Introduction
In the context of the complex nature of modern disasters, anticipating and preparing for emerging risks requires a comprehensive risk assessment involving foresight techniques (Girgin et al., 2019; Jahangiri et al., 2017). It is necessary to move beyond past-oriented paradigms and conceptualise disaster risk as a dynamic system (Riddell et al., 2020). Foreseeing the plausible futures based on emerging trends enable communities most at risk to shape their risk-informed development plans accordingly. Unlike traditional planning methods and tools, foresight methods embrace uncertainty and consider a range of future possibilities and new solutions.
Foresight practices include horizon-scanning for identifying key drivers of change and the hazards and opportunities in the medium and long-term, e.g., years 2040 and 2070 (Jahangiri et al., 2017), and long-term scenario-building and scenario-based assessments for analysing impacts of different future conditions of disasters. Often setting the foundations for scenario-building, foresight techniques such as horizon-scanning allow for early identification of current and new risks and challenges and support the undertaking of adaptive, preventative or preparedness action for impending disruptive events.
European Union Disaster Resilience Goals (EUDRG; European Commission, 2023) foresee that these methodologies should be applied more systematically in disaster risk management (DRM). Goal 1 emphasises the need to improve the EU and member states’ capability in risk assessment, anticipation, and disaster risk management planning in complex disaster risks. DRM actors should turn the assessment of future risks into information that can trigger early action, further improve the scenario-building capability, the assessment of risk itself, the anticipatory capability and the risk management planning, with a view to developing preventative action.
The regulatory frameworks for conducting foresight analysis in the DRM context are under-developed, though. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 encourages signatory countries to analyse potential futures in DRM. In the European Union, national risk assessments are prepared by Member States in compliance with Decision 1313/2013/EU; Member states should conduct risk assessments as an overall cross-sectoral process of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation undertaken at national or appropriate sub-national level. More specifically, the risk assessment focuses on potential threat scenarios and disruptions that may occur in the future (European Parliament, 2012). Thus, Member States are to determine how multiple drivers of longer-term futures are taken into consideration in risk analyses.
So far, there is no systematic overview of the civil protection authorities’ practices in using foresight techniques to overcome the uncertainty and complexity of factors determining the outcome of future disasters. This ROADMAP2 project flash report explores how are foresight techniques used in risk assessments to guide adaptive, preventive, or preparedness actions in the civil protection system. The aim of this flash report is to provide an overview of foresight analysis practices by DRM authorities in different countries. We seek answers to the following questions:
1. What has been the purpose of applying foresight in DRM?
2. What types of risks, which trends or subject projections are addressed?
3. Which time horizons and methods are used in foresight analysis?
4. What are the success factors for strategic foresight in DRM?

The report follows the methodology for identifying and assessing good practices in DRM set forth in the ROADMAP2 deliverable D3.1. In this context, good practices are defined as activities that substantially reduce disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods, health, and assets.
Disaster management planning, risk assessments and scenario-building were considered as the key areas of relevance in the search for good practices in DRM. Firstly, the search for good practices was conducted across academic databases using search terms such as “disaster”, “crisis”, “future” and “foresight”. The databases used for the search were Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. Secondly, a search for foresight practices was conducted across the websites of international organisations operating in the field of DRM, including UNDRR, WHO and GNDR. Additionally, the search for foresight practices at a national or a subnational level was conducted using Google search engine. This search yielded mainly national risk assessment reports and mid-term reviews for the Sendai Framework of Disaster Risk Reduction.
In identifying good practices amongst the results, the identification criteria set in ROADMAP2 (2023) deliverable D3.1 Framework for identifying and assessing GPs in DRM were applied:
• cover the DRM cycle (e.g., have been realised in prevention, preparedness, response and/or recovery phases);
• adhere to priorities and targets of the Sendai Framework for DRR;
• adhere to the UDRGs;
• consider a multi-risk perspective;
• through research and/or practice, have been applied and work in a real context in achieving outcomes and results (evidence);
• involve different types of stakeholders (international, national, local, but also different professions).

To gather reflections regarding the success factors for strategic foresight in DRM, a ROADMAP2 webinar was organised in January 2024. The webinar hosted a panel of three expert speakers: Laurent Bontoux (Senior Foresight for Policy Expert at European Commission Joint Research Centre), Simone Kimpeler (Head of the Competence Center Foresight at Fraunhofer ISI), and Jussi Korhonen (Director of Civil Emergency Preparedness for Finnish Ministry of the Interior), moderated by Kati Orru (University of Tartu, Risk & Resilience Research Group). The webinar was open for public participation; altogether, there were 351 participants.