1
Dialogue on Infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies Kick-‐off Event Report 4 April 2014 (Hosted by IET and in collaboration with the EA’s Infrastructure Operators Adaptation Forum)
The kick-‐off meeting was structured to provide participants with an opportunity:
• To identify and further explore practice, policy and research initiatives designed to explore and address infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies – pulling together the landscape;
• To better understand the challenges related to understanding and addressing infrastructure dependencies and interdependencies from the participants’ perspectives; and
• To identify next steps for this dialogue towards realising the identified purposes.
See Annex 1 for agenda and list of participants.
Identify and further explore practice, policy and research initiatives 1. Presentations
This aim was addressed through a series of presentations and by way of two timelines (the next 10 months and the next 3 years). The presentations (available at http://www.arcc-‐network.org.uk/dialogue-‐on-‐infrastructure-‐dependencies-‐and-‐interdependencies/) were intended to highlight initiatives and perspectives from the three communities and to stimulate further dialogue on identifying other activities and informing the identifications of gaps. They were not intended to provide a comprehensive picture.
The presentations and some of the issues related to interdependencies raised in terms of furthering the dialogue:
Practice Adapting to future flooding – David Quincy, Anglian Water:
• Understanding what information / models are needed to inform decisions • Identifying what level of serviceability is non-‐negotiable (maintained at all costs) and those
that can be allowed to recover over time
Sharing experiences from dealing with the extreme events (December 2013-‐Feburary 2014) – John Dora:
This was not a presentation, but rather provided an opportunity for participants to highlight implications of the extreme events that occurred across the UK from December 2013 to February 2014 in terms of interdependencies revealed. A note on what was highlighted by participants is available on the ARCC network website. Some key points that can be drawn from this are:
2
• The fact that there was a series of events and the wide spread nature of these events tested, and in a number of cases led to failures in, existing strategies and systems, and revealed interdependencies.
• The need to identify synergies and ‘at risk’ elements that recognise and identify the resilience of assets and associated services with the aim of minimising the overall impacts.
• It would be useful to see an impact timeline to illustrate how effects cascaded within and across the infrastructure sectors in terms of assets and services available.
Research Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortium (ITRC) – Jim Hall
• Three aspects of interdependencies in terms of their implications on resilience were identified: changes in demand, propagation of failures through the system, and changes in economic growth, population and land-‐use.
• ITRC is exploring the role/scope of interdependencies and in particular the impacts of scale on interdependencies.
Infrastructure Business Models, Valuation and Innovations for Local Delivery (iBuild) – Richard Dawson
• Focus is on infrastructure at the scale of neighbourhoods, towns and cities where infrastructure is most dense and interdependencies between infrastructures, economies and society are most profound.
• Includes thinking about service provision (i.e. what does society expect the level of service to look like and the importance that new business models will be able to better exploit the technical and market opportunities that emerge from the increased interdependence of modern infrastructure systems.
Policy Infrastructure UK and UK Regulators Network – David Penhallurick
• Asking how we can exploit the potential benefit of joint infrastructure to produce long term savings. If we follow this route (of joint infrastructure) do we reduce or increase our risks?
• IUK are working with the UK Regulators Network to improve the (regulatory) environment for shared assets and services.
2. Other interdependence related initiatives as identified by participants
Participants were asked to identify other interdependence-‐related initiatives as a basis to better understanding the interdependencies’ landscape. This led to the following initiatives being identified, but also to the updating of the two timelines (http://www.arcc-‐network.org.uk/dialogue-‐on-‐infrastructure-‐dependencies-‐and-‐interdependencies/).
Policy Transport resilience review: call for evidence (closes 02 May 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transport-‐resilience-‐review-‐call-‐for-‐evidence
BIS is looking at the next stage of Building Information Modelling (BIM) to include combining it with data and information from infrastructure sectors. This should allow conclusions to be drawn from across the sectors when challenged by the same external event.
3
Research Looking at the capacity to address uncertainties from a governance perspective – R. Hiteva
International Centre for Infrastructure (ICIF) will create a shared, facilitated learning environment in which social scientists, engineers, industrialists, policy makers and other stakeholders can research and learn together to understand how better to exploit the technical and market opportunities that emerge from the increased interdependence of infrastructure systems. The Centre will focus on the development and implementation of innovative business models and aims to support UK firms wishing to exploit them in international markets. The Centre will undertake a wide range of research activities on infrastructure interdependencies with users, which will allow problems to be discovered and addressed earlier and at lower cost (http://www.icif.ac.uk/).
Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction at Cambridge University has a major theme focussed on future proofing infrastructure assets (http://www-‐smartinfrastructure.eng.cam.ac.uk/)
Practice Climate UK through its regional partnerships are building partnerships with regional stakeholders, working with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and LAs to develop their understanding of climate risks (report being produced)
Understanding the challenges1
1. Knowledge and evidence gaps associated with characterising interdependencies to support infrastructure decision-‐making
The participants identified a number of knowledge and evidence gaps that can be summarised as:
Evidence of the value of infrastructure interdependencies and broadening cost-‐benefit analyses to consider:
• Return on investment (drawing on examples or analogues) • Developing a business case that includes value to someone else, including health and
ecosystems, and value in investing in the future • Value of not building something • Value of shared infrastructure and portability of infrastructure
Means of capturing the public attention (engagement)
Validity of planning assumptions – what is and is not possible, including engaging with both opportunities and threats.
How to make actions happen:
• The potential of social bonds as a means of promoting and supporting sharing • Knowledge and skills gaps associated with making decisions and delivering infrastructure in
this manner • Anticipating the need and learning while doing.
Data and information issues:
1 Report from breakout groups are available at: http://www.arcc-‐network.org.uk/dialogue-‐on-‐infrastructure-‐dependencies-‐and-‐interdependencies/
4
• What data is actually useful? What data/information is needed to support decisions? • How can this data be more effectively linked, especially across different scale? • What can be shared (willingness to share) and what are the appropriate means for sharing
data within and across infrastructure sectors? • Means of engaging data owners to provide opportunities for learning, enhancing
applicability and adding value.
Need to be able to identify and understand success and failures, but also near misses.
2. Key actors that are not engaged in the process of developing our understanding of interdependencies
Participants identified a number of key actors that are summarised as:
• Financial and insurance sectors, including banks, pension investors and those elements of the insurance industry with a particular focus on infrastructure
• Consultancies that are involved in delivering infrastructure and advice in the UK • Central Government – Cabinet Office (Risk Register and SRPs) and BIS, and Devolved
Administrations • Local Governments – GLA, Core Cities, and others through LGA and LEPs • UK Regulators Network • Broader spectrum of Generators and DNOs • Corporate Leaders Group • Adaptation Sub-‐Committee of the Climate Change Committee • Emergency responders and health services • Representative of EPSRC, ESRC and NERC.
3. Additional barriers to taking action
Participants identified specific barriers to action related to understanding but also being able to take advantage of interdependencies.
Policy and regulations • Political willingness and interest within government is limited by short-‐termism • Need for a supportive regulatory framework with explicit exclusion (not subject to
freedom of information • Move to increase competition can limit consideration of benefits of working together to
deliver infrastructure and services.
Research • Research environment and funding need to be more joined up (cross councils) • Limited recognition of the need for and value of knowledge exchange and mobilisation,
including drawing on what is going on internationally. • Multidisciplinary research within the research and academic communities has limited
value in terms of investment and recognition • Limited systems thinking within the education system.
5
Data • Data sharing is limited, especially what is seen as commercially sensitive
data/information • Data quality and relevance
o Strive for quantitative data and modelling when qualitative information can also be informative – understanding of integration can be limited
o Recognition of the limitations of data (utility beyond that for which it was collected)
Understanding of Risks and Benefits • Understanding of what and where to bring infrastructure together (associated risks and
benefits) • Ability to articulate and demonstrate the opportunities/benefits rather than the risks • Capability to assess critical infrastructure and services provided from a systems
perspective that would allow identification of vulnerabilities and risks and inform decisions.
Pull for integration • Lack of customer pull and willingness of customer to pay and fund (need to increase
awareness of benefits)
Next Steps in this dialogue The list of possible subjects/areas to inform the dialogue identified during the meeting:
• LA perspectives on infrastructure interdependencies, challenges and lessons learnt • IOA Forum members and other infrastructure operators that would be willing to share examples
and experiences • ICIF update • Relationship with sector resilience plans • ‘Anytown’ project potentially linked to CIRIA report C688 (Hypothetical city) • Relationships with the NAP and climate adaptation programmes within Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Wales -‐ how these are addressing interdependencies • HS2 – how interdependencies are being addressed • Experiences over the 2013/14 winter(EA/DNOs) to trigger exploration of challenges • An update on the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) work related
to extreme events in terms of interdependencies • Exploring the potential of interdependencies to capture value rather than just to avoid losses –
where interdependencies can have positive impacts, including through consideration of different scenarios (use to engage the public)
There was also the suggestion of further considering the questions used to explore the challenges by entering into an internet based dialogue that would engage the broader IOA Forum members. It was further suggested that through further reflection on these questions, and those raised in the paper circulated at the meeting, these further considerations could be used to inform the dialogue at the session within the ARCC Network Assembly (June 2014) and at the next IOA Forum meeting.
These suggestions will be considered by the core planning team as options to be pursued through face-‐to-‐face and virtual meetings – the forward agenda.
6
Annex 1 Purpose of the Dialogue
A policy/practice-‐science dialogue to explore and understand dependencies / interdependencies across the infrastructure sectors
This is a joint initiative of the Infrastructure Operators’ Adaptation (IOA) Forum and the ARCC Network2. As such, the proposed dialogues are taking a policy/practice-‐science perspective and are designed to provide opportunities to bring together those within the policy, practice and research communities that are exploring and seeking to understand dependencies and interdependencies in the infrastructure sectors.
The intention is to share learning, challenges and plans by providing opportunities to inform each other of related efforts within and across the different communities, and to provide opportunities to discuss potential collaborative efforts, if and where this makes sense.
The planned activities will provide opportunities for those interested and active in this area to participate in a series of targeted events, including flexible virtual events, face-‐to-‐face events (including this workshop), and will provide access to shared briefing notes and reports. The intention is to enhance the potential for participation by providing flexibility in terms of how and the extent to which participants engage, and by focusing face-‐to-‐face engagement on where it is essential to deliver the agreed benefits.
Kick-‐off Event Agenda
10:00 Refreshments
10:30 Introductions and purpose
10:45 Presentations – examples of state of play Practice: Anglian Water – David Quincy, Sharing experiences Jan/Feb 2014 – John Dora Research Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortium – Jim Hall, iBuild – Richard Dawson Policy: IUK – David Penhallurick (including reference to work by UK Regulators Network)
12:30 Discussion and sharing by participants of other related initiatives – aim is to provide a better understanding of the associated landscape
13:00 Lunch
13:45 Facilitate discussion -‐ lessons learnt and challenges. Exploring barriers and knowledge and evidence gaps, and identifying potential ways forward
14:30 Next steps in this dialogue -‐ including virtual events via the internet, and the ARCC Network Assembly, June 10-‐11, Birmingham
15:00 Closure
2 The Adaptation and Resilience in the Context of Change (ARCC) Network brings together researchers and stakeholders involved in adaptation to technological, social and environmental change in the built environment and infrastructure sectors. Funded by EPSRC, the Network provides a UK-wide network that aims to develop and exchange knowledge and evidence from across the research community to better inform policy and practice.
7
Participants
Suzanne Al-‐Dabbagh DECC Kate Avery Network Rail Lloyd Barson Network Rail Tim Broyd UCL Kate Canning ARUP Charles Corbishley Environment Agency Amanda Crossfield Yorkshire Water Damien Culley National Grid Paul Davies Institution of Engineering and Technology Richard Dawson Newcastle University Jonathan Day Environment Agency Tom Dolan UCL John Dora JDCL Chris Fieldsend Office of Rail Regulation Emma Fryer TechUK Miles Gidlow Department for Transport Dan Griffiths Climate UK Jim Hall University of Oxford Ian Hill Openreach (BT Group) Ralitsa Hiteva SPRU, University of Sussex Matthew Hogan Greater London Authority Nick Jackson Defra Simon Jude Cranfield university Richard Le Gros Energy Networks Association Nienke Maas TNO Chris Mack DECC Shanti Majithia National Grid Ronan Palmer Ofwat Raghav Pant University of Oxford David Penhallurick Infrastructure UK Richard Ploszek Infrastructure UK David Quincey Anglian Water
Ges Rosenberg Systems Centre, University of Bristol Phil Sivell UKCIP/ARCC Network Roger Street UKCIP/ARCC Network Andrew Warrington ADEPT/Notts County Council Jeremy Watson UCL David Whensley Energy Networks Association Helen Woolston Transport for London Mark Workman Energy Research Partnership