumed Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 24 that the implementation of a concern assessment as specified by the IRCG Risk Governance Framework would have supported mutual understanding and provided venues for a more open-ended debate amongst opponents and proponents before the plan was decided and put into practice. Furthermore, the distinction between simple, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risk issues provides guidance if risk issues evolve over time. Even though the project had been considered a simple risk issue at the beginning, adherence to the cyclical nature of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework would have made the governance process more adaptive to a change in contextual parameters. Some critical reflections on the IRGC Risk Governance Framework: Several points of critique have been voiced against the IRGC Risk Governance Framework of which we will mention those most relevant to the Framework’s application in the DIRECTED Project. First, the Framework seems to be too broad conceptually and lacking analytical detail for it to be directly used in concrete cases. However, the Framework is intended first and foremost as a “conceptual framework incorporating a set of key principles for sound risk governance.” (Renn & Walker, 2008a, p. 337) As such, it provides guidance on how risks may be investigated and how stakeholder and public engagement may be organised. This versatility serves the intents and purposes of DIRECTED as well as opening the opportunity to integrate other methodological advancements and frameworks, such as the Tandem framework and the Risk Layering approach, with the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Second, some commentators were unclear if the Framework should be applied as ex-ante guidance for decision-making and processes that precede or accompany risks or for an expost evaluation of specific cases. While the emphasis has primarily been on leveraging a more inclusive approach towards risk governance in governmental agencies and risk management programmes (Renn & Walker, 2008a, p. 339), several case studies have assessed the value of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework for retrospective analyses (see Renn & Walker, 2008b). For DIRECTED, the Framework will serve both purposes. The Framework serves as a yardstick for inclusive and participatory risk governance in the initial phase of the project and as a building block for a DIRECTED specific RTF. Through the application of the RTF in the RWLs, conclusions will be drawn as to current risk governance mechanisms in the RWLs. Furthermore, the RTF will be adapted to the specific needs in the RWLs and the project as a whole through an iterative approach. In sum, the IRGC Risk Governance Framework serves in DIRECTED as both initial guidance for participatory risk governance and as a foundation for developing the tailored RTF. It represents a structured multi-dimensional approach to risk governance, where different aspects of risks are systematically addressed, and diverse inputs are valued to create a comprehensive risk management strategy, emphasizing stakeholder involvement and effective communication. Despite criticisms for being broad and conceptual, recent applications demonstrate its usefulness in addressing water management and disaster risk issues and highlight the importance of early identification and discussion of emerging issues. 2.1.3 SHIELD Model Given these limitations of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, and considering that it is a generic device, designed malleable enough to suit a range of risk-related problems from pandemics to accidents, there is a need to complement it with approaches specifically designed to support risk governance in the context of integrating DRM and CCA. For this purpose, the SHIELD Model can provide insights as a set of guidelines for enhancing risk management capabilities developed through various research and participatory activities in the ESPREssO Project - Enhancing Synergies for Disaster Prevention in the European Union (Lauta et al. 2018). 11 The model illustrates the interdependencies and interlinkage between management and governance in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate 11 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/700342 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 25 Change Adaptation (CCA). The approach takes a strong governance focus, recognising complex systems, and primarily targeting EU Member States and public officials/ institutions working on disaster risk and emergency management to enhance their risk management capabilities through disaster risk governance. It is framed around the Disaster Risk Management Cycle and its associated phases (i.e., response, recovery, prevention, preparedness) but recognises how these phases are dependent on various institutions, policies and structures and the need to support new sets of skills, such as cross-sectoral coordination and public engagement. The guidelines are organised around six themes, highlighting the key issues, associated recommendations and case study examples, as well as follow-up questions that form a checklist. The following list of themes is paraphrased from Lauta et al. (2018) emphasising their recommendations for integrating DRR and CCA: • Sharing knowledge: Siloed organisations, policy domains, and disciplines, result in limited sharing of knowledge across actors and disciplines and an overload of risk information that is not combined or aligned to meet the needs of specific DRM or CCA actors/ organisations. Recommendations include mapping of DRR and CCA knowledge actors, bridging gaps in science policy interface through intermediaries, facilitating knowledge sharing in diverse DRR and CCA networks, operational platforms or frameworks for collaboration, sharing DRR and CCA related data and information, and ensuring horizontal knowledge sharing across government sectors and vertically between national, regional and local levels. • Harmonising capacities: High-performing risk governance systems also require harmonised capacities across different skill levels to operate. They must also adapt to hazards, vulnerabilities and uncertainties. Recommendations include mapping existing technical/ material and human capacities, balance and matching them to climate and disaster risks, strengthening local partnerships and maintaining continuity by capturing synergies in DRR and CCA capabilities. • Institutionalising coordination: Holistic risk governance also requires institutionalised coordination, including mandates and cooperation mechanisms which can connect the levels of governance. Recommendations include clarifying mandates across climate, emergency and risk management agencies, encouraging flexibility to involve non-government and civil society actors affected by climate/ disaster risk, improving coordination through joint practical exercises or forums with DRR and CCA actors, and ensuring alignment of priorities, strategies, policies, mandates and terminology in DRR and CCA between public institutions. • Engaging stakeholders: Facing complex risks, traditional command-and-control approaches are inadequate. Thus, there is a need to expand the scope of stakeholders engaged. Recommendations include clarifying the role and responsibility of stakeholders for different tasks within DRR and CCA, communicating the value and mutual benefits for their participation, creating efficient and easily accessible web-based platforms for communication, utilising local knowledge and working through mediators. • Leveraging investments: Investing in the continuity of holistic risk management is central to reduce costs for response and recovery. However, in polycentric governance settings, it is often unclear who will bear the cost of risk reduction measures, and how to achieve long-term political commitment from all those involved. Recommendations include increasing the visibility of long-term DRR and CCA investments in terms of added-value, bridging connections between politicians and affected communities, and innovating within existing disaster risk financing structures to implement DRR and CCA strategies, nurturing partnerships with the private sector and government, providing consistent support for DRR and CCA investment beyond political election cycles, and capturing overlaps or synergies between DRR and CCA activities to increase efficient use of resources to implement plans and programmes. • Developing communication: Considering the abundance of information in our knowledge society, it is important to improve the communication of risk information with the public. This can also increase risk awareness among citizens and counteract poorly coordinated mass media coverage regarding emergencies. Recommendations to enhance communication Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 32 (Rogers, et al., 2013; Berkes, 2017). 16 In relation to the earlier arguments regarding the tendency of systems discourse to depoliticise and naturalise systems under their inspection (Walker and Cooper, 2011), it is also important to interrogate the underlying assumptions, ideologies and discursive practices embedded in the management of systemic risks. In acknowledgement of these issues, one can, in theory, leverage co-production to not only co-explore systemic risks, but use it to inform all involved stakeholders via the exchange of divergent perspectives to support transdisciplinary knowledge production in an unstructured manner. Indeed, given that the desire for stability often provides a sense of security, and thus favours the status quo (Cosens, et al., 2021), all previously set research agendas or ‘superior’ methods soothing this desire, risk reinforcing a normative reliance on themselves (and inhibit the potential for transformational change through the unexpected). Therefore, learning must be framed as an ongoing, adaptive process that fosters critical reflection and the constant synthesis of knowledge toward transformations (Kruse, et al., 2017). To this end, collective and dialogic problem-solving, reflexive practices, improvisation and adaptation are features of social learning that can be facilitated by co-productive approaches (Slater and Robinson, 2020). If seeking transformational systems change, transdisciplinary co-production can thus be leveraged to broaden the scope of selected discourses and disciplines beyond normative narratives whilst addressing issues such as hierarchies of power and expert-led governing. In summary, co-production is a central aspect of the RTF, emphasizing the collaborative creation of knowledge and decision-making in risk governance. It is seen as crucial for integrating various perspectives and knowledge systems, particularly for systemic risk management. Co-production helps bridge gaps between data and policy by addressing usability issues through utilizing stakeholders’ involvement in the knowledge-creation process. This approach differs from traditional expert-led models by valuing diverse inputs and perspectives, aiming to democratize risk governance. The application of co-production can enhance understanding and management of complex risks by incorporating 'non-traditional' knowledge and addressing social dynamics often overlooked by formal risk governance models. It fosters trust, improves communication, and deconstructs power hierarchies, making stakeholder engagement more equitable. Co-production also supports system transformations towards resilience, encouraging critical reflection and adaptive learning. 2.1.6 Structuring co-production through the Tandem Framework Despite its popularity and widespread usage, confusion remains as to what, precisely, is meant by the term “co-production”, and how to apply it effectively (Miller and Wyborn, 2020), as well as how co-production can best capture the socio-political dimensions underpinning the process (Turnhout, et al., 2020). To address these issues under DIRECTED, the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Tandem Framework (Daniels, et al., 2020; Bharwani, et al., 2024) has been selected to provide a non-prescriptive guide to co-production that seeks to handle these challenges head-on. 16 The point of adaptive governance; admitting uncertainty and coping with it. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 33 Figure 7: The Tandem Framework for transdisciplinary knowledge co-production (Bharwani, et al., 2024). Initially designed to support the co-production of climate services, Tandem seeks to address the gaps between science and policy by facilitating and guiding equal, iterative, and nonstructured collaboration for knowledge co-production whilst responding to the needs of the social context. By focusing on stakeholder engagement beyond ‘products’ to ‘process’, it also seeks to improve the coordination, collaboration, and communication between stakeholders (such as policymakers, planners, researchers, engineers, or modellers), and guide co-working by focusing on relationships and trust. Tandem also provides structure in conceptualising and implementing co-production amidst a vague field of literature – a limitation that often hinders its application to practice (Bandola-Gill, et al, 2022). The process has been divided into iterative phases that can be adapted to local context and needs based on associated guiding questions (Bharwani et al., 2024). These will be further discussed within the next section, in relation to the proposed RTF. Beyond the framework, presumed benefits of knowledge co-production are also worth reiterating here. For instance, if utilized to co-produce knowledge regarding systemic risk through the mapping of interdependencies, layers, networks or actors within a system and its sub-systems, it may produce more contextually accurate risk pictures by integrating ‘nontraditional’ ways of knowing (Hochrainer-Stigler, et al., 2024). Using the language of systemic risk management, co-production can help to bridge the ‘data-policy gap’ (Sillmann, et al., 2022:20) by integrating the multiple languages and perspectives of actors to mitigate the fundamental differences in understanding, data collection methods, datasets and information sources used in describing risk. This need is well-aligned with the ‘usability gap’ discussed in the context of climate services (Lemos, et al., 2012), which explains how useful climate information often goes unused since it is either not understood or does not match the needs of its users. Knowledge co-production can thus be used to patch data-policy and usability gaps by bridging participants and their knowledge systems together in a purposefully designed transdisciplinary knowledge integration setting supporting interoperability, collaboration, and communication (Daniels, et al., 2020; Bharwani et al., 2024). In a manner of speaking, coproduction under the RTF thus represents a mode of research seeking to create a more inclusive, socially robust and deliberative approach seeking to respond to contextual Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 34 challenges (Verwoerd, et al., 2022; Nordström, et al., 2020), structured via the application of the Tandem framework. The process has been divided into iterative phases (Figure 7), which can be adapted to the local context and needs. It begins with an optional phase, dedicated to scoping and reviewing vulnerabilities, risks, challenges and decision context, with a particular focus on exploring the climate or disaster risks perceived as most pressing among the selected stakeholders. Vulnerabilities, different knowledge systems and wider socioeconomic concerns may all be a part of this unstructured assessment phase, founding the application of the Framework steps. Following this initial stage, one may begin: 1. Scope, review, identify and engage, this forms the first element of the Tandem process, to scope and review climate and non-climate risks, vulnerabilities and impacts, as well as identify and engage stakeholders who may contribute to the issue at hand, including sectoral, institutional, and local actors. It also focuses on champions, change agents and those affected by decision-making, in efforts to accommodate the perspectives of those vulnerable and subject to acts of governing to support knowledge integration beyond expert narratives. 2. Co-exploring focuses on understanding the risk governance context, i.e., the riskrelated challenges that could be addressed via improved decision-making, improved access and use of risk information, and the scale of risks in their spatial and temporal dimensions. Furthermore, it is useful to begin identifying and co-exploring key challenges and common goals with stakeholders affected by risks (and decisionmaking). As needed, one may return to the first element as knowledge of challenges and goals increases to broaden the scope of engagement to guarantee that the knowledge, expertise and lived experience of participants selected to take part in the decision-making process reflect the issues at hand. Depending on the priorities of the stakeholders, co-exploration may focus on risks and the governance context, information needs and data, and/or specific hazard-related issues. 3. Co-design begins with identification and appraisal of solutions considering uncertainty, maladaptation, compound and cascading risks, synergies, trade-offs and co-benefits. (Bharwani, et al., 2024). It guides activities and engagements to dig deeper into these needs through co-production, by aiding and deconstructing underlying assumptions embedded in the data itself and supporting the distillation of information in a manner that is easily accessible to all involved. 4. Integrating new knowledge and partners aims at co-developing the capacities of both service providers as well as their users, in efforts to integrate co-produced knowledge and solutions, and to solidify partnerships between them toward lasting collaboration (Bharwani, et al., 2024). This emphasizes the identification of early actions that could be implemented, within a specific time frame, and what methods and approaches are suitable for their implementation. Data needs, financing, or support for communication and decision-making can all form a part of this stage. Synergies, tradeoffs and co-benefits should also be considered. Enhancing legacy and sustainability. This ongoing objective and ambition aim to institutionalize knowledge co-production processes in existing governance structures (with an emphasis on funding, communication, partnership and capacity development) to support the ownership, legacy and sustainability of resilient development beyond the lifetime of the project (Bharwani, et al., 2024). With this set of approaches in mind, the RTF integrates the best-suited aspects of them to establish a comprehensive approach for addressing complex real-world challenges. The frameworks selected for the RTF share similarities, synergies, and potential to fill gaps that each alone would leave behind. By adapting and incorporating components from each of these, we propose a solution that can simultaneously aid in identifying and outlining complex risk issues, determining entry points for their management, as well as supporting and exploring governance settings and mechanisms to promote the practical operationalisation and institutionalisation of these ambitions beyond the DIRECTED Project. In addition, to move beyond an expert-led, top-down, and process-based mechanism that rarely aligns well with real-world challenges (e.g., hindered by lack of communication, limited trust and misaligned knowledge systems), co-production will be introduced as the key component – a glue – with which it is possible to tie together operational principles in a manner that encourages their exploration and implementation through transdisciplinary collaboration. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 35 3.1 Combining existing frameworks The frameworks are combined as follows. Acknowledging the IRGC Risk Governance Framework’s core commitments to communication, stakeholder engagement and context, the Tandem Framework will be introduced as a process to mainstream the principles of coproduction in a structured manner within all IRGC phases from risk pre-assessment to their management. In other words, Tandem will be used to apply ‘traditional’ risk governance approaches (including problem-framing tools such as Risk Layering and multi-risk methodologies) with a commitment to non-hierarchical and non-structured transdisciplinary collaboration that encourages engagement, innovation, and commitment to the local risk governance context. In addition, the logical synergies between these two frameworks will be leveraged to maintain internal coherence. For example, the process of scoping, identifying relevant stakeholders and co-exploring the (risk) context aligns well with the phases of ‘preassessment’ and ‘appraisal’, seeking to frame the problem and characterise risks, respectively. By leveraging these frameworks, and focusing on elaborating systemic risks, the outputs are more likely to produce contextually accurate risk information, applicable to the RWL stakeholders. Within these, Risk Layering can be used as a storyline-based structuring device, in efforts to maintain the momentum of co-production toward DIRECTED ambitions. It especially can identify how the more risk assessment related needs can be aligned with already established and envisioned risk management practices (Figure 8). Similarly, it is possible to align the Tandem stages of exploring capacity development needs and identifying solutions with the IRGC phases of characterisation and management, comprising the outlining of risk reduction options, judging the tolerability or acceptability of the selected measures, and option identification and assessments. These are also flexible enough to accommodate contextual priorities, as determined by the participants throughout the coproduction process. For management, it is also useful to leverage Tandem phases, in efforts to integrate knowledge, distilling relevant information and data, and making it accessible to stakeholders is central for supporting the implementation of selected risk management solutions. As previously indicated, the Risk Layering approach was initially developed within insurance applications (Hochrainer-Stigler and Reiter 2021). Already here one can implicitly distinguish between frequent and infrequent events as the primary insurer usually focuses on smaller losses which occur with higher frequencies and transfers more infrequent events with larger corresponding losses to reinsurers. Losses from rare but catastrophic (very extreme) events cannot be managed through insurance and assistance is needed, e.g., the government steps in as an insurer of last resort. Not only risk financing, but also risk reduction can be included in such Risk Layering approaches with the assumption that risk reduction may be especially useful for tackling frequent risks (Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler 2015). The Risk Layer approach was expanded to include different types of risk management options, especially risk reduction, risk financing and assistance for different layers of risk (Mechler et al. 2014). For each of these Risk Layers, different risk metrics may be used to represent such kind of events. For example, for frequent events one may use average losses while for infrequent events one may use Tail measures (such as “Value at Risk”, that is, the maximum level of loss that is likely to occur in a certain period) or Expected Shortfall (such as “Conditional Value at Risk”, that is, the expected value of the part of the focused random variable that exceeds a certain threshold). Sometimes these events cannot be quantified but are seen by the risk bearer to belong to a given category, both in terms of events/risks as well as instruments to reduce them (Figure 8). As indicated within Figure 8, the Risk Layering approach can relate the risk assessment with the risk management part and therefore also provides ways forward how to bridge the gap between these two. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 36 Figure 8: General categorization scheme of the Risk Layering Approach to position stakeholders’ current Risk Layer and management options. The Risk Layering and general categorisation scheme shown above can be applied to all the IRGC Risk Governance Framework’s steps within the RTF and can be related not only to quantitative dimensions (models and data across scales), but also to governance processes and policies. It also highlights possible frictions, overlaps, and gaps across different stakeholders. In that regard, the question of how an event cannot be coped with, either due to the lack of risk management measures or insufficient resources, may have an effect on risks of different stakeholders, and could be utilized to expose previously unforeseen gaps. Finally, this proposed configuration will be aligned with the SHIELD Model, which provides thematic focus areas and capabilities to guide the integration of DRR and CCA across the four different phases of the DRM cycle from response to recovery, prevention, and preparedness. It also provides practical guidance on issues such as mapping the field of relevant actors, leveraging cross-sectoral investments, balancing national and local scales, exploring coordination mandates, mapping of capacities, and so on – methods that are otherwise absent from the IRGC and Tandem frameworks. Taken together, these approaches can thus form a foundation for managing complex and systemic risks, beginning from the principles of coproduction, expanding towards risk governance and multi-level collaboration, fit for the European context. Figure 9 visualizes how the Framework, approaches and processes – IRGC Risk Governance Framework, Tandem, Risk Layering and SHIELD – connect and complement one other, with stakeholder engagement and co-production as the common thread helping to integrate them all. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 37 Figure 9: Combining existing frameworks - IRGC, SHIELD, Tandem and Risk Layering. In synthesis, the integration of selected frameworks within the RTF aims to create a comprehensive approach to risk governance. It combines the IRGC risk governance framework's focus on communication and stakeholder engagement with the Tandem Framework's structured co-production process. This integration enhances effective application of traditional risk governance tools, such as Risk Layering and multi-risk methodologies, in a collaborative and non-hierarchical manner. The Risk Layering approach, originally developed for insurance applications, helps categorize different types of risks and management options. This approach is expanded to include risk reduction and financing strategies for various risk levels. The SHIELD Model adds practical guidance on integrating DRR and CCA across different DRM cycle phases. Together, these frameworks form a foundation for managing complex and systemic risks, emphasizing principles of co-production, multi-level collaboration, and stakeholder engagement to suit the European context. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 38 3.2 The emerging new RiskTandem Framework This conceptual overlay has been used to form the RTF, by seeking to harmonize these different models in a more concise and approachable manner, with an emphasis on the DIRECTED aims regarding the interoperability of data and governance systems. It is comprised of two main components represented in Figure 10. Firstly, the more conceptual framing facilitates the combination of risk governance approaches and knowledge coproduction processes, represented through incoming spirals that form the RTF with stakeholder engagement at its core connecting both sides. Secondly, the inner blue the RTF is expanded out to provide detail on the different layers of the Framework. Stakeholder engagement is placed at the centre considering the connection between the SHIELD Model theme on engaging stakeholders, the IRGC Risk Governance Framework’s focus on stakeholder engagement and Tandem Step 1. The next orange circle shows the steps of the Tandem process, surrounded by the phases of the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, which will embed Risk Layering and the general categorisation scheme as part of the analysis and co-production process. In the outer green circle, some of the SHIELD themes have been restructured to better align with the RTF, but its principles and guiding questions will continue to apply. Generating knowledge on risk governance and facilitating knowledge co-production in the RWLs helps in identifying areas for alignment between different modelling platforms, tools and their sources of data. In this regard, the application of the RTF in the RWLs does not only serve as a “proof of concept”, but also the possibility to adapt and improve the Framework. As such, there is scope to expand the sharing knowledge component under SHIELD to embed aspects pertaining to data, modelling, information interoperability, and the Data Fabric, the central federated data and model platform handled in DIRECTED Work Package 5. 17 The Framework can identify the key entry points for embedding and sustaining the outputs and solutions generated through the knowledge co-production process and the wider DIRECTED activities into practice or policy. This can relate to improving risk governance and knowledge co-production through improved communication and coordination, model/data/information interoperability, financing and resources distribution or mobilisation, and developing or sustaining institutional capacity and skills for DRR and CCA. For example, in the RWLs, this could mean operationalising the Data Fabric into the way they conduct risk assessment or mapping, utilising policy briefs for strategic advocacy, committing to sustaining a science-practice partnership or forum or embedding a new training programme. 17 The Data Fabric sets out to develop a reference architecture for the data infrastructure, services and capabilities required to achieve the vision of Interoperability for DRM and CCA. As stated in the DIRECTED Grant Agreement, the objective of Work Package 5 (in collaboration with other WPs), is to “[D]evelop the high-level architectural definition for the Data Fabric implementation required to support DDR and CCA Interoperability…” and “ [U]ndertake the configuration of a prototype covering the Use Cases defined within the RWLs…” (see DIRECTED Grant Agreement page 12, for more information) Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 39 Figure 10: The Risk-Tandem Framework. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 40 3.3 Monitoring, evaluating, and learning through the RiskTandem Framework Throughout the implementation of the RTF there is a continuous process of reflection, and as such, monitoring, evaluation, and learning are visualised as circling components around the RTF (Figure 10). This process is a central piece of Tasks 1.3 and 3.3 where Task 1.3 entails “[evaluating] the RTF’s performance in the RWLs. The task will be carried out in parallel to T3.3” (DIRECTED Grant Agreement, p. 8). Accordingly, Task 3.3 is outlined in two steps: “First, we will test the hypotheses developed in T3.2 and where possible apply recommendations for improving governance in the RWLs. […] Second, we will update and improve the RTF based on empirical evidence generated in RWLs by means of interviews and multi-stakeholder workshops” (DIRECTED Grant Agreement, p. 10). The RTF involves monitoring, evaluating and learning (MEL) around a set of indicators focusing on multiple dimensions, such as outcomes of training and capacity development with RWLs, the outcomes of plans and risk management solutions designed and implemented by RWL stakeholders and the effectiveness of the governance mechanisms in strengthening multi-stakeholder engagement, facilitating interoperability, and stimulating knowledge exchange. There is a strong body of literature on governance evaluation from the fields of risk and environmental management. For example, Alexander et al. (2016) identifies criteria for evaluating flood risk governance, including societal resilience (capacity to resist, absorb, recover, and adapt), resource efficiency, and legitimacy (social equity, accountability, transparency, participation, access to information, procedural justice, acceptability). Similarly, the OECD Principles of Water Governance use criteria on effectiveness (capacity, policy coherence, scales, roles and responsibilities), efficiency (data/ information, financing, regulation, innovation), and trust and engagement (integrity/ transparency, stakeholder engagement, trade-offs, monitoring and evaluation) to evaluate water and related risk governance structures (Akhmouch et al. 2016). Further in the water resources domain, Carr et al. (2012) outline three main evaluation methods for measuring effective stakeholder participation through (1) Process evaluations, (2) Intermediary outcome evaluations, and (3) Resource management outcome evaluations. Within the climate adaptation and risk governance scholarship, social learning is used as an evaluative indicator for successful stakeholder engagement and used to evaluate specific risk governance mechanisms, such as partnerships. For example, Benson et al. (2016) evaluated social learning in the Regional Flood and Coastal Committees in England. The concept of accountability is used across governance and legal literature as an intertwined indicator and mechanism for understanding and evaluating risk governance and stakeholder engagement. Accountability can elaborate standards for the evaluation of the behaviour of (public) actors (such as transparency, decision-making rules and stakeholder participation), but can also be seen as a mechanism i.e., an institutional relationship or arrangement in which an agent can be held to account by another agent or institution (Bovens, 2010). Accountability mechanisms, and potential sanctions, do not need to be only legal in nature. Bovens (2007) argues that multiple mechanisms for accountability exist: political (e.g., accountability of elected representatives), legal (e.g., courts and judicial processes), administrative, professional (e.g., public inquiry and professional bodies), and social forms (e.g., community participation and publicity). Accountability mechanisms and resulting processes enable policymakers and administrators to reflect on and learn from the successes and failures of their policies (Bovens, 2007). Furthermore, procedural rights are of particular importance in environmental, risk, and climate issues as they place the participation and empowerment of local communities at the heart of the policy-making processes. The procedural right to access information, public participation, and access justice are recognised as rights under international law, for example as set out in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992). Such rights intersect with the concept of accountability since they can hold actors to account and can enable or hinder stakeholder engagement processes and resulting policy outcomes. In the Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 41 context of the RTF, the availability and effectiveness of such accountability mechanisms and procedural rights can be assessed as part of the risk governance analysis. Where deemed most appropriate, accountability can be used to evaluate the outcomes and impact of stakeholder engagement and knowledge co-production processes and any resulting governance mechanisms in the RWLs. Importantly, indicators such as participation and inclusion play a central role for the MEL aspects of the RTF. In line with the ethics recommendations set forth in WP 8, Deliverable 8.2, we underline the importance of positive bias, i.e., actively amplifying the voices of historically marginalized groups in the decision-making process. From a conceptual perspective, this is highlighted in the following analytical framing, specifically in steps 2,3, and 4. Practically speaking, the DIRECTED project seeks to create safer spaces of discussion and deliberation, as well as guide the RWLs in creating such spaces themselves through workshops and presentations (see Annex III). Given the dynamic and contextual nature of the RTF, it would be counterproductive to provide a static set of indicators. While tried and tested indicators from the existing approaches (e.g., SHIELD and the vulnerability index, or the IRGC’ s list of indicators) serve as a baseline and are presented to the RWLs, the innovative methodology of the RTF is based on its co-creative and context-sensitive application process. We have therefore developed an analytical lens in order to enable WP 3 to both assess and evaluate the risk governance processes found in the various RWLs, while also basing the application of the RTF on the various needs through the RWLs. Accordingly, this lens then also serves as a starting point for the exact assessment of indicators for the monitoring, evaluation, and learning phase. 1. First, the RTF asks how the institutional structures within the RWLs are influenced by the formal and informal rules that reproduce, inhibit, or facilitate various decisions and interactions. This framing builds on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Ostrom 2010; Poski & Ostrom 2017). The Risk-Tandem Framework conceptualizes institutions as a repetition of decisions made under the influence of a set of formal and informal rules. Further, these repeated decisions are assumed to be made in line with a specific outcome or goal that the institution seeks to achieve. This conceptualization allows for the assessment of the decision-structures found throughout the various RWLs. It also highlights the importance of informal and formal procedures that underpin each decision made in the context of DRR and CCA within the RWLs. On this basis, the formal and informal rules guiding the decision process, as well as the various goals, become a first set of indicators for the assessment and management of risk strategies in the RWLs. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 48 making (see more in Blog post). 18 The training included interactive exercises on stakeholder (target group),knowledge mapping (see template in Annex IV), and solution co-exploration using creative and playful materials to stimulate interactive discussions. These interactive exercises were very useful for the RWL hosts in supporting their stakeholder interactions and exploration of risk governance. For example, the Capital Region of Denmark applied the interactive exercises in the Facilitator Guidance Note, while the Emilia-Romagna RWL created a dynamic and interactive RWL workshop after being inspired by the online training and in-person World Café. The game and creative exercises stimulated new ideas for their co-production activities with their RWLs. The trainings demonstrated the importance of tailoring future support for the RWLs hosts to capture knowledge from their RWL stakeholders to apply and refine the RTF. 3.4.2 Phase 2: Growth The Growth Phase involves the RWLs applying or expanding the application of the tools and guidance provided in the Foundation Phase to co-explore the needs in the RWLs through Risk-Tandem. The Risk-Tandem knowledge co-production process is actively applied by the RWL hosts through workshops to co-explore the challenges and priorities together with scientists, modelers and the RWL-identified stakeholders across practice and policy. Knowledge co-production training continues in response to needs from RWL as well as exploration of technical data/ models and tools to support emerging integrated/ interoperable solutions, in line with the Capacity Development Strategy (D1.2). A deeper baseline risk governance assessment is undertaken/ planned to build on the knowledge and priorities emerging from the RWL workshops, interviews, and questionnaires in the foundation phase. Baseline (deep dive) risk governance assessment A continuous assessment of the existing risk governance approaches throughout the RWLs is underway. The information and data gathered are compiled into governance assessment overviews for each RWL, and will be ready by the end of Month 27. These assessments are based on a variety of tools introduced through the RTF. Firstly, the assessments rely on a series of governance assessment questions (Annex V), which investigate the current risk governance status and institutional context of the RWLs. This will also aid in adding context to each RWL’s governance arrangements. The assessment analyses actor networks, rules, and resources, as well as the processes concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analyzed, and communicated, and implemented decisions. Secondly, the risk governance assessments implement the institutional assessment framework, in conjunction with a stakeholder action grid document. This step facilitates a better understanding of which roles, goals, capacities both formal and informal, and norms the respective stakeholders prioritize (see Figure 12). Data will be collected through engagement with RWLs (e.g., interviews/group discussions) and document/ policy analysis, building on the data generated through the workshops. 18 See blogpost on the Breaking the Silos game application with the RWLs https://DIRECTEDproject.eu/blog/breaking-the-silos-towards-knowledge-co-production-inreal-world-lab/ Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 49 Throughout this phase, WP 3 provided support and guidance for RWLs to conduct risk governance analyzes, while continuously collecting data through workshops, interviews, questionnaires, and focus group discussions. 19 Bilateral discussions continue between WP 3/4 and RWL hosts to reflect on progress in their RWL and discuss emerging needs. Risk-Tandem Framework for RWL co-exploration The knowledge co-production capacity development activities of WP 4 will support guiding the RWLs to build user stories to help focus the co-exploration of integrated and interoperable solutions emerging from WP 2 including hazard modelling, risk and impact assessment tools (e.g., RIM2D, CLIMADA, SaferPlaces, FutureDanube Model and DTU Cost Damage Assessment tool) as a part of WP 2’s tool for demonstrations. These user stories are developed by WP 3 in collaboration with WP 4 and WP 5, as per Data Fabric user requirements, to aid in identifying key DRR and CCA integration challenges for each RWLs, pinpointing key user benefit solutions that emerge from the project. Their stories seek to answer questions such as: Who is affected and involved in the decision process; What are they trying to achieve; and Why individuals make any given choice? 19 See Annex III for the Guidance Note on Focus Group Discussion for RWLs. Figure 12: The Stakeholder Action Grid. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 50 This phase of co-exploration seeks to support collaborative and transdisciplinary efforts to understand contextual risks and governance challenges. The goal is to identify potential opportunities for developing effective solutions. Through a utilization of Risk Layering and rich picture methods this phase aims to build a holistic understanding of risk issues with considerations to issues such as socio-economic vulnerability and climate change, and where these may overlap in risk management practice. Models will also be utilized to uncover any overlap. Models will also be utilized as a starting point to instigate discussions regarding expected climate impacts and management priorities vis-à-vis state-of-the-art data. Climate storylines (Bachmann et al. 2024; Gill et al. 2022) and other narrative or visioning approaches will explore past and future extreme (multi-hazard) climate scenarios for enabling integrated DRM and CCA planning and event management (including forecasting and warning phase) using the tool demonstrations emerging from WP 2. Event-based storylines put emphasis on the qualitative understanding of the driving factors involved and their plausibility rather than quantitative precision. Storylines as a physically self-consistent unfolding of past events bring together the experiences of how an extreme event was experienced in a descriptive narrative that can be used to be better prepared for the future. The use of past events as a baseline for storyline development assures a credible justification for the selection of events and provides a highly relevant context of the already experienced risks. Climate storylines can help articulate the links between risk and their management in a coherent way that can be understood by stakeholders and motivate policy change and action. Such a climate or disaster storylines approach helps focusing on how the RTF (Risk Layering in particular) can be used in RWL co-production workshops to explore past, current and future scenarios and multi-criteria decision-making (developing tools/ methods etc.). 3.4.2 Phase 3: Learn The third phase of the Risk-Tandem implementation is Learn. This step emphasizes involves a strong focus on reflection and developing solutions in response to the priorities and needs emerging from the knowledge co-production workshops. RWL hosts/facilitators can adapt their stakeholder engagement and co-production process based on the learning from the Growth phase to refine solutions, and appraise potential ‘best Figure 13: Inter-connectivity between DIRECTED tasks in the RWLs. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 51 practices’ regarding the process to co-design integration, and interoperable risk management/ governance solutions. The lessons generated from the application of RiskTandem will hone recommendations for tailored governance mechanisms in each RWL. This phase may include testing co-production-based governance mechanisms, documenting emerging policy recommendations, and developing integrated visualisations of risk to support specific stakeholders’ needs. This phase is closely linked to the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning process outlined in section 3.3 of this report. Phase three focuses specifically on Task 1.3 regarding the RTF application outcomes in RWLs and Task 3.3 which captures the learning from the application to inform the revised framework. For monitoring and evaluating knowledge co-production and the overall quality of the process in relation to outcomes, WP 4 has developed a comprehensive approach to implementing MEL of knowledge co-production (encapsulating capacity development and knowledge co-production outcomes). Although separate, these link to the overall DIRECTED reporting in two dimensions. 1) Risk-Tandem monitoring will seek to measure the outcomes and impacts to improved resilience and strengthened risk governance (overall approach), whereas knowledge co-production seeks to assess whether the coproduction added benefits to otherwise technical, managerial or hierarchical processes that tend to characterize risk governance operations, and whether their perceived benefits were equally shared among all involved stakeholders. 3.4.4 Phase 4: Sustain The fourth phase Sustain, captures the learning from the implementation of Risk-Tandem as a whole, the capacity strengthening activities for knowledge co-production, and the governance mechanism. This phase will focus on supporting institutionalisation by generating guidance on how to sustain the knowledge exchange within the RWL post-project. The original RTF will also be revised and updated based on the cumulative insights from the application in the RWLs. The RTF application needs to be feasible with efficient use of stakeholders’ resources, such that it can be continuously used and sustained throughout the RWLs. In the case of our RWLs, we have continuously engaged in discussions regarding expectations and feasibility, in efforts to better align theory with practice of risk governance. However, this affects the theoretical ambition as presented in the Framework; it cannot be applied in a homogenous manner, but instead is tailored and adapted to support the needs of local stakeholders. This will reshape the conceptualization of the RTF, and by the end of the DIRECTED project, will be compiled to provide practical and real-world guidance for advancing integrated risk management in complex risk contexts. Through this engagement with RWLs, the framework will be further developed to support practical implementation, including guidance and activities. The ultimate aim is to provide an iterative, reflexive and process-based approach to transdisciplinary co-production in risk governance contexts, versatile enough to be used by stakeholders, practitioners and decision makers at various scales navigate complex risk governance challenges. As part of Task 6.4 in collaboration with Task 3.3 (updated Risk-Tandem) and WP 4 Training of the Trainers models, the RTF will be repackaged in a user-friendly way to support wider application and guidance for DRR and CCA professionals through the e-Learning platform – see further details and initial plans outlined in D6.3 Knowledge Transfer Plan. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 52 4 Conclusion This deliverable gives a state-of-the-art review of a diverse set of risk governance and management approaches. Building on these approaches, it sets out to establish the RTF for the governance and management of disaster risks throughout the various RWLs, reports on progress made so far in the project, and shows how the newly developed framework is being applied throughout the RWLs. RTF serves as a tool to enhance communication and cooperation across, institutions, sectors and scales of all actors involved in Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation. The Framework sets out to facilitate data and model interoperability using interconnected models and outlines the co-design of a flexible Data Fabric for DRM/CCA decision-making, and information interoperability by supporting the flow of information between phases and actors working across DRM/CCA. The RTF is based on a diverse set of existing frameworks, upon which it builds and further expands. Serving as a conceptual background theory that supports the ontological questions underlying institutional decision-making and governance, Risk-Tandem relies on the Institutional Analysis and Development Approach. The International Risk Governance Council’s approach provides several generic tools for the identification, assessment, and governance of various disaster risks. Further, the SHIELD Model, developed and applied in the ESPREssO Project, will support risk governance analysis through its practical insights for integrating DRR and CCA. Risk Layering supports the quantification process, as well as providing methodological approaches toward the weighing and comparing of various disaster scenarios. Finally, the RTF is also a centrally co-productive approach, which entails robust, bottom-up approach that emphasizes meaningful theory building exercises utilizing participation from the RWLs. The established framework serves as a governance tool to analyse and enhance DRM and CCA throughout the RWLs, aligning with the objectives of the DIRECTED project. As we move forward with the implementation of the RTF in various RWLs, it will evolve based on practical experiences and insights, tailored to the needs of the respective stakeholders. The application process will further provide space for learning and reiterating the RTF to better assess how the approach may be applicable beyond the RWL cases. Crucial steps have been taken throughout the time leading up to this deliverable to set the stage for the application of the RTF to the various RWLs (a process described in-depth in the upcoming Deliverable 3.2). The groundwork for the practical application of the RTF has been laid in the form of an applicable methodology, the integrated risk governance and co-creation toolbox, as well as the conceptual lens through which various indicators can be developed in a context sensitive manner to fit the needs of the RWLs. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 53 References Alexander, M., Priest, S., & Mees, H. (2016). A framework for evaluating flood risk governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, 38-47. Akhmouch, A., & Correia, F. N. (2016). The 12 OECD principles on water governance–When science meets policy. Utilities Policy, 43, 14-20. Arts, B., Leroy, P. and Van Tatenhove, J., 2006. Political modernisation and policy arrangements: a framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review, 6, pp.93-106. Bachmann et al. (2024) Desk review of existing CRA frameworks. Horizon Europe CLIMAAX Project, grant agreement No 101093864, pp 82. Bankoff, G. and Hilhorst, D. (2022) Why Vulnerability Still Matters: The Politics of Disaster Risk Creation, London: Routledge Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, M. Ritter (trans.), London: Sage Publications Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I., & Cook, H. (2016). Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: an ‘individual-community interaction’ perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 326-334. Berkes, F. (2017) ‘Environmental Governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological Systems, Resilience and Collaborative Learning’, Sustainability, 9(7) Bevir, M. and Rhodes R. (2006) Governance Stories, London and New York: Routledge Bevir, M., Needham, C. and Waring, J. (2019) ‘Inside Co-production: Ruling, Resistance, and Practice’, Social Policy and Administration, 53(2), pp. 197-202 Bharwani, S., Gerger Swartling, Å., André, K., Santos Santos, T. F., Salamanca, A., Biskupska, N., Takama, T., Järnberg, L., & Liu, A. (2024). Co-designing in Tandem: Case study journeys to inspire and guide climate services. Climate Services, 35, 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2024.100503 Boholm, Å., Corvellec, H. and Karlsson, M. (2012) ‘The Practice of Risk Governance: Lessons from the Field’, Journal of Risk Research, 15(1), pp. 1-20 Bovens, M. (2010) ‘Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism’ West European Politics 33(5) Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A conceptual framework 1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. Braun, B. P. (2014) ‘A New Urban Dispositif? Governing Life in an Age of Climate Change’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1) Carr, G., Blöschl, G., & Loucks, D. P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review. Water Resources Research, 48(11). Chaffin, B. C. (2022) ‘Panarchy and the Governance of Social-Ecological Systems’, Applied Panarchy: Applications and Diffusion Across Disciplines, L. H. Gunderson, C. R. Allen and A. Garmestani (eds.), Washington D. C.: Island Press Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), UNISDR. "Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998-2017." Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Brussels, Belgium 33 (2018). Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. (2009) ‘Reflections on the Anthropology of Law, Governance and Sovereignty’, In F. von Benda-Beckmann, K. von Benda-Beckmann, and J. Eckert (eds.), Rules of Law and Laws of Ruling: On the Governance of Law, Munich: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Cosens, B., Ruhl, J. B., Soininen, N. and Similä, J. (2021) ‘Governing Complexity: Integrating Science, Governance, and Law to Manage Accelerating Change in the Globalized Commons’, PNAS, 118(36) Daniels, E., Bharwani, S., Swartling, Å., Vulturius, G. and Brandon, K. (2020) ‘Refocusing the Climate Service Lens: Introducing a Framework for Co-designing “Transdisciplinary Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 54 Knowledge Integration Processes” to Build Climate Resilience,’ Climate Services, 19, pp. 1-15 Davies, J. S. (2012) ‘Network Governance Theory: A Gramscian Critique’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(11) Djalante, R. and Lassa, S. (2019) ‘Governing Complexities and its Implication on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Priority 2 on Governance’, Progress in Disaster Science, 2 DellaSala, D. A., Goldstein, M. I., Elias, S. A., Jennings, B., Lacher, T. E., Mineau, P., & Pyare, S. (2018). The Anthropocene: How the Great Acceleration Is Transforming the Planet at Unprecedented Levels. In D. A. Dellasala & M. I. Goldstein (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene (pp. 1–7). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-809665-9.09957-2 Deubelli, T. M. and Mechler, R. (2021) ‘Perspectives on Transformational Change in Climate Risk Management and Adaptation’, Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), pp. 53002 EEA, 2022. Advancing towards climate resilience in Europe —Status of reported national adaptation actions in 2021. EEA Report No 11/2022. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2800/517467 EPA (2022) Enhancing Integration of Disaster Risk and Climate Change Adaptation into Irish Emergency Planning. (2019-CCRP-DS.23) Environment Protection Agency Research Report no. 419. Authors: Medway, P., Cubie, D., and Le Tissier, M. Available at: https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/climate-change/Research_Report_419.pdf Faas, A. J. (2016) ‘Disaster Vulnerability in Anthropological Perspective’, Annals of Anthropological Practice, 40(1), pp. 14-27 Florin, M. V., & Parker, S. D. (2020). Involving stakeholders in the risk governance process (No. REP_WORK). EPFL International Risk Governance Center Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, C. Gordon (ed.), New York, NY: Random House Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gill, J.C. et al (2022) MYRIAD-EU D1.2 Handbook of Multi-hazard, Multi-Risk Definitions and Concepts. H2020 MYRIAD-EU Project, grant agreement number 101003276, pp 75. Goerlandt, F., & Pelot, R. (2020). An Exploratory Application of the International Risk Governance Council’s Risk Governance Framework to Shipping Risks in the Canadian Arctic. In A. Chircop, F. Goerlandt, C. Aporta, & R. Pelot (eds.), Governance of Arctic Shipping (pp. 15–41). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-44975-9_2 Goldin, I., & Mariathasan, M. (2015). The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press. Gunderson, L. (2010) ‘Ecological and Human Community Resilience in Response to Natural Disasters’, Ecology and Society, 15(2) Hochrainer-Stigler,Stefan Célian Colon, Gergely Boza, Sebastian Poledna, Elena Rovenskaya, Ulf Dieckmann,; Enhancing resilience of systems to individual and systemic risk: Steps toward an integrative framework,International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 51, 2020, 101868, ISSN 2212-4209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101868. Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Deubelli-Hwang, T. M., Mechler, R., Dieckmann, U., Lauerien, F. and Handmer, J. (2023) ‘Closing the ‘Operationalisation Gap’: Insights from Systemic Risk Research to Inform Transformational Adaptation and Risk Management’, Climate Risk Management Hochrainer-Stigler, Stefan, et al. "Toward a framework for systemic multi-hazard and multirisk assessment and management." Iscience 26.5 (2023). Hofbauer, Benjamin. "Normative Uncertainty in Solar Climate Engineering Research Governance." Ethics, Policy & Environment (2023): 1-20. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 55 IFRC, 2020-b, “Climate-smart disaster risk reduction: Helping communities reduce their risks, protect themselves and prepare for emergencies”, https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Climate-smart-DRR-IFRC2020.pdf [13.12.2023] IRGC, International Risk Governance Council. (2005). Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. White Paper No. 1, Author O. Renn with an Annex by P. Graham. Geneva: IRGC. IRGC, International Risk Governance Council. (2007). An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework. Policy Brief. Geneva: IRGC. Islam, S., Chu, C., Smart, J. C. R., & Liew, L. (2020). Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a systematic literature review. Climate and Development, 12(3), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1613217 Jessop, B. (1998) ‘The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development’, International Social Science Journal, 50(155), pp. 29-45 Jasanoff, S. (2004), ‘Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society’, States of Knowledge: The CoProduction of Science and Social Order, London: Routledge, pp. 13-45 Kelman, I., Gaillard, J. C. and Mercer, J. (2015) ‘Climate Change’s Role in Disaster Risk Reduction’s Future: Beyond Vulnerability and Resilience’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6, pp. 21-27 Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2019) ‘The Coming of Age of Risk Governance’, Risk Analysis, 41(1), pp. 1-14 Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 273-292. Kooiman, J., (1999). Social-political governance: overview, reflections and design. Public Management - An International Journal of Research and Theory, 1(1), pp.67-92. Kruse, S., Abeling, T., Deeming, H., Fordham, M., Forrester, J., Jülich, S., Nuray Karanci, A., Kuhlicke, C., Pelling, M., Pedoth, L., Schneiderbauer, S. and Sharpe, J. (2017) ‘Conceptualizing Community Resilience to Natural Hazards – the embrace Framework’, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(12), pp. 2321-2333 Kuenzi, C., & McNeely, J. (2008). Nature-Based Tourism. In O. Renn & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 155– 178). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0_8 Latour, B. (2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, C. Porter (trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Lauta, K. C., Albris, K., Zuccaro, G., Grandjean, G., (Eds.) (2018). ESPREssO Enhancing Risk Management Capabilities Guidelines. Available at: www.espressoproject.eu . Leonard, M. (1999) Network Europe: The New Case for Europe, London: Foreign Policy Centre Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J. and Ramprasad, V. (2012) ‘Narrowing the Climate Information Usability Gap’, Nature Climate Change, 2, pp. 789-794 Levi-Faur, David. The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford University Press, 2012. Luhmann, N. (1990) ‘World Society as a Social System’, Essays on Self-Reference, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 175-190 Luhmann, N. (1997) ‘Limits of Steering’, Theory, Culture and Society, 14(1), pp. 41-57 MacKinnon, D. and Derickson, K. D. (2012) ‘From Resilience to Resourcefulness: A Critique of Resilience Policy and Activism’, Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), pp. 253-270 Mayntz, R. (1998) ‘New Challenges to Governance Theory’, Jean Monet Chair Paper No. 50, Florence: European University Institute Mayntz, R. (2006) ‘From Government to Governance: Political Steering in Modern Societies’, Governance of Integrated Product Policy, London: Routledge Medway, P., Flood, S., Cubie, D., & Le Tissier, M. (2022). Enhancing integration of disaster risk and climate change adaptation into Irish emergency planning. In S. Flood, M. Le Tissier, Y. Jerez Columbié & B. O’Dwyer (eds), Creating Resilient Futures: Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction, Sustainable Development Goals and Climate Change Adaptation Agendas (pp. 83-108) Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-80791-7 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 56 Mercer, J. (2010) ‘Disaster Risk Reduction or Climate Change Adaptation: Are We Reinventing the Wheel?’, Journal of International Development, 22(2), pp. 247-264 Miller, C. A. and Wyborn, C. (2020) ‘Co-Production in Global Sustainability: Histories and Theories’, Environmental Science and Policy, 113, pp. 88-95 Newig, J., and O. Fritsch. (2009). ‘Environmental Governance: Participatory, multi-level – and effective?’ Environmental Policy and Governance 19(3):197–214. Okada, N., Tatano, H., & Takagi, A. (2008). Nagara River Estuary Barrage Conflict. In O. Renn & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 221–230). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-14020-6799-0_10 Oliver-Smith, A. and Hoffman, S. (2020) The Angry Earth: Disasters in Anthropological Perspective, D. Scheer and F. Rubik (eds.), London: Routledge Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. Pescaroli, G., Nones, M., Galbusera, L. and Alexander, D. (2018) ‘Understanding and Mitigating Cascading Crises in the Global Interconnected System’, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30, pp. 159-163 Polski, M. M., & Ostrom, E. (2017). An Institutional Framework for Policy Analysis and Design. In D. H. Cole & M. D. McGinnis (Eds.), Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy (Vols 3, A Framework for Policy Analysis). Lexington Books. https://ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/doc/teaching/iad-for-policy-applications.pdf Renn, O. (2008) Risk Governance Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World, London: Routledge Renn, O., 2015. Stakeholder and public involvement in risk governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6, pp.8-20. Renn, O., Klinke, A. and van Asselt, M. (2011) ‘Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis’, Ambio, 40(2), pp. 231-246 Renn, O. and Schweizer, P.-J. (2009) ‘Inclusive Risk Governance: Concepts and Application to Environmental Policy Making’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), pp. 174185 Renn, O., & Walker, K. (2008a). Lessons Learned: A Re-Assessment of the IRGC Framework on Risk Governance. In O. Renn & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 331–367). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0_14 Renn, O., & Walker, K. D. (Eds.). (2008b). Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (Vol. 1). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781-4020-6799-0 Renn, O., Laubichler, M., Lucas, K., Kröger, W., Schanze, J., Scholz, R. W., & Schweizer, P. (2022). Systemic Risks from Different Perspectives. Risk Analysis, 42(9), 1902–1920. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13657 Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007) ‘Understanding Governance: Ten Years On’, Organization Studies, 28(8) Roco, M., Renn, O., & Jäger, A. (2008). Nanotechnology Risk Governance. In O. Renn & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 301–327). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-40206799-0_13 Rogers, K. H., Luton, R., Biggs, H., Biggs, R., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., Palmer, C. G. and Tangwe, P. (2013) ‘Fostering Complexity Thinking in Action Research for Change in Social-Ecological Systems’, Ecology and Society, 18(3) Schulz, K. and Siriwardane, R. (2015) ‘Depoliticised and Technocratic? Normativity and the Politics of Transformative Adaptation’ Earth System Governance Working Paper, 33, Lund and Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project Schweizer, P.-J. (2021). Systemic risks – concepts and challenges for risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 24(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1687574 Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 57 Schweizer, P-J. and Renn, O. (2019) ‘Governance of Systemic Risks for Disaster Prevention and Mitigation’, Disaster Prevention and Management, 28(6), pp. 862-874 Shore, C. (2006) ‘Government Without Statehood? Anthropological Perspectives on Governance and Sovereignty in the European Union’, European Law Journal, 12(6), pp. 709-724 Sillmann, J., Christensen, I., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Huang-Lachman, J-T., Juhola, S., Kornhuber, K., Mahecha, M. D., Mechler, R., Reichstein, M., Ruane, A. C., Schweizer, P-J., and Williams, S. (2022) Briefing Note on Systemic Risk: Review and Opportunities for Research, Policy and Practice from the Perspective of Climate, Environmental and Disaster Risk Science and Management, Geneva: UNDRR Slater, K. and Robinson, J. (2020) ‘Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Co-Production: A Social Practice Approach’, Sustainability, 12(18) Sørensen, E., (2013). ‘Institutionalizing interactive governance for democracy’. Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), pp.72-86. Taebi, Behnam, Jan H. Kwakkel, and Céline Kermisch. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11.5 (2020): e666. Tait, J. (2008). Risk Governance of Genetically Modified Crops – European and American Perspectives. In O. Renn & K. D. Walker (Eds.), Global Risk Governance: Concept and Practice Using the IRGC Framework (pp. 133–153). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0_7 Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. and Louder, E. (2020) ‘The Politics of Coproduction: Participation, Power and Transformation’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp. 15-21 UN, 2017 “Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction”. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/50683_oiewgreportenglish.pdf Walker, J. and Cooper, M. (2011) ‘Geneaologis of Reslience: From Systems Ecology to the Political Economy of Crisis Adaptation’, Security Dialogue, 42(2), pp. 143-160 Wisner, B. (2020) ‘Five Years Beyond Sendai – Can We Get Beyond Frameworks?’ International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 11, pp. 239 -249 Woo, Gordon. (2011) Calculating catastrophe. World Scientific Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 64 Contacts WP 3 (governance): Pia-Johanna Schweizer, [email protected], Lydia Cumiskey, [email protected] WP 4 (knowledge): Janne Parviainen, janne.parviai[email protected], Sukaina Bharwani, sukaina.bharwa[email protected]. We are always available for a ‘coffee talk’ to share challenges and learning on your stakeholder engagement journey in your RWL. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 65 ANNEX III: Risk-Tandem Framework Briefing Note Risk-Tandem Framework Briefing note Challenge • To understand governance, hazards and climate change as an interconnected complex system, characterized by uncertainty and feedback mechanisms which continuously produce new risks and vulnerabilities. • Understanding the complexities systemic interdependencies, the drivers of risk and the cascading or compounding impacts of multi-risk events to socio-ecological systems. • Capturing synergies between Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) decision-making processes, governance mechanisms, resources and data (modelling and interoperability of information). Expected outcomes/ impact • Adaptive, collaborative and inclusive governance of DRR and CCA that enables resilience against climate change, extreme weather and multi-risk events. • Co-production of knowledge fostering transformative social learning under uncertainty. Risk-Tandem Framework Risk-Tandem is a risk governance framework intended for the delivery of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production processes, capacity strengthening, evaluation and learning in the DIRECTED Real-World Labs. This tailormade framework is developed deductively by utilizing existing frameworks and approaches as entry points, as well as the needs from the RWLs. It combines a stakeholder centric engagement process to co-produce knowledge, alongside the assessment of barriers and enablers regarding risk governance, to address specific problems/challenges identified in RWLs. Stakeholder engagement is the central ‘core’ of the Risk-Tandem Framework bringing together risk governance and Tandem coproduction process. This is visualized on the left-hand side of Figure 1. Tandem1 refers to the knowledge co-production process occurring within Risk-Tandem, designed and implemented together with scientists, modelers, decision-makers, private sector representatives, practitioners and civil society organizations through workshops in the RWL. The transdisciplinary stakeholder engagement process continuously strengthens the capacity of RWL hosts and participants to understand the context, identify problems and bridge scientific models/data/tools with needs to identify solutions for enhanced resilience. The steps of the Tandem process can be seen on the right side of Figure 1 (orange circle) but may adapt as the project evolves. The risk governance assessment will examine existing governance arrangements and contexts in each RWL with respect to the actor networks, rules (laws, regulations, formal/informal), resources (power/ influence, financing), as well as the mechanisms/processes concerned with how relevant risk information is collected, analyzed and communicated, and decisions are taken. Data will be collected through consultation/engagement with RWLs (e.g., interviews/ group discussions) and document/policy analysis. This data will supplement the data collected in the workshops via the Tandem process and help to set the focus of the Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 66 workshops and feed the outputs to support risk governance - see circle surrounding the Tandem process in Figure1 (based on the IRGC risk governance framework). The lessons generated from the application of the Tandem process in the RWL combined with insights from the risk governance assessment will generate recommendations for tailored governance mechanisms in each RWL to institutionalize (guide and sustain) the knowledge exchange post-project and facilitate co-ownership among stakeholders. For example, a place-based or practice-based partnerships/forums/networks, or dedicated ‘boundary spanning’ staff roles. Tandem can also be considered a governance mechanism for knowledge co-production, but the key is to embed it into the existing governance mechanisms or establish supporting mechanisms for it to be sustained. To facilitate the institutionalization process of the activities within DIRECTED, throughout the project the Risk-Tandem Framework will identify entry points for embedding the activities and solutions generated through the Tandem process and across other Work Package activities. This can relate to improving governance through communication and coordination, model/data/information interoperability, financing and resources distribution/mobilization, and developing/sustaining capacity/skills. These are represented in the green circle in Figure 1 and are subject to change as the project evolves. Risk-Tandem will involve monitoring, evaluating and learning around set of indicators yet to be defined but focusing on: • the process e.g. participation/inclusion, knowledge diversity, continuity, accountability/legitimacy; • intermediary outcomes e.g. increased social capital via networking, increased trust or joint ‘products’ like agreements or studies; • outcomes (or impact) e.g. facilitating adaptative/social learning, interoperability of data/models/tools, institutionalized governance mechanisms, strengthening disaster resilience. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected from a range of methods, including workshop evaluations, storytelling/impact narratives, and documenting evidence of improved policy and practice. The insights generated through the monitoring, evaluation and learning especially for the implementation of the identified governance mechanisms and working towards institutionalizing the knowledge exchange and learning beyond the project. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 67 Figure 1: The Risk-Tandem Framework. Risk-Tandem Implementation The Risk-Tandem Framework design is led by WP 3 (governance) and is implemented and evaluated in WP 1 with the RWL over the 4 years of the project. Many of the tasks (and subsequent deliverables) for Risk-Tandem happen in parallel with others, especially with the Tandem application and capacity development activities in WP 4 (knowledge co-production) and the knowledge transfer activities in WP 6 (communication). To help position Risk-Tandem in the context of DIRECTED overall, we have identified four phases, presented in Figure 2. • Year 1 represents the ‘Foundation phase’ where the project will build the foundation of stakeholder engagement for knowledge co-production and risk governance analysis in the RWL. The capacity development needs within the RWLs will be identified, Training-of-Trainers strategy (D1.2) developed and any subsequent modules will be developed/implemented alongside RWL hosts to strengthen their stakeholder engagement and capacity for knowledge co-production. The initial assessment of risk governance enablers/barriers will be analyzed and documented in the gaps/ Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 68 opportunities assessment (D6.3), the Real-World Lab description (D1.1), as well as the periodic reporting. • Year 2 represents the ‘Growth phase’ where the Tandem knowledge co-production process will be actively applied. The Risk-Tandem Framework will be applied and used to evaluate the activities in the Real-World Labs. Governance mechanisms will be identified in each RWL to sustain exchange beyond the project’s lifespan. • Year 3 represents the ‘Learn phase’ where the RWL will adapt their stakeholder engagement and Tandem process based on learning from the Growth phase. The RWL will implement the new/improved governance mechanism and evaluate it. • Year 4 represents the ‘Sustain phase’ which will capture the learning and identify guidance on how to sustain the exchange. A more detailed overview of relevant milestones and deliverables is provided in Figure 3 below. Figure 2: Implementation Phases of the Risk-Tandem Framework. Annex I Figure 3: Gantt chart with Milestones and Deliverables connected to the Risk-Tandem. Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 69 ANNEX IV: Target Group and Knowledge Mapping Template Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 70 ANNEX V: Risk-Tandem Framework / Risk Governance Assessment Interview/Discussion Questions Risk-Tandem Framework / Risk Governance Assessment Interview/ Discussion Questions Purpose: for RWL hosts to collect information on risk governance during bilateral interviews/ meetings with support from WP 3 as required. Output: Short overview of risk governance RWL incl. stakeholder map Focus Question RWL set up / stakeholder analysis / framing [defining policy analysis objective] 1. Which government, academic, industry/private-sector and civil society actors play a role in DRR/ CCA and/or emergency management? Who is affected by DRR/CCA related decision making? 2. What is your organizations interest/ objective/ priorities related to DRR/ CCA or emergency management and how does it interlink with others? 3. How much influence does your organization have on decisionmaking for DRR/ CCA/ emergency management? How do you think this can be increased? 4. What other stakeholders do you work with to achieve these objectives/ priorities? How would you describe the strength of your relationship with them? 5. To what extent do you have shared understanding of the goals/ objectives/ priorities for CCA/DRR? What is the biggest barrier to a shared understanding? 6. What is the biggest benefit you think DIRECTED can bring to support integration across DRR/CCA/emergency management? Institutional/ legal/ policy / multi-level governance [Analyze rules in use] 1. [position rules] How are roles and responsibilities for different national/ regional/ local government distributed for CCA/ DRR/ emergency management? To what extent are these formally codified? (i.e. written into policy or statute) 2. What national policy/ legal frameworks exist on DRR/CCA/ emergency management? 3. Are DRR or CCA policies’ objectives and language aligned? If so, how, and what gaps remain? 4. Are legal frameworks/ national policies being implemented at the local level? If not, what are the critical barriers/ gaps? 5. What national and local level financing arrangements exist to support implementation of DRR/ CCA/ emergency management measures? Over what time-frames are resources provided? 6. How are financing needs communicated to higher-level decision makers? Are there any barriers to this? 7. Are there thematic/sectoral plans/strategies in place that include CCA/DRR objectives e.g. transport, flooding, agriculture? Are there actor-specific plans/strategies in place e.g. local authority strategy, federal level plans or national? Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 71 8. Do cooperation arrangements (or similar guidelines) exist for data/ information/ knowledge sharing between organizations (and/or transboundary)? 9. Has there been any institutional reform to support the achievement of DRR/CCA policy objectives? 10. What regulatory/ legal/ accountability mechanisms are currently in place? How effectively are these mechanisms enforced? 11. What gaps are there in the existing regulatory/ legal/ accountability mechanisms to enhance / clarify DRR/ CCA/ emergency management? Communicati on/ coordination / perception [Analyze community attributes] 1. How do DRR/ CCA/ response stakeholders currently interact, communicate and collaborate within the local level (horizontal) and with the national level (vertical)? E.g. inter-municipal, districtmunicipal, national-municipal 2. Are there any ongoing forums/ networks/ committees that are facilitating exchange and learning between actors? If so, between who, at what level and how successful are these mechanisms? 3. What kind of cross-cutting DRR/CCA training and capacity development activities do stakeholders participate in, or require, with who? 4. Do any champions/ boundary spanning/ intermediate actors play an enabling role for DRR/CCA? If so, at what level, with who? 5. What are the critical gaps for coordination and collaboration that need to be addressed? 6. How do government stakeholders engage/ (two-way) communicate with citizen/public groups and NGOs (incl. minority groups)? How successful is this engagement? Are there any important stakeholders left out that should be engaged in your perspective? 7. What is the public perception and level of trust in DRR/ CCA agencies? 8. What role do existing institutions, governance structures and the media play in defining and addressing public concerns? 9. What are the warnings/ risk information public communication procedures and tools? 10. Are there (or have there been) any public outreach/ awareness raising/ education campaigns on DRR/ CCA? Risk knowledge and management 1. How is risk knowledge currently being collected and assessed? Is the focus on single risks or are (also) multi-risk events considered? If so, how are they being addressed? 2. From your perspective, are the risks considered happening rather frequently or is the focus on infrequent/extreme events? How often the events happening on average, e.g. every year, every 10 or 100 years? 3. What kinds of expertise and skills are necessary to address the risks? Who has the skills/capacity for data/risk analysis? E.g. private consultants, in-house experts, universities 4. What models and decision-support platforms/ tools are used, and who are they targeting? 5. What is the degree of confidence in the risk assessment, including its comprehensiveness (inclusion of all relevant factors) and accuracy? What is the level of robustness and validity of data and knowledge? Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 72 6. Are there any issues with regards to uncertainty of data and knowledge? If there are, please explain what those are and how that relates to the RWL context. 7. How are risk management / adaptation decisions made? To what extent are other actors involved in DRR/CCA decision-making to capture synergies/ ensure alignment? 8. What sectoral plans are (or are in the process) of being implemented that include DRR/CCA objectives? E.g flood risk, emergency management, infrastructure, catchment management, agriculture 9. Is the management of these risks focusing on risk reduction, risk financing or something else (e.g. warning)? 10. What key management interventions have been (or are the process) of being implemented? E.g. warning system, insurance, awareness raising, flood defense infrastructure, property level protection. Contextual factors 1. What are the critical hindering factors for DRR/CCA? e.g. political, social, economic, environmental 2. What are the critical enablers/ capacities for DRR/CCA? E.g. skills/capacity. What capacity needs exist, and have previous capacity assessments been conducted? Framework Development – Introducing the Risk-Tandem Framework 73