Knowledge co-production outcomes 2023 - Periodic report #1 on outcomes of the RWL knowledge co-production process

Knowledge co-production outcomes 2023 Periodic report #1 on outcomes of the RWL knowledge co-production process Thursday, 18 September, 2025 1. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BRAUNSCHWEIG 10. INTERNATIONALES INSTITUT FUER ANGEWANDTE SYSTEMANALYSE 2. POTSDAM-INSTITUT FUR KLIMAFOLGENFORSCHUNG EV 11. ERFTVERBAND 3. DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET 12. ZALA KULONLEGES MENTOK ES ONKENTES TUZOLTO EGYSULET 4. GECOSISTEMA SRL 13. AGENZIA REGIONALE PER LA PREVENZIONE, L'AMBIENTE E L'ENERGIA DELL'EMILIA-ROMAGNA 5. RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 14. HELMHOLTZ ZENTRUM POTSDAM DEUTSCHESGEOFORSCHUNGSZENTRUM GFZ 6. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK – NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, CORK 15. 52 NORTH SPATIAL INFORMATION RESEARCH GMBH 7. REGION HOVEDSTADEN 16. EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE ZÜRICH 8. AGENZIA REGIONALE PER LA SICUREZZATERRITORIALE E LA PROTEZIONE CIVILE 17. OASIS HUB LIMITED 9. GENILLARD & CO GMBH 18. SEI OXFORD OFFICE LIMITED Janne Parviainen18, Sukaina Bharwani18, Lydia Cumiskey6, Valeria Pancioli8, Dominik Hedderich9, Jana Löhrlein11, Paolo Mazzoli4, Max Steinhausen1, Emilie Rønde Nielsen7, Amalie Laursen7, Stefano Bagli4, Pia-Johanna Schweizer5, Christopher Genillard9, Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler10, Julian Struck11, Levente Huszti12, Tracy Irvine17 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 October 2023 Deliverable submission date 5 October 2023 3 Executive summary This first periodic report (M3) discusses knowledge co-production outcomes based on the progress of Real World Labs during 2023. Initially, it was integrated into the D1.1. due to their similar aims, but was later revised as a standalone document to further support Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) for knowledge co-production, as discussed in detail under D1.2. (The Capacity Development Strategy for DIRECTED). The primary topic remains consistent with D1.1 as the period covers mainly the initial setup phase, establishing functional RWLs that facilitate stakeholder engagement, risk governance, and the integration of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA). The following annual reports (M4-M6) will continue reporting progress and achievements gained through interactive and transdisciplinary RWL collaboration, structured following WP 4s guidance on designing MEL. Furthermore, as clarified in D1.1, the final report (D1.4) on RWL outcomes is due in June 2026, near the project's end. To track progress, WP 1 will use incoming internal Period Reports (M4-M5) on RWL co-production outcomes, shared with reviewers to aid the review process before official deliverables are due. Majority of this Milestone consists of self-reported reflections from RWL hosts-as-Trainers, complimented by preliminary (qualitative) analysis of data that has been available to date (debrief consultations, workshop reports and interviews). Due to the need to build up relationships between RWL stakeholders and establish functioning labs (not to mention delays experienced during the set-up process, as further detailed in D1.1), co-production outcomes as presented here are not yet comprehensive, as the process has not fully begun during 2023. This was already anticipated in the Risk-Tandem and knowledge co-production design, with the intention to start Phase 1 by risk scoping activities and stakeholder identification. However, the document does outline achievements and progress to further compliment D1.1. from the perspective of knowledge co-production, with an added focus on identified priorities, needs and challenges affecting collaborative working. This information will be used to guide and inform the development of capacity development modules to match training activities with contextual needs (alongside capacity needs assessments and individual consultations). 4 Table of Contents Report overview .................................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6 2. Knowledge co-production outcomes .............................................................................. 8 2.1 Capital Region of Denmark (RWL 1) ............................................................................ 8 2.2 The Emilia-Romagna Region (RWL 2) .................................................................... 14 2.3 The Danube Region (RWL 3) .................................................................................. 20 2.4 The Rhine-Erft Region (RWL 4) .............................................................................. 24 Annex I. Reporting structure ................................................................................................ 29 Partners .............................................................................................................................. 34 5 1. Introduction This Milestone Report is the first of 4 periodic reports (M3-M6) seeking to demonstrate progress in implementing T1.2 as described in the Grant Agreement regarding the implementation of knowledge co-production: Task 1.2 RWL co-production process (M1-M45) (lead: SEI, co-lead: UCC, contributors: 52N, RWL resp. partners) Training of trainers will be conducted on how to implement the TANDEM trans-disciplinary knowledge co-production cycle in the RWL to allow for deeper knowledge co-production processes between developers of data and models, governance actors, and stakeholders. This will take place in conjunction with Tasks 4.1-4.4. The cycle for co-production will be defined and periodically reviewed during the project implementation (Task 4.4) with context-specific refinements made where needed to address the needs of the RWL and that of those developing transformative tools (WP 2), governance mechanisms (WP 3), and for design of the Data Fabric (WP 5) Based on the methodology as discussed in D1.2, The Capacity Development Strategy for DIRECTED, this first report outlines the approach for reporting annual knowledge coproduction outcomes and the implementation of the Tandem Framework within the overall Risk-Tandem approach. In particular, it seeks to capture developments within the RWLs toward co-produced risk governance during Phase 1 of Risk-Tandem. Later reports will further capture evolution of the Labs through Phases 2-4 (as discussed under D3.1), as well as demonstrate progress made through co-productive collaboration between Labs and project partners. As such, it does not intend to compete with the measuring of outcomes and impacts (T1.3), but rather elaborates how transdisciplinary and intensely collaborative working approaches have contributed toward innovation, the building of trust and new relationships, and to identifying solutions with transformative potential for holistic risk governance that integrates Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and considerations for the systemic nature of risks in a complex multi-hazard environment. These reports contain key information to support MEL on co-production (D1.2), needs assessment (T4.2) and the revision of the Tandem Framework (T4.4) based on lessons learned throughout DIRECTED. It will also support the design of capacity development modules to further advance the implementation of knowledge co-production and the Risk-Tandem Framework. 6 1.1 Methodology In efforts to structure reporting related to knowledge co-production, these periodic reports are founded upon the MEL strategy as detailed in D1.2, The Capacity Development Strategy for DIRECTED. Recognizing the limited empirical evidence (or tools) for measuring, evaluating, or learning from co-production processes, the method combines Norström et al’s., (2020) “good principles” with Tandem guiding questions (Daniels, et al., 2020; Bharwani, et al., 2024)– distilled from practical application to guide and structure co-production processes. The good principles will form the themes under which successes and challenges of co-production will be measured, and the coded Tandem questions will form part of the indicators that seek to further contextualize and elaborate these categories for the DIRECTED context (see Annex I). Importantly, this MEL strategy is evolving, and refined with RWL hosts to align it in their working contexts. Therefore, new indicators are likely to emerge over the course of the project, and these reports (and the MEL approach) will be revised accordingly. To further support the locally led implementation and monitoring of this process, majority of knowledge co-production outcomes rely on self-reporting from RWL hosts (to capture and understand their experiences and perspectives, particularly in terms of effectiveness and capacity development outcomes), and; during later stages, include information from the RWL stakeholders to also capture how their perceptions regarding the process. This will entail building a robust “baseline” for coproduction, and measuring change through Theory of Change (co-designed with RWL hosts and their stakeholders during Phase 2: co-exploration). This process was designed to begin in year 2 of the project, in recognition of the time required for build relationships and establishing labs that can co-explore shared challenges and potential solutions in a coproductive mode. However (and as qualitative data begins to fully emerge through RWL engagements and workshops), these reports will also integrate evidence from document analysis, built on the coding methodology as discussed in D1.2 (annex VII). These will compliment self-reported qualitative “rich” data to provide a methodologically robust approach for understanding knowledge co-production in risk governance contexts, and in terms of integrating DRR and CCA toward holistic risk management. Aligning with this method, data is reported and analyzed according to the good principles of co-production to elaborate whether the co-production process as implemented in RWLs is considered beneficial, impactful, and contributing toward expected outcomes. Under each thematic category, Tandem questions have been included to guide RWL hosts in the writing process (Figure 1). However, since the application of knowledge co-production and the RiskTandem Framework is a phased process, each annual report will cover one of the four steps – this report focusing on stakeholder identification, engagement, and early risk scoping (as 7 identified through engagements and workshops between partners, hosts and their RWLs during 2023). Figure 1: Good principles for knowledge co-production, elaborated and measured through the Tandem guiding questions for the purposes of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning. During Phase 2 (co-exploration), RWL hosts and stakeholders will also complete a Theory of Change for their Labs, as engagement and the co-production process becomes more formalized. These ToCs will then guide the design of workshops and activities to further deepen the understanding of contextual risk and governance challenges, and in terms of integrating risk reduction and Climate Change Adaptation (Phase 2), and later, inform the co-design and appraisal of solutions (Phase 3) toward priorities as identified during Phase 2. 8 2. Knowledge co-production outcomes These outcomes build directly on the initial activities reported in D1.1, where the groundwork for these engagements was laid. The following analysis provides an updated perspective based on the progression observed in 2023. This section compiles data and self-reflections from each RWL, largely based on the work and progress toward D1.1 RWL Description and Set-up summarizing achievements of Phase 1. Without seeking to replicate reporting, this periodic report emphasizes the outcomes and contributions of knowledge co-production to the set-up of RWLs, and how early engagements have contributed to establishing a working group in each country context. Qualitative data is derived from D1.1. reporting, workshop debrief consultations, notes and transcripts from needs scoping interviews, and RWL workshop reporting. 2.1 Capital Region of Denmark (RWL 1) RWL 1 is led by a regional public institution, the Capital Region of Denmark (REGIONH) and the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). It focuses on two primary interest areas: The Værebro River catchment and Roskilde Fjord, due to their high exposure to flooding. In each, several emergency management agencies, first responders and other actors (including CCA authorities) cover municipal risk management (for details of actors involved in the RWL, see D1.1 p17-18). During 2023, the focus on establishing a functional Lab, beginning from bilateral meetings introducing stakeholders, followed by a workshop in March, 2023. This report is primarily based on these engagements, founding the knowledge co-production process. Context Situating the knowledge co-production process in a particular place, focusing on understanding how the challenges in question have emerged (Nordström, et al., 2020). Includes reflecting the wider socio-economic, political, and ecological contexts, and the different beliefs and needs of those affected by the RWL processes and planning. 9 Risk governance challenges identified through workshops and other knowledge coproduction activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). The early scoping workshop and bilateral engagement has revealed numerous challenges and potential windows of opportunities for deepening collaboration between DRR and CCA actors in the Capital Region of Denmark. These include lack of practical experience for responders and emergency management, lack of knowledge regarding risk areas in cities, and limited alignment of data systems due to lack of shared platforms. There are also communication challenges that limit the effectiveness of citizen engagement and public risk communication, and public/political awareness regarding CCA and DRR is deemed limited due to time that has passed since disaster events. There is also no systematic coordination or communication mechanisms in place for municipalities to formulate shared emergency plans, and it is often not clear how coordination is facilitated (especially during the phases of response). Cross-sectoral coordination is also not supported by policy or legislation. Disaster and climate risks (and expected impacts) identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). Currently, coastal and riverine flooding (and storms) are the primary hazards RWL 1 is focusing on. The Capital Region is estimated to be highly expose to flooding due to climate change and expected changes in rainfall that stretch the capacity of sewage infrastructure. In 2011, a severe storm led to the insured losses of over €655 million in Copenhagen alone. Droughts have also emerged as a critical factor that should be accommodated, but stakeholders have limited experience in managing these risks. Issues related to data availability (including uncertainty) and accessibility identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on user stories) Early engagement and workshop discussions highlighted the need to cultivate an alignment of data between municipalities (including improved access to measuring systems used by various stakeholders through a shared platforms). In addition, emergency management actors have expressed a need for more precise forecasts due to the high cost of deploying emergency resources, especially in terms of overestimating the rise of sea levels during storms. Other areas of interest identified through scoping in 2023 include lack of knowledge regarding risk areas in cities, and limited alignment of data systems between municipalities. There is also a limited understanding of coupled-event dynamics, and how high-water levels in the Roskilde Fjord interact with increased river discharge. Governance context/policy landscape (in relation to workshops and other engagement with stakeholders) 16 Issues related to data availability (including uncertainty) and accessibility identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on user stories) For wildfire risk management, the September workshop and associated scoping activities revealed some data needs among stakeholders that could be potentially addressed under DIRECTED. These include improved integration and implementation of fire propagation models for live monitoring, and improved integration of existing models used for creating risk maps. In terms of coastal risks, there is a need for information tools to support response from beyond the existing institutional network (wave meters and tide gauges) that could provide information of the evolution of storm surges. In addition, it would be beneficial to have tools (and data) to predict the effects of flooding on the Rimini Coast during different seasons. HERA (service provider) utilizes its own network of hydrometers and rain gauges used to monitor coastal hazards and storms. However, there is no formal procedure for forecasting hazard phases in collaboration with civil protection. In addition, the arrival times of data from sensors is deemed too long for intense event, despite extensive monitoring networks. It was also deemed essential that municipalities are able to directly access data – management system would be appreciated. Governance context/policy landscape (in relation to workshops and other engagement with stakeholders) Further scoping and co-exploration is required to identify issues in policy, implementation and planning. However, stakeholders have expressed interest in updating the Civil Protection Plan, which presents a window of opportunity for DIRECTED (and knowledge co-production). Socio-economic challenges (and the risk governance context), affected groups, vulnerabilities and other relevant matters require further exploration during Phases 2 and 3. Reflection To date, stakeholder engagement has been slower than expected not only due to flooding, but also due to the high number of actors involved (and the separation of RWL operations into Rimini and Comacchio e Mesola). However, the early experiences in integrating intensely collaborative and activity-based engagements in workshops have been received positively. During workshop debriefs, RWL hosts reflected that in comparison to “traditional” presentation-based engagements, co-production-based approaches were more effective in driving discussion and identifying shared priorities (based upon the experiences from the Ferrara workshop in September). 17 Pluralism and transdisciplinarity To identify windows of opportunity for enabling transformations, or to generate novel solutions to complex risk challenges, transdisciplinary collaboration is essential. Therefore, Knowledge co-production processes should explicitly recognise a range of perspectives, knowledge, and expertise of stakeholders, and generate information through their integration (Nordström, et al., 2020). In addition, it would be necessary to consider factors such as gender, ethnicity, and age, and how the ability to influence decision-making affects the use and creation of knowledge. Stakeholders, disciplines and knowledges now involved in the RWLs The RWL is balanced in its composition, involving actors from DRM, DRR and CCA from various levels of government (national, regional, and municipal), as well as volunteer associations and essential service providers (HERA). However, and although covering an impressive range of technical and practical knowledges (including hazard modelling and risk management), some key stakeholders are still missing. These include firefighters and prefectures, remain yet to be engaged due to competing priorities. Another challenge relates to citizen engagement. Although volunteering networks are well-established and professionally trained, involving citizens – including vulnerable or marginalized groups – for the purposes of improving risk communication (or for promoting inclusive participation) remains challenging and unexplored. Furthermore, the involvement of beach owners and other private sector actors is currently limited. However, their involvement is deemed beneficial, especially for the purposes of coastal risk management. As such, RWL 2 is currently striving to moving beyond interdisciplinarity, toward realizing its transdisciplinary potential (keeping in mind feasibility). Reflection The involvement of firefighters and provincial actors is currently prioritized. Further options and potential for involving citizens, vulnerable groups, and private sector actors will be explored and negotiated with RWL stakeholders (in recognition of factors such as mandate – citizen engagement is the primary responsibility of municipalities, due to which the interest and buy-in must primarily emerge from them). Identified goals and priorities Knowledge co-production should articulate (and result in) clearly defined goals that are shared and valued by stakeholders involved (Nordström, et al., 2020). These will then inform the future development of co-production activities and engagement to co-explore the challenges in detail, identify potential solutions, and to generate shared pathways to achieving them. 18 Shared goals and priorities that have been identified through RWL engagements and workshops: Numerous windows of opportunity for RWL 2 have been identified through stakeholder engagement and collaboration during 2023. These include addressing multiple and complex flood risks across the Rimini coastline (including extreme rainfall, coastal flooding and their interaction), and wildfire risks in Comacchio e Mesola. These can be accompanied via novel solutions developed through stakeholder engagement, including new collaborations between sectors, municipalities and volunteer associations, and via technical solutions seeking to respond to data challenges as discussed above. Directed partners (WP 5 in particular) will be in a central role in supporting these, and identifying user needs for the purposes of the Data Fabric. In addition, the further integration of climate change into risk management priorities has been identified as an opportunity, which can be complimented via capacity development. These may extend from practice to policy, assuming DIRECTED can support stakeholders in revising the Civil Protection Plans. Reflection The potential goals and shared priorities have emerged through stakeholder engagement, discussions and workshops, in an effort to avoid top-down or expert-led implementation of the project in Emilia-Romagna contexts. Although not yet incorporating considerations of those affected by risk governance decisions (such as citizens and vulnerable groups), progress toward transdisciplinary co-production during 2023 is advancing at an unexpected rate, and holds potential for future scale-up. Longer-term socio-economic impacts, potential co-benefits of solutions, and wider societal impact of proposed solutions will be negotiated at a later date, as the implementation of the Risk-Tandem progress advances further. Interactive methods Knowledge co-production process should enable on-going and transformative learning among stakeholders, achieved via active, creative, and frequent engagement in safe settings that support open discussion even when facing difficult topics (Nordström, et al., 2020). 19 Methods of stakeholder engagement utilized in RWL workshops Stakeholders of RWL 2 are engaged via regular meetings (formal and informal), training/collaboration sessions, and regular workshops for exploring contextual issues (and eventually, co-designing risk management solutions). Frequencies vary between quarterly to bi-annual, depending on the availability and needs of stakeholders. Importantly, RWL 2 has begun introducing collaborative and creative ways of working in workshops, supported by Risk-Tandem tools (including the rich picture method for exploring risks from a holistic perspective). Although considered “unusual” and perhaps soft in comparison to otherwise technical and hierarchical working context, they have been deemed impactful and useful by RWL hosts thus far. This suggests room for further integration of such approaches in upcoming workshops during 2024 and beyond. Reflection As briefly discussed above, RWL 2 has already witnessed benefits of activity-based workshops and the co-productive working mode bridging stakeholders. In comparison to previous presentation-based engagements, DIRECTED workshops were experienced as efficient, impactful and useful for advancing conversation regarding risk governance challenges. However, and due to delays caused by floods of 2023, it is too early to report (or attempt to measure) intangible/tangible benefits of the co-production process. These will be further reflected during Phase 2 (2024). 20 2.3 The Danube Region (RWL 3) RWL 3 – currently covering Vienna and Zala County, Hungary – is led by Genillard & Co, a Munich-based reinsurance broker that focuses on developing and implementing risk management innovation for insurance markets. They are supported by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and the Zala Special Rescue which coordinates the RWL’s activities in Zala County. In Vienna, the primary identified hazards include flood risks across the Danube basin, and droughts as the region regularly experiences reduced precipitation and increased evaporation. In Zala, flooding, wildfires, droughts, and mudslides have been identified as key interest areas for DRR and CCA to protect rural settlements. Given the transboundary setting, constitution of the Danube lab is diverse; involving DRR, DRM and CCA actors at different levels of government and across sectors. In Vienna, the lab engages Regional and National actors from Austrian government, as well as private insurance companies. In Hungary, stakeholders include regional and local organisations (including municipalities, road operators and forest management services), private companies. Although Vienna and Zala labs are currently operating independently, their ambition is to identify shared opportunities to promote transboundary risk governance in the Danube region. During 2023, progress of introducing knowledge co-production activities has been slow. However, scoping activities (including presentations and bilateral meetings) have been arranged to introduce DIRECTED to stakeholders, and to scope potential for begin implementing the Risk-Tandem process and user/information needs for the purposes of WP 5, data interoperability and the Data Fabric. Context Situating the knowledge co-production process in a particular place, focusing on understanding how the challenges in question have emerged (Nordström, et al., 2020). Includes reflecting the wider socio-economic, political, and ecological contexts, and the different beliefs and needs of those affected by the RWL processes and planning. 21 Risk governance challenges identified through workshops and other knowledge coproduction activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). In Vienna, contextual issues require further co-exploration and scoping with stakeholders. In Zala, potential windows of opportunity have been identified through bilateral engagements. For instance, the implementation of the country climate strategy is challenging at the sub-national levels, and a broad consensus regarding the action and adaptation priorities is yet to be developed across stakeholders. Further dialogue and debate regarding its implementation remain a priority, and success requires cooperation and partnerships with other institutions. In terms of floods, Zala Directorate is at risk of exceeding its internal capacities during major events (and sometimes rely on external resources, technical equipment and transport vehicles). Cooperation agreements exist, but there may be opportunities for further deepening this collaboration across sectors and regions. Disaster and climate risks (and expected impacts) identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). In Vienna, scoping engagements have identified flood risks and droughts as the primary interest for promoting further integration of DRR, CCA and risk management activities. Lack of green spaces, soil sealing and ensuing heat-island effect in the city have been identified as major drivers of driving concerns in terms of heatwaves. In Zala, the situation is more complex, characterised by a large number of small villages and major regional hubs spread over a large area. These are exposed to severe mudslides (usually in association with extreme rainfall), flooding, storms, wildfires and droughts (such as the drought of 2020, causing issues in irrigation and severe losses to agriculture). In addition, there are no permanent solutions for managing the risk of mudslides affecting residential areas and agriculture. Contextual issues beyond hazards and impacts require further co-exploration and scoping with stakeholders. Issues related to data availability (including uncertainty) and accessibility identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on user stories) Data availability and information needs will be further explored as the RWL 3 stakeholders progress in their scoping during late 2023 and early 2024. However, it has already been identified that stakeholders in Zala would benefit from a scientific risk analysis that takes into account the local county context. This could involve recommendations for adaptation actions for municipalities and regions, including easily accessible information in the form of infographics, visual assessments and risk maps. Currently, municipalities and the authorities have limited resources in developing such assessments, and local actors cannot easily evaluate or assess the accuracy (and implications) of current climate projections. As such, capacity development may also be required via DIRECTED Training of Trainers. 22 Governance context/policy landscape (in relation to workshops and other engagement with stakeholders) Although the governance context, policies and regulatory landscape is well understood in both cases through local hosts (described in D1.1. RWL Set-Up), contextual challenges in terms of planning or policy gaps require further co-exploration with RWL 3 stakeholders. It is noted that the approaches to DRM and CCA vary significantly depending on the region and country across the Danube River Basin, which thus requires a tailored approach for each country context and organization involved. Reflection The RWL will continue prioritising stakeholder engagement, as well as cultivating a further understanding of the DRR, DRM and CCA context through further analysis in Vienna and Zala. Stakeholder workshops are planned for 2024. Pluralism and transdisciplinarity To identify windows of opportunity for enabling transformations, or to generate novel solutions to complex risk challenges, transdisciplinary collaboration is essential. Therefore, Knowledge co-production processes should explicitly recognize a range of perspectives, knowledge, and expertise of stakeholders, and generate information through their integration (Nordström, et al., 2020). In addition, it would be necessary to consider factors such as gender, ethnicity, and age, and how the ability to influence decision-making affects the use and creation of knowledge. Stakeholders, disciplines and knowledges now involved in the RWLs Although primarily engaging government actors, composition of RWL 3 is balanced in terms of involving actors from different levels of governance in both Danube and Vienna, covering aspects of DRM, DRR and CCA. Importantly, RWL 3 is also the only lab that currently engages private sector partners, thus representing an opportunity for cultivating an understanding of and developing solutions through public/private collaboration in the context of integrating DRR and CCA. Opportunities for citizen engagement will be explored. Reflection Here, it should be noted that RWL 3 was also intending to involve stakeholders from Belgrade, Serbia. However, and despite significant efforts to actively engage actors from this test site, local support was insufficient to proceed and activate the sub-Lab. Belgrade will not be a further part of the RWL 3 for rest of the project. It is also relevant to note language barriers, which has hindered stakeholder recruitment and collaboration (as English is not as common second language across Eastern Europe). 23 Identified goals and priorities Knowledge co-production should articulate (and result in) clearly defined goals that are shared and valued by stakeholders involved (Nordström, et al., 2020). These will then inform the future development of co-production activities and engagement to co-explore the challenges in detail, identify potential solutions, and to generate shared pathways to achieving them. Shared goals and priorities that have been identified through RWL engagements and workshops: Identifying and validating shared goals and priorities require further engagement with stakeholders in both Vienna, and Zala. Potential entry points have been identified in sections above. Reflection To date, it has been highlighted that across the countries of the Danube Basin, awareness, funding and priorities for DRM and CCA are heterogenous and differ depending on the socio-political context. Although manageable within Vienna and Zala, promoting and upscaling transboundary collaboration in the Danube region will be challenging, and requires an adaptive approach and continuous negotiation to balance interests between stakeholder groups. Interactive methods Knowledge co-production process should enable on-going and transformative learning among stakeholders, achieved via active, creative, and frequent engagement in safe settings that support open discussion even when facing difficult topics (Nordström, et al., 2020). Methods of stakeholder engagement utilized in RWL workshops Interactive methods are yet to be implemented in RWL 3. However, engagement with stakeholders is regular through consultations and bilateral meetings, in effort to promote further collaboration and to prepare actors for workshops during 2024. Reflection Co-production and collaborative action will be introduced as soon as possible, in efforts to fully begin capturing learnings through the Risk-Tandem process. 24 2.4 The Rhine-Erft Region (RWL 4) The RWL of Rhine-Erft Region (RWL 4) is coordinated by the Erftverband (inter-municipal flood protection corporation), operating in the North Rhine-Westphalia. At present, the RWL involves actors from the districts of Euskirchen and Rhine-Erft that comprise 21 municipalities, with expertise and responsibilities in DRM, DRR and CCA at regional and local levels. The Lab is primarily focusing on flood risks and water related hazards. During 2023, RWL 3 has already arranged online meetings and bilateral discussions to introduce the project, organized questionnaires to scope concrete ideas for strengthening risk governance and hosted two inperson workshop in June and November for early scoping and co-exploration of contextual challenges. Context Situating the knowledge co-production process in a particular place, focusing on understanding how the challenges in question have emerged (Nordström, et al., 2020). Includes reflecting the wider socio-economic, political, and ecological contexts, and the different beliefs and needs of those affected by the RWL processes and planning. Risk governance challenges identified through workshops and other knowledge coproduction activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). The contextual challenges and potential windows of opportunity for promoting the integration of DRM, DRR and CCA for flood risk management have already been explored through stakeholder engagement and consultations. These include focusing discussion and analysis of the extreme flooding in July 2021, in efforts to identify opportunities for strengthening flood resilience and management in the area, especially in terms of communication, early warnings and risk governance processes. Stakeholders have expressed in cultivating robust measures for risk management with integrated considerations for Climate Change Adaptation, and to improve the understanding of the existing governance structures to promote cross-municipal collaboration. However, there are numerous challenges that may hinder this process, including difficulties in finding an interface between the water board and disaster control in the region (due to issues of mandate), further discussed in sections below. 25 Disaster and climate risks (and expected impacts) identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on interviews and discussions with stakeholders). RWL 4 focuses primarily on flood hazards, and gaps as identified during the floods of 2021 in particular. It is recognized that considering DIRECTED’s commitment to multi-hazard approaches, it would be beneficial to expand toward other hazards as well (such as droughts). However, expertise of stakeholders is primarily flood related. In addition, the current limited understanding of projected impacts of climate change in the region need to addressed further. This is planned for the second half of the project, and capacity development for RWL stakeholders has been highlighted as a potential opportunity to promote further integration. In relation to hazards, it is important to highlight previous land-use for open-pit lignite mining, leading to the depletion of the groundwater table. Accordingly, rivers of the northern basin have been adapted over the past decades to accommodate discharge, and now, facing the termination of the lignite mining, the situation will further change in the medium term (thus also bearing implications to flood risk management and Climate Change Adaptation). Issues related to data availability (including uncertainty) and accessibility identified through workshops and other knowledge co-production activities (can also build on user stories) Current impacts and effects of climate change in the Rhine-Erft region remain unclear, due to which there is a need to co-explore and generate information about future risk scenarios in situ. Data availability and information needs regarding hazards beyond flooding is also to be confirmed and co-explored further with stakeholders. In addition, RWL 4 prioritises clarifying the use of available data and improving accessibility to support the integration of DRR and CCA efforts in the Rhine-Erft region. Governance context/policy landscape (in relation to workshops and other engagement with stakeholders) As briefly discussed above, there is a need to cultivate a deeper understanding of the risk governance context through research and engagement with the RWL stakeholders. This is currently considered among the most urgent priorities for RWL 4, in efforts to support further scoping and the identification of windows of opportunity for strengthening risk governance and to support the integration of DRR and CCA. Reflection Despite significant progress during 2023, there is still a need to explore other hazards and issues of climate change in situ, alongside expanding the understanding of the current governance context to identify opportunities to deepen collaboration and communication. Stakeholders have expressed interest in detailed flood event analysis or simulations to better understand and prepare for extreme flood events, and these are being developed in 32 Reflection • Potential next steps, reflection on priorities, and identified gaps relating to stakeholder engagement and collaboration Identified goals and priorities Knowledge co-production should articulate (and result in) clearly defined goals that are shared and valued by stakeholders involved (Nordström, et al., 2020). These will then inform the future development of co-production activities and engagement to co-explore the challenges in detail, identify potential solutions, and to generate shared pathways to achieving them. Shared goals and priorities that have been identified through RWL engagements and workshops: RELEVANT TANDEM QUESTIONS: • In relation to challenges and identified risks, what are the identified opportunities and potential solutions to addressing them? What are the early actions, and is there potential for developing more longer-term plans? • Are the goals and priorities shared among all stakeholders, or are they different? Can differing priorities support a common shared goal for increased resilience? What is their focus (communication, policy, finance, coordination, knowledge integration, etc.) and theme (disasters/climate change)? • What are the specific needs that have emerged from the co-exploration so far (required to support the achievement of these goals)? Reflection • Have the goals and priorities been identified via collaboration without excluding any valid viewpoints or needs? • Is there potential for identifying/contributing to longer term socio-economic or environmental goals? • Has the co-production process resulted in any intangible benefits, such as trust and improved communication? Are they also among the goals? 33 Interactive methods Knowledge co-production process should enable on-going and transformative learning among stakeholders, achieved via active, creative, and frequent engagement in safe settings that support open discussion even when facing difficult topics (Nordström, et al., 2020). Methods of stakeholder engagement utilized in RWL workshops RELEVANT TANDEM QUESTIONS: • How frequent are your interactions with stakeholders, and is it active engagement focusing on non-hierarchical collaboration? Are there specific challenges which may limit this? • To what degree have activities supported creative engagement and co-exploration to unpack complexity or multi-sector issues? What factors contribute to enablers and barriers in facilitating such engagement? • Is the RWL setting enabling open discussion, and the sharing of beliefs and values regarding the challenges (even regarding difficult topics)? If not, why? • Has the process created new relationships, trust between or mutual understanding between stakeholders? Reflection • What were the previous methods of engagement your organization/other stakeholders used when facilitating collaboration between actors? • Has DIRECTED’s approach to knowledge co-production resulted in any tangible or intangible benefits you can already see and experience, compared to “standard” ways of working? 34 Partners