CMDR COE Conference Proceedings 2019

Chief Editor: Plamen Milanov Associate editors: Prof. Jordan Tabov, PhD (The Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Assoc. Prof. Yuliana Karakaneva, PhD (New Bulgarian University); Assoc. Prof. Lyubka Pashova, (The Geodesy Department of the National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Assoc. Prof. Mihaela Kouteva-Guentcheva, PhD, Eng. (University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy) Irena Nikolova, PhD (Bulgarian Modeling and Simulation Association – BULSIM); Orlin Nikolov, PhD (Crisis Management and Disaster Response Centre of Excellence) Nikolay Tomov (Bulgarian Modeling and Simulation Association – BULSIM) Technical support: Hristina Hristova, Boris Guenov, Plamen Petrov, Dessislav Zmeev, Address: 34A Totleben Boulevard, 1606 Sofia, Bulgaria Phones: 359 29224700, 359 2 9224705 Fax: 359 2 9224755 www.cmdrcoe.org Dear Readers, Welcome to the 2019 CMDR COE Proceedings. It is a great pleasure to introduce it to you. I hope it will become a salutary tool to promote and facilitate "The Interagency Interaction in Crisis Management and Disaster Response". Herewith I would like to stress the importance CMDR COE pays on such cooperation through meeting opinions in the sphere of professional interests. Over the past years, our organization participated, hosted and organized a number of key courses, seminars and conferences in the crisis management and disaster response domain. Among the leading events are the CMDR COE Annual conferences based on the themes of the importance of interagency interactions. Present book is a very good example of our efforts through the year 2019 to provide venue in support of mutual understanding and interaction in crisis management and disaster response. Therefore the present edition covers aspects from several authors and their thoughts on CMDR domain. Welcome once again and thanks for reading. Orlin NIKOLOV, CMDR COE Director 3 TABLE OF CONTENT Tracing Resilience – A Context of Uncertainty, A Trajectory of 5 Motion Gergana Vaklinova Managing Risk in a Multi-Agency, All-Hazard Environment 39 Joseph Green, Benjamin Ryan, Richard Franklin, Deon Canyon, Frederick M. Burkle Quantifying Resilience: A Case Study on Critical Infrastructure 77 Resilience in the Republic of Bulgaria Nikolay Pavlov, Stefan Hadjitodorov Resilience to Disaster – Psychological Perspective 93 Margarita Kumanova Climate Change and Security 107 Ralitsa Bakalova, Svetozar Bossilkov Climate Change and Security Implications 127 Siana Mircheva, Orlin Nikolov, Anastasios Vasileiou, Svetozar Bossilkov NATO in the Anthropocene: Emergence of the Tipping Points 147 and Associated Security Challenges Amar Causevic EU-NATO Relations in the Context of Foresight Scenarios 175 Development Plamena Karaivanova NATO-EU Cooperation in Crisis Management: Current State of 205 Affairs Aglika Atanasova Collaborative Interaction – Implication on Security 223 Tarik Ndifi The Rise of the Robotic Weapon Systems in Armed Conflicts 245 Walter David, Paolo Pappalepore, Brindusa Andreea Sarbu Drones & AI: Increasing Accessibility of Emerging Technologies 275 and Security Alexandra Stefanova, Anton Puliyski Additive Technologies and Their integration Into Mobile 3D 289 Printing Engineering Lab (M3DPEL) Iliyan Hutov, Viktor Stoyanov, Atanas Zhelev, Violetka Dencheva Contemporary Crisis Response: The Case for Information 311 ‘Warfare’ Dziugas Kuprevicius The statements, opinions and data contained in these publications are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher CMDR COE CMDR COE Proceedings 2019 5 TRACING RESILIENCE – A CONTEXT OF UNCERTAINTY, A TRAJECTORY OF MOTION Gergana VAKLINOVA, (CMDR COE) Abstract: Alongside a relative novelty, resilience has decisively turned into an objective necessity in international relations, and especially – in peace and security. Tracing its past, to understand its future, while (re)defining the present, requires to simultaneously set resilience, and its object of analysis, in context and in motion. The complexity and uncertainty of a connected and interdependent international system necessitates elaborating and clarifying resilience manifestations and expressions, which inform decision-making and activities aimed at tackling contemporary and future security threats, both from a civilian and a military perspective. Crisis and disaster management have become standard responses in situations, which defy, in varying degrees, established and accepted normality. The demands of changed, and changing, notions of peace and security, strain capabilities and preclude the capacity, and responsibility, of a single point of defence to withstand and tackle complexity, and dictate interaction on collaborative terms. Theatres of operation have firmly settled among societies shifting tasks from purely military to people- centred and seeking broader (political) realisation. Whether an ability, capacity, or a (relational) process, resilience potentially aims to increase chances for survival, as a first step, and then – to enable (continuous) adaptation. As a security and defence organisation NATO has taken important steps towards building a collective interpretation of resilience – one that positions societies’ preparedness at the core of collaborative efforts at shared understanding of the imperatives of time. Key words: resilience, complexity, manifestations, expressions, complex systems, societies, military, security, crisis management, disaster management, NATO. Introduction Resilience is a relative novelty to international relations and one that is decisively gaining traction in the fields of conflict, crisis, and disaster management, with a notable proliferation within the (Euro-Atlantic) body of research since the 2000s. It is, perhaps, all but a coincidence that this productivity runs in parallel with an increasing interconnectedness and interdependence within and between systems on a global scale. Complexity and uncertainty strain the capacity to calculate risks and respond to threats within a (fragile) balance between robustness and flexibility, elasticity and adaptation, and normality and transformation. Changes in the manner of perceiving hence “exercising” security – a focus steadily shifted from the whole (i.e. state) to the constitutive (i.e. people), have positioned societies at the forefront of defence, both in terms of prevention and protection. Therefore, tracing resilience in complex systems, through a preparedness perspective and within a crisis and disaster management context, begs the question(s): what is that which is to be protected, and better yet - what is that which should be resilient, thus enabling an effective and efficient (self) protection. There exists no straightforward answer to the conundrums the latter questions foment, nor does or can resilience – either framed as an ability / capability, capacity, or as a relational process of (social) learning and exchange – provide quick-fixes awaiting to be downloaded wherever, and whenever, a system CMDR COE Proceedings 2019 7 might require an update on the imperatives of time. Crisis and disaster management have grown standard responses in situations which defy, with varying degrees, established and accepted normality. As imperfect as both underlying rationale and decision-making, and on field execution might be, the course of action is confined by the fact that the contemporary security strains capabilities and precludes the capacity, and responsibility, of a single point of defence to withstand and tackle complexity, dictating interaction on collaborative terms. The concept of resilience, appearing “equally applicable to the individual, society, nature, and technical systems […] aspires to describe mechanisms for maintaining stability, survival, and safety” (Cavelty, et al. 2015, 4). In a context of dynamism, there also appears a tendency on a (comprehensive yet tailored) resilience trajectory from reaction (the ability to bounce-back) through pro-action (the processes of improving the capacities), to pre-emption (relational (networked) processes). This trajectory brings together civilians and military in an unprecedented way and therefore, necessitates flexibility and cooperation, to ensure a level of functional common understanding to the effect of ensuring security through crisis and disaster management. Crisis1 and resilience could be understood as the flip sides of one coin – when you have one, you do not have (see) the other. 1 For the purpose of this article crisis is understood in broad political terms. At current pace, however, a statement that crisis management rescinds resilience, and vice-versa, would, perhaps, remain a speculation until a detailed investigation into the mechanisms of both resilience and crisis and disaster management translates their applicability, separately or in a combination, to dynamic contexts and to specific objects of analysis. The present research examines prevalent interpretations of resilience with the aim of opening a debate on how to understand (better tailor) societal and military resilience in terms of future crisis and disaster management, and to account for the (tendency of an ever growing) complexity and uncertainty in an interconnected and interdependent international (security) environment. Even though the scope of the present article is limited in time, literature studied and focus – setting the stage for a panel discussion on conceptualising resilience, its larger intent is to contribute

Load more