Emergency Preparedness and Response in a Rapidly Changing World

Khalid Aleissa: The integration of innovative technologies into EPR is rapidly reshaping how national systems plan, train and act. Real-time data dashboards powered by artificial intelligence can integrate sensor readings, weather data and population movement to support emergency manager in dynamic environments.

Mobile applications are emerging as critical tools for notifying the public, issuing protective action guidance and collecting on-the-ground information from first responders. Digital twins provide virtual replicas of complex systems that can be used for immersive scenario-based training and pre-incident planning.

As these technologies become more deeply embedded in EPR systems, the need for guardrails becomes equally urgent. It is essential to develop and maintain resilient cybersecurity measures that protect both infrastructure and data integrity. 

Regulatory frameworks must evolve in parallel to ensure that these tools are validated, interoperable and aligned with international safety standards. And human oversight must remain central. The complexity and ethical implications of emergency response demand that final decisions be made by trained professionals.

How can lessons from past emergencies be hardwired into today’s training, drills and regulatory expectations?

Aleissa: The lack of clearly defined coordination structures during complex radiological or nuclear events is a recurring challenge. Fragmented institutional roles and unclear communication pathways have repeatedly led to delays in implementing protective actions. Strengthening interagency coordination and clarifying lines of authority before an emergency occurs remain fundamental priorities.

Embedding decision-making protocols into national emergency plans and holding regular drills are also essential to ensure swift, decisive action. Public communication also requires deeper institutionalization. Risk communication should be a core capability that is proactively developed, tested and refined. Equally important is the need to treat learning as a continuous, institutional process. Lessons from past emergencies must be systematically captured, analysed and translated into updated training materials, regulatory guidance and policy improvements.

Which training approaches or partnership models are most promising?

Aleissa: Developing national EPR capacity is both a strategic imperative and a long-term investment. Dedicated training hubs that integrate technical, operational and regulatory dimensions under a unified framework offer a promising path forward. When combined with scenario-based methodologies such as live and virtual simulations, these centres can strengthen decision-making in realistic conditions.

Fewer than 40 States currently operate, have operated or plan to operate nuclear power plants. By contrast, more than 190 States use various radiological technologies, so radiation sources and practices are present worldwide. As a result, radiological accidents are more common and require equal if not greater attention due to their greater likelihood.

Integrating EPR training into broader national education and civil protection systems is a promising approach. International partnerships, including twinning arrangements and train-the-trainer programmes, play a vital role in accelerating capacity development and promoting alignment with global standards. Integrating multiple sectors — health, civil defence, environmental monitoring and security — into national exercises is equally important to ensure a coordinated response.

How would you assess the current state of EPR for nuclear and radiological accidents? 

Abel Gonzalez: Since its establishment in 1996, the IAEA’s EPR programme has matured into a global hub — the International Emergency Centre — that is reinforced by legally binding conventions, international safety standards and operational capabilities such as the 24/7 Incident and Emergency System. Lessons from major events like Chornobyl and Fukushima have driven continuous improvement in preparedness, notification, assistance and coordination. 

At the international level, strengths include a robust framework of safety standards (e.g., the IAEA Safety Standard Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency [GSR Part 7]), strong mechanisms for information sharing, and regular convention exercises (ConvEx) that test global readiness. Nationally and regionally, many States have well-defined roles, responsibilities and trained emergency workers.

However, gaps remain. Some States still lack full implementation of international standards; interoperability between national systems can be uneven; and information-sharing arrangements may be inconsistently applied. Protective actions are not always fully justified against potential harm. Preparedness for complex scenarios remains variable. Integration of non-designated and volunteer emergency workers is often ad hoc.

Steps to enhance effectiveness could include: harmonizing national arrangements with IAEA standards; strengthening justification procedures for protective actions; expanding training and joint exercises across borders; and improving mechanisms for rapid integration of international assistance. Sustained investment in communication systems, decision-making tools and post-emergency transition planning will further strengthen resilience.

Looking ahead, which emerging challenges are most likely to reshape global EPR doctrine? How should practitioners begin adapting today?

Gonzalez: Over the next decade, EPR doctrine is likely to be reshaped by several emerging challenges. Complex accident scenarios — such as severe core or spent fuel damage in multi-unit plants coinciding with natural disasters — require integrated planning across technical, operational and public protection domains. Radiological emergencies during military conflicts present an unregulated gap in international law. The UN’s 2024 creation of a Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War underscores the potential scale of radiological consequences requiring global EPR engagement.

Other priorities include ensuring that protective actions are fully justified and do more good than harm by learning from past cases where measures caused unnecessary disruption. Climate change may increase extreme weather risks to nuclear facilities, necessitating more resilient infrastructure and response planning. Strengthening nuclear safety commitments under instruments such as the 2015 Vienna Declaration on Nuclear Safety must be matched by EPR criteria that support accident prevention and mitigate long-term contamination.

Practitioners should begin adapting now by integrating severe, compound-event scenarios into exercises; developing guidance for EPR in armed conflict; building capabilities for rapid, science-based protective action decisions; and enhancing cross-sector cooperation, including among public health, environmental protection and security agencies. Greater emphasis on transitioning from emergency to recovery phases, and on international consultation and information sharing, will ensure that EPR remains agile and effective in an evolving risk landscape.