ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 1 Geoscience Engagement in Global Development Frameworks JOEL C. GILL British Geological Survey, Environmental Science Centre, Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, UK Geology for Global Development, UK joell@bgs.ac.uk FLORENCE BULLOUGH Geological Society of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W1J 0BG, UK florence.bullough@geolsoc.org.uk Abstract During 2015, the international community agreed three socio-environmental global development frameworks, the: (i) Sustainable Development Goals, (ii) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and (iii) Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Each corresponds to important interactions between environmental processes and society. Here we synthesize the role of geoscientists in the delivery of each framework, and explore the meaning of and justification for increased geoscience engagement (active participation). We first demonstrate that geoscience is fundamental to success- fully achieving the objectives of each framework. We characterize four types of geoscience engagement (framework de- sign, promotion, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation), with examples within the scope of the geoscience community. In the context of this characterization, we discuss: (i) our ethical responsibility to engage with these frame- works, noting the emphasis on societal cooperation within the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics; and (ii) the need for increased and higher quality engagement, including an improved understanding of the science-policy-practice interface. Facilitating increased engagement is necessary if we are to maximize geoscience’s positive impact on global development. 1. INTRODUCTION he agreement of three global develop- ment frameworks in 2015 reflects ‘a glob- al consensus that business as usual is no op- tion any longer, that changing the development tra- jectory is necessary’ (Spangenberg, 2016, p.1). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and COP21 Paris Climate Change Agreement (Paris Agreement) will be at the forefront of national and international policy discourse for the next 15 years. Collec- tively they aim to shape the strategies that guide economic growth, human welfare, access to natural resources, and environmental man- agement. Each of the SDGs, SFDRR, and Paris Agreement relates to the interaction of human activities with the natural environment. Ad- vances in science and technology, including geoscience, are central to each framework (e.g., Lubchenco et al., 2015; Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2016; Boucher et al., 2016; Gluckman, 2016; Gill, 2017). For example, managing natural re- sources, characterizing natural hazards, or modelling future climate all require multi-scale (spatial and temporal) understanding of Earth materials and/or processes. This requirement for geoscience input presents an opportunity for the geoscience community. It also places T ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 2 upon us a social responsibility to engage, which we define to mean ‘actively participating in framework design, promotion, implementation, monitoring and evaluation’. Scientific business as usual, however, will not be sufficient, with changes to geoscience practice required for successful engagement (Lubchenco et al., 2015). In this paper, we describe each global devel- opment framework and opportunities for geo- scientists to help deliver their objectives (Sec- tions 2-4). We then discuss engagement by geo- scientists, reflecting upon types of engagement, our ethical responsibility to engage, catalyzing increased engagement, and characterizing ef- fective engagement (Section 5). 2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS In September 2015, member states of the Unit- ed Nations formally adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an ambitious set of 17 goals and 169 targets (UN, 2015a). The SDGs aim to eradicate global poverty, end unsustain- able consumption patterns, and facilitate sus- tained and inclusive economic growth, social development, and environmental protection over a 15-year period, 2015-2030 (UN, 2015a). The SDGs have been described as ‘science in- tensive’ (Gluckman, 2016), with their environ- mental focus meaning geoscience is essential to their success (Lubchenco et al., 2015). Gill (2017) produced a matrix, which illustrates the role of geoscience in the SDGs (Fig. 1). The ma- trix was populated by analyzing the text of the specific SDG sub-goals and targets, identifying links between SDG requirements and geosci- ence. Interconnections between many SDGs (Nilsson et al., 2016) results in this approach giving a conservative estimate of the true im- pact of geoscience interventions. For example, goals on education (SDG 4) and gender equali- ty (SDG 5) do not specifically refer to access to water/sanitation (SDG 6), but increased access to water/sanitation can support both. Fig. 1 shows a role for geoscience within all 17 of the SDGs. Contributions will be required from all sectors and sub-disciplines of geoscience, in- cluding those working in research, industry, the public sector and civil society. Examples of geoscience activities helping to deliver the SDGs include research projects, in- dustry engagement, and civil society activities. We provide specific examples in Section 5. 3. SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK REDUCTION (SFDRR) 2015-30 The SFDRR was adopted at the 3rd UN World Conference on DRR in March 2015, supported by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Through its implementation, the SFDRR aims to reduce substantially disaster risk and losses in all forms (UNISDR, 2015). The SFDRR includes four Priorities for Action (PfA), with a 2016 UNISDR conference demon- strating the scope for science and technology in delivering each (Aitsi-Selmi et al., 2016). We introduce each PfA in Table 1, with a descrip- tion of geo-sciences’ role and examples of en- gagement. Underpinning the four PfA of the SFDRR are 13 guiding principles, many of which require geoscience input. For example, one guiding principle requests that decision- making use a ‘multi-hazard approach’. UNISDR (2017) defines multi-hazard as considering in- terrelationships between natural hazards, in- cluding hazardous events occurring simultane- ously, in cascades, or cumulatively over time. Geoscientists have experience in contributing to the understanding and communication of multi-hazard dynamics. For example, follow- ing the 2015 M7.8 earthquake in Nepal, the British Geological Survey compiled inventories of triggered landslides (BGS, 2017a). Inventories, and associated maps, demonstrate where landslides block rivers (potentially trig- gering floods), and can be used by organiza- tions responding to disasters. Other guiding principles can inform change within the geo- science community, helping to improve en- gagement in the SFDRR. For example, research collaborations should reflect on the principle ‘international cooperation to be effective, meaning- ful and strong’. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 3 Figure 1: A matrix highlighting the role of geoscientists in helping to achieve the SDGs (Gill, 2017). ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 4 Table 1: Geoscience and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Priority for Action (PfA)1 Description and Use of Geoscience Example Output 1. Understanding disaster risk Research on earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides, subsidence, and other hazards addresses this priority. PfA-1 also requests comprehensive surveys of multi-hazard disaster risk, regional assessments and maps, and enhanced access to and support for long-term multi- hazard research. An interrelated hazards approach to anticipating evolv- ing risk (Duncan et al., 2016). 2. Strengthening disaster risk gov- ernance to manage disaster risk Geoscience information informs laws, regulations and pol- icy tools. For example, understanding ground conditions is a necessary input to building codes. PfA-2 also emphasizes the development of strategies to strengthen environmental resilience, environmental and resource management standards, and policies to prevent settlement in disaster- risk prone zones. Earthquake science in DRR policy and practice in Nepal (Oven et al., 2016). 3. Investing in dis- aster risk reduction for resilience Resilience is enhanced through investment in both struc- tural and non-structural measures. For example, retrofit- ting critical infrastructure to the effects of earthquakes (structural), and ensuring coherence of DRR and urban de- velopment strategies (non-structural). PfA-3 seeks to main- stream disaster risk assessment into land-use policy devel- opment and implementation. It also encourages coopera- tion between scientific networks and the private sector to develop new products/services to reduce risk. Setting, measuring and monitoring tar- gets for reducing disaster risk (Mitch- ell et al., 2014), with comment on insur- ance and catastro- phe modelling. 4. Enhancing disas- ter preparedness for effective response and to ‘Build Back Better’ in recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction PfA-4 requests development and maintenance of people- centered multi-hazard, multisectoral forecasting, early warning systems, and hazard-monitoring communications. Geoscience information will need integrating with appro- priate knowledge in communications, development, and psychology. PfA-4 also encourages preparedness, response and recovery exercises, and sharing of resources. Using video games for volcanic hazard education and communication (Mani et al., 2016). 1 See UNISDR (2015) for full description, and lists of local/national and regional/global objectives. 4. PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT Geoscience has significantly contributed to our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. For example, evidence of climate change in the geological record forms an im- portant, independent evidence base for an- thropogenic climate change (GSL, 2010). The Paris Agreement, published at the end of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in De- cember 2015, secured a legislative agreement with a long-term goal to limit climate change to well below 2˚C above pre-industrial averages (UN, 2015b). At the time of writing 132 parties ratified this agreement. The Paris Agreement consists of an opening statement and 29 ‘Arti- cles’ which detail the component parts of the agreement. Many Articles refer to requirements for which geoscience expertise and capacity are essential, as described in Table 2. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 5 Table 2: Geoscience and COP21: The role of geoscience in delivering the agreement. Relevant Articles (UN, 2015b) Contribution of geoscience to article Example Output Article 2.1(a): ‘Holding the in- crease in the global average temper- ature to well below 2°C above pre- industrial levels and to pursue ef- forts to limit the temperature in- crease to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.’ Exploring for and extracting fossil fuels with a lower carbon impact; researching and imple- menting Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); in- vestigating geothermal energy sources; and working to develop geological disposal for radi- oactive waste from nuclear power stations. Geological Dis- posal of Depleted, Natural and Low Enriched Uranium (RWM, 2016) Article 2.1(b): ‘Increasing the abil- ity to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster resili- ence…in a manner that does not threaten food production.’ For secure food production, geoscience is essen- tial to (i) the mapping and understanding of groundwater resources to maintain water securi- ty for agriculture, (ii) mineral extraction for ferti- lizer, and (iii) mapping of soil quality. Soil type influ- ences crop miner- al composition in Malawi (Joy et al., 2015) Article 4.1: ‘… reach global peak- ing of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible… undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science… achieve a balance between anthro- pogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases…’. Globally we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a point where there is a sustainable balance between gas emission and sequestration. This can be through both natural carbon sinks and CCS implementation. Locating suitable res- ervoirs and characterizing these for CO2 seques- tration over large timescales will require geosci- ence expertise in stages of design, testing, and implementation. CO2 sequestration and storage capac- ity at Sleipner in the North Sea (BGS, 2017b). Article 7.1: ‘Parties hereby estab- lish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reduc- ing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sus- tainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response…’ Geoscientists support research into climate- linked hazards (e.g., flooding, landslides, drought). Engineering, hydro- and structural ge- ology are essential for effective siting of infra- structure and homes. Long-term monitoring data (e.g., slope movement) can be used to inform new development. Geologists’ understanding of climate change in the deep past, and its impact on environments can inform mitigation and re- silience strategies. Resilience assess- ment for geotech- nical infrastruc- ture assets (Shah et al., 2014) Article 10: ‘Parties share a long- term vision on the importance of fully realizing technology develop- ment and transfer in order to im- prove resilience to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions.’ The technical capacity required to realize the ambitions of the Paris Agreement will come, in part, from geoscientists. Cooperation is needed over areas such as technology transfer and knowledge exchange. Sharing of appropriate disciplinary knowledge across political and geo- graphic borders will support the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Collaborative geo- science research, such as that fund- ed by the UK Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 6 5. DISCUSSION In Sections 2-4, we describe geoscientists’ role in the SDGs, SFDRR and Paris Agreement, not- ing the significant scope for geoscientists to en- gage in all three. Engagement can take many forms, as noted in Table 3. Here we outline four types of engagement, with examples of actual/potential activities associated with each. The examples in Table 3 are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and intended to promote dis- cussion. In the remainder of this section, we consider this diversity of engagement in the context of (i) our ethical responsibility to en- gage, (ii) catalyzing increased engagement, and (iii) ensuring effective engagement for maxi- mum development impact. 5.1 Ethical Responsibility to Engage The geoscience community have a professional and social responsibility to reflect on the en- gagement required to help deliver these frameworks. There is a professional responsi- bility as the geoscience sector must be equipped and ready to respond to the demands placed on us by government and industry. There is a social responsibility, as our failure to engage, or engage well, can limit what is achieved or reduce sustainability. Poor quality engagement (e.g., a weak understanding of the social context of a project, or limited dialogue with stakeholders) may detrimentally impact a project (Gill, 2016). We discuss this in Sec- tion 5.3. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua et al., 2016) includes a set of geoethical values that help to frame our responsibility to engage in global development frameworks. For example, it encourages sharing knowledge and a spirit of cooperation, and promotes geo- education and outreach to further sustainable development. The broad range of organizations supporting the Cape Town Statement (e.g., American Geophysical Union, European Fed- eration of Geologists, African Association of Women in Geosciences) is indicative of the widespread international support for an out- ward looking geoscience community. 5.2 Catalyzing Increased Engagement Throughout this contribution, we have includ- ed examples of activities, projects, and publica- tions that demonstrate existing engagement by the geoscience community in global develop- ment. There is scope, however, for this to ex- pand (Lubchenco et al., 2015; Stewart and Gill, 2017), as illustrated by one example. Consider the engagement labelled ‘Framework Promo- tion’ in Tab. 3. The 2017 European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly included 1059 scientific sessions and side events (EGU, 2017). In the session descriptions, only nine (0.85%) of these 1059 sessions referred to the Sustainable Development Goals, five (0.47%) to the Sendai Framework, and five (0.47%) to the Paris Agreement or COP 21. The remaining 1040 (>98%) sessions did not refer to any of the global frameworks, despite many being on per- tinent topics. The proactive promotion of de- velopment frameworks, including in settings such as the EGU General Assembly, would help improve awareness and foster greater en- gagement. It would also demonstrate the role of geoscience to other disciplines and the broader policy-making community. Improved awareness could catalyze other types of en- gagement. For example, helping to shape new research questions, or improving research dis- semination to policy makers. 5.3 Effective Engagement Engagement must be effective, culturally ap- propriate, and sustainable. As previously not- ed, poor quality engagement can hinder devel- opment progress and does not serve society well. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua et al., 2016) presents a helpful articu- lation of the necessary values if the geoscience sector is to make a full and positive contribu- tion to the delivery of global development frameworks (e.g., honesty, integrity, compe- tence, commitment to life-long-learning). ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 7 Table 3: Types and Examples of Engagement. Type of Engagement Example of Engagement SFDRR SDGs Paris Agreement A. Framework Design: Informing the process that determines what is in- cluded, defining key terms, determining indi- cators of success. Submission (individual or institutional) to UNISDR Expert Work- ing Group on Indicators and Terminology. Early-career scientists engaging with the UN Major Group for Chil- dren and Youth sub- mission to SDG negotia- tions. Research contributions to IPCC assessment re- ports (IPCC, 2013). B. Framework Promotion: Ensuring that members of the geoscience community are aware of the frame- work, and potential geo- science inputs. Panel discussion on ‘Geohazards: From Sendai to the SDGs’ at a GfGD Conference. SDGs workshop at the European Geosciences Union General Assem- bly. Joint Learned Societies’ ‘Climate Communiqué’ (GSL, 2015). C. Framework Imple- mentation: Research, out- reach, and industry activi- ties to support the suc- cessful delivery of the framework. Research: Triggered landslides after the 2015 M7.8 earthquake in Ne- pal (BGS, 2017a). Research: ‘Unlocking the Potential of Groundwater for the Poor’ (UPGro, 2017). Research: Carbon cap- ture and storage (NERC, 2017). Practice: Developing tools to support earth- quake education (Parsquake, 2017). Practice: Construction of sustainable water points (e.g., boreholes) and sanitation facilities. Research: Groundwater resilience to climate change in Africa (Mac- Donald et al., 2011). D. Framework Monitor- ing and Evaluation: As- sessing the efficacy of in- terventions to support implementation. Evaluation of landslide education to assess its impact on perceptions of landslide triggering. Data collection on ac- cess to geoscience train- ing, monitoring pro- gress on SDG 5 (gender equality). Long-term monitoring of ocean acidification (IOCCP, 2017). Professional and learned societies, such as the Geological Society of London (see www.geolsoc.org.uk), also play an important role in ensuring effective engagement through their focus on professionalism. Chartership and the emphasis on Continued Professional De- velopment, encourages the geoscience work- force to reflect on the skills and experiences re- quired to serve society. Effective engagement is also rooted in under- standing the science-policy-practice interface. This includes, for example, determining the in- formation needs of stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, community groups, development NGOs), how they will use this information, and how best to present it to support policy- makers. Translating geoscience knowledge into tools to support policy and practice requires dialogue and partnerships between geoscien- tists and other stakeholders (Lubchenco et al., 2015). Engaging diverse stakeholders early in the research-process helps to ensure a shared perception of the problem, defines data needs, and ultimately results in the production of use- ful knowledge (Weichselgartner and Kasper- son, 2010). Increased dialogue, critical to our contributions being relevant, may also require the geoscience community to invest in additional and com- plementary skills (Gill, 2016). The geoscience ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 8 community readily embraces advances in tech- nology, informatics, and other physical scienc- es to advance their science. In contrast, whereas cultural and ethical understanding, cross- disciplinary communication, and social science research approaches can also support effective engagement and enhance our science, they are rarely included in a geoscientist’s education (Stewart and Gill, 2017). To engage with policy- makers, for example, we should enhance our socio-political understanding (e.g., how gov- ernment works), and recognize the complexity of policy-making and the role of science as one form of evidence in this process (Boyd, 2016; Gluckman, 2016). Dissemination approaches may also need to change if geoscience engagement is to be most effective. Geoscientists are well trained in the skills required to collect, analyze and publish data in scientific journals, and present infor- mation at (geo)scientific conferences. These are important opportunities to communicate with other scientists, but may not be the most ap- propriate medium for communicating with other stakeholders (Marker, 2016). Priority for Action 1 of the SFDRR, for example, includes an objective ‘promote the collection, analysis, management and use of relevant data and practical information and ensure its dissemina- tion, taking into account the needs of different categories of users, as appropriate’ (UNISDR, 2015). To realize this objective, we should em- brace forms of communication other than the scientific journal, and be proactive at present- ing information across disciplinary silos. 6. CONCLUSIONS In this article, we have highlighted the role of geoscientists in three development frame- works, designed to address global priorities of sustainable development (SDGs), disaster risk reduction (SFDRR), and climate change (Paris Agreement). These frameworks offer the geo- science community an exciting opportunity for innovative research and application of our sci- ence. The successful implementation of these frameworks through 2015-30 will require in- creased engagement from the geoscience com- munity. This engagement can take many forms, and we include in this contribution examples that demonstrate this broad scope. Common across all engagement is the need for it to be of the highest quality, embracing the values and skills required to work at the science-policy- practice interface. A geoscience community that invests in the skills and understanding that are required for effective engagement is well- positioned to help deliver a sustainable future. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is the extended version of a contri- bution made at the 35th International Geologi- cal Congress, 2016 (Cape Town). We thank Martin Smith, Peter Bobrowsky and Giuseppe Di Capua for their comments and guidance, and Nic Bilham for supporting FB’s contribu- tion. This article is published with the permis- sion of the Executive Director, British Geologi- cal Survey (NERC). REFERENCES Aitsi-Selmi, A., Murray, V., Wannous, C., Dick- inson, C., Johnston, D., Kawasaki, A., Ste- vance, A.S. and Yeung, T. (2016). Re- flections on a science and technology agen- da for 21st century disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Sci- ence, 7(1), 1–29. BGS (2017a). Nepal earthquakes response. Available online: www.bgs.ac.uk/research/ earthHazards/epom/Nepalearthquakerespons e.html (accessed 4 September 2017). BGS (2017b). CO2 storage: Sleipner field. Available online: www.bgs.ac.uk/science/CO2 (accessed 4 September 2017) Boucher, O., Bellassen, V., Benveniste, H., Ciais, P., Criqui, P., Guivarch, C., Le Treut, H., Mathy, S. and Séférian, R. (2016). Opin- ion: In the wake of Paris Agreement, scien- tists must embrace new directions for cli- mate change research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7287–7290. Boyd, I.L. (2016). Take the long view. Nature, 540(7634), 520–521. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 9 Di Capua G., Peppoloni S., and Bobrowsky P. (2016). Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. With the contributions of Bilham N., Bohle M., Clay A., Lopera E.H., Mogk D. IAPG - Inter- national Association for Promoting Geoethics. Available online: www.geoethics.org/ctsg (accessed 4 Sep-tember 2017). Duncan, M., Edwards, S., Kilburn, C., Twigg, J. (2016). An interrelated hazards approach to anticipating evolving risk. GFDRR (Ed.) The Making of a Riskier Future: How Our Deci- sions Are Shaping Future Disaster Risk, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Washington, USA (2016), 114– 121. EGU (2017). General Assembly Programme. Available online: https://www.egu2017.eu/ (accessed 4 September 2017). Gill, J.C. (2016). Building good foundations: Skills for effective engagement in interna- tional development. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 520, 1–8. Gill, J.C. (2017). Geology and the Sustainable Development Goals. Episodes, 40, 70–76. Gluckman, P. (2016). The science–policy in- terface. Science, 353(6303), 969–969. GSL (2010). Climate change: evidence from the geological record, Geological Society of London, 12 p. IOCCP (2017). International Ocean Carbon Coor- dination Project – Ocean Acidification, Availa- ble online: www.ioccp.org/index.php/ocean- acidification (accessed 4 September 2017). IPCC (2013). The Physical Science Basis. Con- tribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen- tal Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Al- len, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 p. Joy, E.J., Broadley, M.R., Young, S.D., Black, C.R., Chilimba, A.D., Ander, E.L., Barlow, T.S. and Watts, M.J. (2015). Soil type in- fluences crop mineral composition in Ma- lawi. Science of the Total Environment, 505, 587-595. Lubchenco, J., Barner, A. K., Cerny-Chipman, E. B., and Reimer, J. N. (2015). Sustainability rooted in science. Nature Geoscience, 8(7), 741–745. MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C.; Calow, R.C.; Taylor, R.G.; Lapworth, D.J.; Maurice, L.; Tucker, J.; O Dochartaigh, B.E. (2011). Groundwater resilience to climate change in Africa. British Geological Survey Open Re- port 11/031, 32pp. Mani, L., Cole, P.D., and Stewart, I. (2016). Us- ing video games for volcanic hazard educa- tion and communication: an assessment of the method and preliminary results. Natu- ral Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16, 1673–1689. Marker, B.R. (2016). Urban planning: the ge- oscience input. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 27(1), 35–43. Mitchell, T., Guha-Sapir, D., Hall, J., Lovell, E., Muir-Wood, R., Norris, A., Scott, L. and Wallemacq, P. (2014). Setting, measuring and monitoring targets for reducing disas- ter risk. Recommendations for post-2015 in- ternational policy frameworks. ODI, 84 p. NERC (2017). Carbon Capture and Storage Re- search Programme 2002-2014, Available online: www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programme/cc s/ (accessed 4 September 2017). Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. and Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: map the interactions between Sus- tainable Development Goals. Nature, 534, 320–322. Oven, K.J., Milledge, D.G., Densmore, A.L., Jones, H., Sargeant, S. and Datta, A. (2016). Earthquake science in DRR policy and prac- tice in Nepal. ODI, 36 p. Parsquake (2017). Earthquake education. Available online: www.parsquake.org (ac- cessed 4 September 2017). RWM (2016). Geological Disposal - Investigat- ing the Implications of Managing Depleted, Natural and Low Enriched Uranium through Geological Disposal, Radioactive Waste Management NDA Report no. NDA/RWM/142, 131 p. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 60, Fast Track 7, 2017; doi: 10.4401/ag-7460 10 Shah, J., Jefferson, I. and Hunt, D.V.L. (2014). Resilience Assessment for Geotechnical In- frastructure Assets. Proc. Institute of Civil Engineers: Asset Management. Spangenberg, J.H. (2017). Hot Air or Com- prehensive Progress? A Critical Assessment of the SDGs. Sustainable Development, 25(4), 311-321. Stewart, I.S., and Gill, J.C. (2017). Social geolo- gy - integrating sustainability concepts into Earth sciences. Proceedings of the Geolo- gists' Association, 128(2), 165–172. UN (2015a). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: United Nations, Geneva, 35 p. UN (2015b). The Paris Agreement, United Na- tions, Geneva, 27 p. UNISDR (2015). Sendai Framework for Disas- ter Risk Reduction, United Nations, Gene- va, 37 p. UNISDR (2017). DRR Terminology, Available online: www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology (accessed 4 September 2017). UPGro (2017). https://upgro.org/ (accessed 4 September 2017). Weichselgartner, J. and Kasperson, R. (2010). Barriers in the science-policy-practice in- terface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 266– 277.