MUHA Project: Forming a Roadmap for Disaster-Safer Communities Moving from Response to Resilience

: Drinking water distribution networks are among the most resilient infrastructure systems to disasters, specifically hazards such as accidental pollution, floods, droughts, earthquakes, and pandemics. Water operators experiencing these kinds of hazards should focus on the establishment of more effective response systems. The paper presents the outputs and results of improving response time and effectiveness of the capacity developed by national, bilateral, and EU Civil Protection mechanisms. The methodology used for the hazard risk assessment procedures and the analysis of the Water Safety Plans (WSPs) lead to improved preparedness mechanisms. The results showed that water use efficiency is a key component in resiliency.


Introduction
Extreme weather events, including floods and droughts, are increasing in terms of frequency, intensity, and risk severity on the one hand, natural disasters such as earthquakes and accidental pollution in drinking water affect the operation of water-supply and sewerage infrastructure, along with the functioning of wastewater treatment plants, thereby affecting public health protection. Natural disasters might cause several kinds of damage to Water Distribution Networks (WDNs) and may result in the entrance of micro-organisms at several parts of the network. Malicious threats might include terrorism attacks using biological or chemical compounds and pandemics such as coronaviruses may cause adverse effects to the health of water consumers [1]. On the other hand pandemics, such as coronaviruses, although not scientifically proved to infect drinking water and contaminate water environment, further research is a necessity in order to re-examine their potential presence in drinking water and wastewater distribution networks and eventually the effectiveness of the existing measures incorporated in the water safety plans [2].
In Greece and in several other countries in the Adriatic region, the current status of the existing WDNs in terms of multi hazard (accidental pollution, floods, droughts, earthquakes) and pandemics preparedness should be re-evaluated. Effective natural and man-induced disaster management needs to be addressed, through a complex preparedness-response-mitigation-rebuild cycle in different levels in the Adriatic region countries.
MUHA project (multi hazard framework for water related risks management) connects the observed and modelled hazards and risks related to the integrated water supply cycle with the existing capacity developed by national, bilateral, and EU Civil Protection Mechanisms, following the rationale defined by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, adopted on March 2015 [3]. Transboundary cooperation is a prerequisite in supporting the efforts of Governments, local communities, and stakeholders to reduce disaster risk. One of the basic guiding principles of the Sendai Framework highlights that each country has the responsibility to prevent and reduce disaster risk, through international, regional, sub regional, transboundary, and bilateral cooperation. In order to achieve this, actions should be guided through agreed regional and sub regional strategies and mechanisms for cooperation for disaster risk reduction, in order to foster more efficient planning, create common information systems, and exchange good practices for capacity development, to address common and transboundary disaster risks. Transboundary water protection and water supply systems management in emergency conditions is a necessity harmonizing both alert systems and emergency protocols to be more effective. In conclusion, transnational cooperation is a pillar, to improve response to water-related hazard, both under ordinary and emergency conditions.

The MUHA Project
The MUHA project started in March 2020 and is expected to be concluded by the end of August 2022 [4]. The partnership covers the whole civil protection mechanism for water safety purposes, in terms of technical and administrative capacity, consisted of five public research institutions, three water utilities, and three public administration entities. Specific competences at regional and local level are diffused in the Adriatic-Ionian area and represented by the water utilities in the MUHA partnership. Participation of national civil protection is a prerequisite for the development of new methodologies/procedures ensuring the feasibility of water safety plans. Public administration entities will contribute to the harmonization of technical solutions/methodologies and emergency procedures between civil protection mechanisms and water utilities. The strategic added value in MUHA is thus the co-presence of both civil protection and water utilities representing a wide range of regional/local realities in the Adriatic-Ionian area. Moreover, public administration partners represent state-of-the-art specific competences and long experience regarding water-related hazard impacting their territory. The challenge of MUHA partners is to address the common hazard and civil protection objectives although they are characterized by different hydrogeological parameters and water supply infrastructures vulnerability.
Ten partners from six countries are involved in the project  (Table 1) are involved as associates. They cover a wide range of stakeholders within the Adriatic-Ionian area (water utilities, civil protection structures or public administrations devoted to emergency management and associations of water utilities) in the water-related risks emergency and management sector. Associated water utilities and civil protection entities contribute to the current status assessment, and to the evaluation of the proposed guidelines.  MUHA is structured in three basic components: (a) analysis of the current emergency procedures and the possible weaknesses; (b) development of new methodologies/procedures to be applied in the case study areas; (c) development of guidelines for the drafting of the WSPs. Different perspectives will be analyzed with the contribution of the whole partnership. The pilot activities will be implemented by the water utilities, considering their current local status [4].
MUHA partnership covers the whole emergency chain for civil protection and water safety purposes, in terms of technical, scientific, and administrative capacity. Specific competences at regional and local level are diffused in the Adriatic-Ionian area and represented by the water utilities in the MUHA partnership. The participation of national civil protection is essential for the development of new efficient methodologies/procedures ensuring the feasibility of the water safety plans. Public administration entities are expected to coordinate the harmonization of technical solutions/methodologies and emergency procedures between civil protection structures and water utilities [4]. Moreover, the spatial allocation of public administration partners ensures a diffuse presence of the MUHA partners over the Adriatic-Ionian area, presenting prominent competences and long experiences regarding water-related hazard impacting the aforementioned territory, characterized by different hydrogeological parameters, water supply infrastructures, and vulnerability. To ensure the largest representativeness of all the stakeholders involved in water emergency risks and to ensure a wider capitalization of the project results, the partnership has also incorporated the associated partners [4].
In terms of risk assessment, four water related risks are addressed within MUHA project, related to different hazards: accidental pollution, flooding, drought, and failure of critical infrastructure due to earthquakes. Moreover, MUHA integrates functions of the analysis, forecasting, and incident preparedness systems, to be integrated in Common Alerting Protocols, enabling efficient transnational response. The insufficient interconnection of the role of water utilities in the implementation of water safety plans and civil protection mechanisms in the countries (Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro) involved in the project is a weakness to be analyzed. It is a fact that different planning and response mechanisms exist at different levels. Thus, existing mechanisms require modifications to provide a more effective level of implementation. MUHA produces a long-term solid networking, based on a joint transnational management to address the common challenges of water-related response to hazards. Moreover, the implementation of common action plans, methods, and tools in the pilot areas is expected to improve response time and effectiveness of the coping capacity developed by national, bilateral, and EU Civil Protection mechanisms [4].

The Adriatic-Ionian Area
The report from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social committee, and the Committee of the Regions "on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies" (2016) [5], points out that there is a gap in efficient coordination and is still a common limit to all macro-regional strategies, while multi-sectoral, multi-country, and multi-level governance is a priority for the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR). Concerning the EUSAIR, a "clear need for sharing existing knowledge and scientific assets" has been identified as a main cross cutting aspect, while mitigating and adapting to climate change effects as well as managing disaster risks are recognized as horizontal principles for all four pillars "for a prosperous and integrated Adriatic And Ionian region" (2014) [6]. The Adriatic-Ionian area has been subjected to relevant environmental impacts over recent decades as a result of the increasing anthropic pressures and climate change: decrease in water availability (due to quantity and quality issues) (EEA Report No 1/2017), as well as vulnerability of water infrastructures due to earthquake. In line with the EUSAIR strategy, MUHA project connects the observed and modelled hazards and risks related to the integrated water cycle, by effectively merging them with the existing and improved coping capacity developed by national, bilateral, and EU Civil Protection Mechanisms, following the rationale defined by the Sendai framework.
The core project actions integrate functions of the incident command system (ICS), related also by the CAP (Common Alerting Protocols) enabling thus efficient transnational response to any water hazard related risk, contributing to make the Adriatic-Ionian area more resilient and secure to risks related to water safety. It is worth noting that improving water supply resilience and quality through joint transnational response is particularly important as the Adriatic and Ionian Region is vulnerable to disasters and comprehensive actions to adapt to those circumstances are needed. Conducting adequate comprehensive risk assessment, implementing a disaster risk management policy, as well as developing a preparedness plan, will make the region more resilient to such changes [5]. Four water related risks are faced: accidental pollution, floods, droughts, failure of critical infrastructure due to earthquake. MUHA scopes the status of water hazard management and safety plans in the countries involved. Hazard assessment methodologies and management differences among the approaches are addressed and more harmonized methods delineated. Particular attention is placed in the harmonization between water safety plans and Civil protection mechanisms at a transnational level. A set of guidance documents is developed and harmonized among the partners in order to set a uniform approach towards the improved multi-hazard management of WSS and applied in six pilot actions, in which management and operation of water supply utilities are compared with the addressed hazards. Pilot actions verify implementation status of applicable measures. Specific tools and procedures are developed based on gaps or weakness identified and harmonized action plan, methods/tools devoted to improved Water Safety Plans for the Adriatic-Ionian area are elaborated.
In terms of the existing legal framework for the implementation of WSPs, the participating countries in the MUHA project have established different mechanisms ( Table 2). MUHA supports a joint transnational management to hazards on WSS in the Adriatic-Ionian area, with improved response time and effectiveness of the coping capacity.
Further analysis of the WSPs mechanisms in the participating counties and the relevant legislative framework is the next step. Especially, for transboundary water protection and even more water supply systems management in emergency conditions harmonizing both alert systems and emergency protocols is a necessity, for them to be more effective. For this reason, transnational cooperation is a pillar of the project, in coherence with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, enhancing the importance to enable policy and planning for the implementation of common approaches with regard to shared resources, such as within river basins and to build resilience and reduce disaster risk, including epidemic and displacement risk [6].

Water Safety Plans in Greece
Water Safety Plans are a holistic approach related to the qualitative management of water from the water source to the distribution, adopting the principle of multiple barriers and focusing on the need for implementation of control measures in all links of the water supply chain. In Greece, the first priority (such as in Italy and other countries) was to implement the Water Safety Plans in the biggest Municipal Enterprises for Water Supply and Sewerage (i.e., Serres, Kavala, and Drama city). Although, most of the Greek water utilities and municipalities have applied for funding for the drafting of the WSPs, only few of them have finalized this procedure.
Regarding the legal framework, it is more or less identical with the one of the other countries involved in the MUHA project. The specifications for the implementation of the WSPs in Greece were developed in the framework of the project "Technical Support to the General Secretariat for Water of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change for the recording of the problems for the implementation of the Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of drinking water in Greece and investigation of possibilities for the adoption of Water Safety Plans" [7].
In terms of water protection and management, the WFD has been incorporated to the Greek Law 3199/2003. This law applies to the protection and management of surface and groundwater. It introduces an innovative and holistic approach to water management. It also emphasizes river basin water management, as well as water pricing policies aiming in full cost recovery. It incorporates the 'polluter pays' principle and the objective of maintaining or achieving the 'good ecological status' of all water resources by controlling pollution and establishing limit values for water quality monitoring. It also introduces innovative approaches to water quantity protection and transnational cooperation on the protection of Transboundary Rivers and lakes. Along with this law a Presidential Decree 51/2007 is also issued, for establishing measures and procedures for the integrated protection and management of water in accordance with the provisions of the WFD. The purpose of the legislative act is to establish the necessary framework of mechanisms to achieve integrated protection and rational management of inland, coastal, and groundwater resources. Moreover, in terms of Environmental Quality Standards, several European Directives exist, some of them already incorporated to the Joint Ministerial Degree 170766/2016 for the Determination of Environmental Quality Standards for concentrations of specific pollutants and substances in surface water the methodology used for the drafting of the water safety plans. Several differences and similarities should be noted, in terms of the obligations for monitoring, quality assurance, and information activities of the competence authorities (Table 3).
Greek water supply systems were classified into representative groups and the specifications related to the required technical data of each case were compiled [7]. The research for the selection of WSS for pilot implementation of the Water Safety Plans was based on the findings of a field survey carried out during the implementation this study. The analysis and the results were based on the legislation on water for human consumption in Greece (JMY2/2600/2001) that covers 9290 settlements with a total population of 10,730,732 inhabitants. According to the survey, the majority of these water supply areas are supplied by groundwater resources. Additionally, out of approximately 310 areas, only 11 are supplied by surface water resources. In terms of water treatment methods, disinfection (chlorination) is used for the treatment of groundwater, while for surface water (95% of the annual Surface Water Volume) pre-disinfection-precipitation is used accordingly.
The methodology used for drafting of the WSPs is based on three core phases: (i) PHASE I is for recording the existing situation of the water supply systems, incorporating actions of team building, drafting of the organizational chart, the time plan, and the risk identification and assessment existing control measures; (ii) PHASE II is for the preparation of the WSP guide, including methods and tools for monitoring parameters and frequency in the water sources and the consumer tap; (iii) PHASE III is for the WSP evaluation and review of proposed measures and activities.  -Collect all the necessary data and regularly report to consumers and the Ministry of Health.
-The Ministry of Health publishes a report every 3 years regarding the quality of drinking water (informing consumers at least of water supplies > 1000 m 3 per day on average or serving more than 5000 inhabitants).

National Disaster Management System in Greece
In Greece, several levels of Greek authorities are responsible for disaster management activities meaning the General Secretariat for Civil Protection (GSCP), the Ministry of Citizen Protection, the General Secretariat for Water/Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, the Fire Corps, the Health Authorities, NGOs, the Decentralized Administrations, the Regional Authorities, the Municipalities, along with the Water Utilities and the Hellenic Union of Municipal Enterprises for Water Supply and Sewerage. Regarding prevention in Greece each ministry is responsible for the drafting of prevention plans and for preventive structural measures in the area of its competency. The GSCP issues a number of circulars including guidelines not only on prevention, but also on preparedness and disaster response. In terms of risk assessment, the key risks identified in the national risk assessment include forest fires, earthquakes, floods, and industrial accidents. In terms of risk management planning, the National Civil Protection Plan "Xenokrates" (Ministerial Decision 1299/2003) sets the national framework for an effective risk management planning and provides for the development of hazard-specific plans at the local, regional, and national level. In accordance with "Xenokrates", at national level, the General Secretariat for Civil Protection issues National Plans for all kinds of natural and manmade disasters. All other competence bodies such as ministries, decentralized governmental authorities, and local government authorities should also design their plans based on the national one. The GSCP has a cross sectoral and all-hazards competence, while hazard-specific communication is provided by public authorities in their sphere of competence [7].
In terms of emergency response and immediate/short-term management for earthquakes and floods, two master plans have been drafted in Greece, named Ekgelados and Dardanos accordingly. The General Secretariat for Civil Protection, the regional authorities, and the local government authorities are in charge of coordinating all operational forces depending on whether the disaster is national, regional, or local [8].

Results and Discussion
Based on the analysis elaborated in this paper, it should be noted that competence bodies are prompt to determine all necessary measures to protect water sources (drilling, dredging, natural water tanks, etc.). They should also adequately maintain the water supply systems in adequate status (external and internal networks) and systematically monitor and prioritize preparedness measures. Moreover, they should carry out health identification in different parts of the water supply system in conjunction with taking water samples for laboratory testing and residual chlorine control, along with sample and laboratory checks for the entire distribution network from the source to the consumer in accordance with the monitoring programs. Identifying the critical components of the WDS is an added value, hence that critical components in administration and operations, treatment facilities, storage distribution systems, and source water are those most vulnerable to failure due to a disaster hazard. Failure of a critical component will reduce the system's ability to meet minimum health and safety performance goals [9].
In order to ensure the quality of drinking water and food quality in cases of natural disasters such as earthquakes, the Greek Ministry of Health has issued a circular in 52450/2017 entitled "Taking measures to safeguard public health after severe weather and flooding". According to this legislative act in order to ensure the quality of drinking, the water authorities, in collaboration with the Regional Health Directorates and other relevant bodies, implement sanitary inspection of the operation of the water supply systems, along with the monitoring of sewage. Inspection also for possible leakages (such as breakage of pipes, barriers to flow) is very crucial or inspection of any leakage that can create a problem of drinking water hygiene.
In case of leakages that may create a problem of drinking water hygiene and in case of the event of a fault in the water supply network a number of measures should be taken such as immediate detailed health identification and investigation of the causes of the problem as well as laboratory testing (microbiological and physicochemical parameters) after appropriate sampling. Water samples should be taken from critical points of the water supply network, such as wells, water supply tanks, mainly upstream and downstream of the water pipe failure point. Moreover, in case there are valid indications that the quality parameters of drinking water are exceeded, appropriate public health protection measures should be immediately launched in cooperation with water operators: (i) intermit of water supply until the problems are restored and quality assurance is ensured within the limits of the current legislation while informing the residents and taking measures to deal with the temporary water supply disconnection to the population of the area (supply of suitable quality drinking water e.g., bottled, transport by tank); (ii) in accordance with the instructions of the World Health Organization, after each repair in a pipeline section, hyper chlorination should be performed with a solution of high concentration chlorine and a corresponding residence time; (iii) after identifying the problem and dealing with it (repairing the network fault, taking measures to protect the source, etc.), if the problem is generalized, apply the measure of overflow of the water supply tank and the entire length of the water system with high concentration chlorine solution and corresponding residence time, which will then be discarded and then restarted. Prediction models can be incorporated in the WSPs and used as tools to select where to monitor chlorination residual levels to ensure complete removal of microbes. Such models are used as the basis for epidemiological studies and health risk assessment [1].
In general, to prevent and reduce disaster risks, specifically hazards such as accidental pollution, flooding, drought, earthquakes, and pandemics, water operators should include in the drafting of the WSPs more prevention than rehabilitation measures. These measures should be incorporated in each step of the following methodology used nowadays: (a) building of a team (key personnel) that has the appropriate know-how to prepare the Water Safety Plan, creating an internal task force; (b) description of all stages of the water supply system, assessment of their operational efficiency; (c) identification of all possible risks that may threaten the safety of water at any stage of the water supply system, assessment of the risk/water quality control plan; (d) identification and evaluation of existing control measures to address each risk; (e) implementation of an improved plan if deemed necessary; (f) design monitoring of the control measures (or "multiple barriers"); (g) description of the water supply system; (h) identification of possible hazards that may threaten the water safety in the water supply system and assess their risk. It is worth mentioning that the drafting of WSPs is a dynamic process and continuous improvement should be considered (Figure 2). The MUHA project contributes to the analysis of the implementation of the existing Water Safety Plans (WSPs), as defined by WHO 2005 and the Drinking Water Directive 2015/1787, EN 15975-2, and will provide input for the improved WSPs developed for multi-hazard approach of the project. The results of this analysis will be reviewed and applied during the implementation of the six pilot actions, in which management and operation of water supply utilities are confronted with the addressed hazards (floods, droughts, accidental pollution, and earthquakes). Finally, the drafting of a harmonized action plan will be performed by a common understanding among transnational networks. Increased transnational cooperation, exchange, and communication among authorities and civil society will result in "state-of-the-art" management (response in case of emergency).

Conclusions
Although, the central government has the primary role to reduce disaster risks for civil protection within the water supply chain, this responsibility should be shared with the stakeholders including the local government, the private sector, and the local community. To increase the effectiveness of this synergy the following aspects should be considered: (a) monitoring of qualitative/quantitative characteristics in all stages of the water supply chain, with the utilization of remote control technology, considering WFD review/implementation reports; (b) determination of monitoring indicators related to the assessment of the operational status of the infrastructure (not a simple mapping of physical characteristics); (c) determination of the variation range of the above indicators in order to optimize the operation (technically and economically) of the infrastructure; (d) evaluation of the existing operational status and life cycle assessment of the infrastructure; (e) design of register for the existing infrastructure; (f) prioritization of investments and drafting of an investment plan. Further research is needed for the incorporation of these aspects to the water safety and the hazards resistance preparedness plans taking into account alternative sources of supply (i.e., for flood events, new water sources-risk assessment: reclaimed water, desalination, etc., or standby sources that are operated regularly to ensure they work when required, and sampled to provide historical quality data), future water consumption demands, and possible hazards [10]. Moreover, water operators should prepare a business continuity plan and a multi hazard prevention strategy, in coherency with the national and regional strategy. Transition from response to resilience is the key to success. Additional issues arise also from the obligation of the governments according to WFD to develop and apply appropriate pricing policies to recover the Full Water Cost [11]. Who must pay for this extra cost of increasing the preparedness response to possible hazards? The next step is to estimate the socially fair mean water price.