Working Group EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Working Group EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS"

Martha Harmon
6 years ago
Views:

1 EURO-MEDITERRANEAN MAJOR HAZARDS AGREEMENT (EUR-OPA) Strasbourg, 20 January 2006 AP/CAT (2006) 21 Or. E. OPEN PARTIAL AGREEMENT ON THE PREVENTION OF, PROTECTION AGAINST AND ORGANISATION OF RELIEF IN MAJOR NATURAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DISASTERS Working Group EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS Third meeting at the Council of Europe s Office in PARIS, France 14 December 2005 CONCLUSIONS

2 2 During the meeting held in Paris, France, on 14 th December 2005 on Early Warning Systems and the possible contributions of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, the participants (see appendix) discussion led to the following conclusions: * Role of national authorities in a multi-national approach Following the debate held during the joint meeting with Permanents Correspondents in Lisbon on 31 st October 2005, it emerged that there is an apparent absence of an explicit mandate given to Permanent Correspondents by their national authorities to discuss this topic in more detail. As many Permanent Correspondents are not scientists, they seemed to wait for a complete system to be presented by experts, while the working group proposed rather a methodology of work. This led to a discussion on their role in the early warning initiative, particularly with regard to their interaction with politicians in case of problems. It is clear that national initiative is essential: dealing with the complete early warning system chain is too complex and expensive for the Partial Agreement to implement alone. Furthermore, activities are already in progress at national level in such countries as Germany, France and Italy. Nevertheless, they do not seem to apply a common approach: an internationally agreed methodology will have as added value the possibility of comparability between countries which is helpful when dealing with transnational risks. In order to take into account an aspect attractive to more operational persons and even to politicians, the work on early warning cannot focus exclusively on scientific/technical aspects. In fact there are many stages in this work which can appeal to them. For example, building codes can take advantage of rather general information on the actual vulnerability of buildings (at least reduce the vulnerability of new constructions). Indirect risks generated by hazards in various infrastructures are also essential for them. This national implication has to be linked to the worldwide agreement reached in Kobe on the Hyogo Action Plan , and more specifically to the second priority action on risk assessment. To ensure successful early warning work, some kind of national platform is needed to implement associated activities, maybe through a pluridisciplinary committee: the one set up recently in Portugal to deal with this topic can be an example since it includes scientists, ministries, authorities, etc... * Limitation of the hazards to be covered The Agreement should firstly point out its regional specificities within the Kobe proposals, which are mainly oriented towards developing countries: we should focus on the hazards most common to Euro-Mediterranean countries. In order to reduce the extent of work proposed to member countries, we can consequently concentrate (at least in a first stage) on the following hazards: geological hazards : earthquakes, landslides; meteorological hazards : floods, storms; other hazards: forest fires. However, we must leave open to member States the identification of other specific hazards which they consider crucial for their country.

3 3 We propose to centre our work on these specific natural hazards since the vulnerability information required for them is to some extent common. It is clear that for technological hazards, a whole different array of data (such as plant locations, stocks of dangerous substances, ) will be needed and consequently should be dealt with separately (even if such data is already required to deal with indirect effects of natural hazards due to factories ) For example, promoting activities for large cities could gain the support of local authorities to implement them and a fruitful collaboration with the Council of Europe s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities can be developed on this topic. * Importance of the vulnerability issues In order to build a longer term consistent early warning system for the region and taking into account the possibilities of the Agreement, we need to focus on smaller, more practical issues (identified gaps) and one of the main gaps already identified seems to be everything concerning vulnerability issues. Since many hazards can now be mapped by scientists (even if significant gaps remain), vulnerability information is needed for risk mapping. Vulnerability is in fact the human component of disasters (entropic aspects). Furthermore, an economically justified early warning system needs to implement monitoring tools where they are efficient: vulnerability data can help in such a settlement and consequently on the accuracy of the collected information. Finally, vulnerability issues are important for early warning systems but also for mitigation. We must avoid ISDR s too general and qualitative definition of vulnerability as we need a more quantitative definition. We can attempt to identify a hierarchical approach to the topic and at each stage ask ourselves where we stand and what is the Agreement s specific contribution. Some vulnerable elements associated to the above mentioned hazards can be outlined: population land use (in particular the presence of high density areas) the quality of buildings (level of enforcement of building codes, resistance to the different hazards, ) structures and infrastructures (network effects on traffic, communications,...) clear organizational structures existing in case of disaster level of preparedness of the population ecological systems. Each of these components has to be further elaborated in order to send an associated questionnaire to Permanent Correspondents to collect information on the current situation in member countries. * Range of action for the Agreement The Agreement is an interface between scientists and politicians: it allows politicians awareness to be increased. It must insist on the international component of the strategy adopted and why it should be promoted and not only at national level. The specific contribution of the Agreement is a key issue. Furthermore, it should modulate the tools to the goals. The working group is intended to think primarily on strategic issues of early warning, while the network of Centres could elaborate more technical work and/or local information on this topic.

4 4 As a follow-up to his initial document, Mr. Bonnin outlined the possible action of the Agreement in the field of earthquakes, principally focused on the collection and dissemination of accurate basic data. All participants agreed that obtaining the interoperability of information is an essential achievement in that direction. Since data evolves very quickly, a dynamical system to assess it is necessary and satellite information can already provide important information for vulnerability (even if the cost of such information can be problematic). The present availability of such information should be requested from member States. NEXT MEETING The Secretariat proposed that the following meeting be held on 13 th February This meeting of the working group will examine a draft document prepared by the Secretariat as a formal contribution of the Agreement to the Third International Early Warning Conference in Bonn. This contribution would probably fit more naturally into so called technical sessions and more specifically in the sessions either on the multi-hazard approach or on good governance.

5 5 APPENDIX LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Mr. Abdelouahad BIROUK, Centre National de Coordination et de Planification de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique (CEPRIS), 52, Ave. Omar Iben Khattab, B.P. 8027, AGDAL- RABAT / MOROCCO Tel.: / / Fax: / birouk@cnr.ac.ma Mr. Jean BONNIN, Institut Physique du Globe, l5, rue de l'observatoire, STRASBOURG Tel.: Fax: bonnin@selene.u-strasbg.fr Mr. Paul BURTON, Seismic Risk Group, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, NORWICH NR4 7TJ / UNITED KINGDOM Tel: Fax: P.Burton@uea.ac.uk; PWSMBurton@aol.com Mr. Luis A. MENDES VICTOR, Directeur du Centre Européen sur les Risques Urbains (C.E.R.U)., Centro de Geofisica, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua da Escola Politecnica, 58, P LISBOA / PORTUGAL Tel.: / Fax: lmvictor@fc.ul.pt Mr. Anton MICALLEF, Director, Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics (ICoD), Foundation for International Studies, University of Malta, VALLETTA VLT 07 Tel.: Fax: a.micallef@icod.org.mt Mr. Jochen ZSCHAU, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Aufgabenbereich 5, Telegrafenberg A 31, D POTSDAM / GERMANY Tel.: / 01 Fax: zschau@gfz-potsdam.de Mr. Eladio FERNANDEZ-GALIANO, Executive Secretariat of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, Council of Europe, F STRASBOURG Cedex Tel Fax eladio.fernandez-galiano@coe.int Mr. Francesc PLA, Executive Secretariat of the EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, Council of Europe, F STRASBOURG Cedex Tel Fax francesc.pla@coe.int

TOWARDS MORE DISASTER RESILIENT SOCIETIES The EUR-OPA contribution

TOWARDS MORE DISASTER RESILIENT SOCIETIES The EUR-OPA contribution The EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement has long contributed to and continues to support the global efforts on Disaster Risk Reduction, in