Strengthening the European Civil Protection Mechanism: Commission activities on early warning systems Peter Billing Head of Emergency Operations / Monitoring and Information Centre DG ENV A3 Civil Protection Unit

Civil protection mechanism Preparedness: training, simulation exercises, exchange of experts Response: facilitating and supporting European civil protection assistance and solidarity in the event of a major disaster Legal base: Council Decision of 23 October 2001 Participating states: EU (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway)

Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC)  Based in the Commission, on duty 24/7  Entry point for requests for assistance  Information role: analysing and distributing reliable info to MS during disasters  Supports coordination: despatching expert EU teams, matching requests for aid to offers from MS  Technical support role, e.g. satellite images and access to other EC resources A one-stop shop for civil protection assistance

The Mechanism in 2006 Requesting countryType of disasterDate of request AlgeriaFlash floods14 February SlovakiaFloods3 April HungaryFloods7 April RomaniaFloods25 April BulgariaFloods28 April IndonesiaEarthquake28 May CyprusEvacuee situation21 July LebanonEvacuee situation & conflict21 July LebanonOil Spill (marine pollution)27 July SpainForest Fires9 August EthiopiaFloods20 August Ivory CoastToxic Spill6 September PhilippinesOil Spill (marine pollution)11 September BulgariaOil Spill4 October SomaliaFloods24 November

Early warning – definition (ISDR) Early warning: –The provision of timely and effective information, through identified institutions, that allows individuals exposed to a hazard to take action to avoid or reduce their risk and prepare for effective response. –Early warning systems include a chain of concerns: 1.understanding and mapping the hazard; 2.monitoring and forecasting impending events; 3.processing and disseminating understandable warnings to political authorities and the population, 4.undertaking appropriate and timely actions in response to the warnings

Understanding and mapping the hazard

Situation: Hazard Mapping Knowledge of existing hazards at EU level has improved. Data are available –ESPON project Knowledge of existing hazards at global level has improved. Data are available –World Bank Global Hotspots Project –UNDP Disaster Risk Index –UNEP DEWA  No immediate need for action by the MIC.  MIC needs to digest this information in its contingency planning, procedures and staff training

Disaster risks and hazards in Europe Basic facts and figures –Main disaster events (CRED): Floods (32%): –snowmelt period Wind storms (27%) –winter months Forest fires (9%) –May - October Earthquakes (8.8%) –all year round

Natural hazards in Europe: Floods

Natural hazards in Europe: Wind storms

Natural hazards in Europe: tsunami

Historical tsunamis in the Atlantic- Mediterranean area Source: Bologna University, Italy

Deficit analysis: Example Tsunami EWS for Mediterranean  Significant tsunami risks in Atlantic-Med area  Mediteranean coastline densely populated  140 million inhabitants  200 million tourists per year  A tsunami off Sicily will reach  Malta in 20 minutes  Greece in 40 minutes  Cyprus in 160 minutes  Tunisia in 160 minutes  A tsunami off Algeria will reach  Majorca in 25 minutes  No functioning EWS available so far

Monitoring and forecasting impending events

Situation: Monitoring, alerting, forecasting Significant improvements over recent years…. –Increasing number of EWS are available (e.g. GDACS) and will become available –Performance of EWS has improved Significant efforts taken by EU, both MS and COM –GITEWS (German-Indonesia Tsunami Early Warning System) –Local early warning systems (ECHO programmes) –New tsunami research projects for Med (DG RTD, 11 m €) …but still important gaps –no tsunami warning system in the Mediterranean –availability of EWS not always to be taken for granted  MIC needs to incorporate results of existing and new efforts into its own tools and instruments and to adapt them for use by the Mechanism

MIC early warning and alert tools Multi-hazard systems –HEWSHEWS –GDACSGDACS –MIC DailyMIC Daily

MIC early warning and alert tools Earthquakes –EMSC (MIC receives and fax alerts)EMSC Tropical storms –NOAA, Hawaii, BenfieldNOAAHawaiiBenfield Tsunamis –PTWC, WCATWC (MIC receives and SMS alerts)PTWCWCATWC Volcanoes –SWVRC (volcano)SWVRC Floods –EFAS (MIC receives by from JRC) Forest Fires – EFFIS (MIC receives daily by from JRC) It is important to have several systems: as redundancies, as back-up systems and in order to check inaccuracies in one system

GDACS: information on latest natural disasters Courtesy: Tom de Groeve, JRC

The JRC Tsunami Early Warning System In the frame of GDACS it was decided to include Tsunami models to allow a quick evaluation of the possible impact of a Tsunami as a consequence of an earthquake Timeline: –December 2004: no Tsunami model, alert only due to the earthquake –March 2005: rough estimate of Tsunami probability, Travel time model –October 2006: SWAN-JRC Model for height distribution and locations identification –March 2007: full integration of the Tsunami model in the GDACS matrix JRC Models: –Travel Time model –SWAN-JRC Model

JRC Travel Time Model The simulation on the side has been obtained with the JRC Tsunami model and respects accurately the time of arrival of the wave. Calculation time 20 s. We have recently included the identification of the locations and the cpu- time increased to about 2 min (depends on how many locations are found).

1 min after event detection List of locations and time Travel Time Map

Vanuatu event 10 cm at 1:20 measured at Port-Vila. (Courtesy of Australian Bureau of Meteorology 10 cm at 01: m at 00:53 Epicenter

Processing and disseminating warnings

Situation: processing and dissemination of warnings  Significant improvements: EWS have become more numerous and faster  Persisting challenges:  Reliability  Availability to decision makers  User-friendliness  Geographical and vertical dispersion of EWS (more than 50 EWS worldwide), no EWS „one-stop-shop“ available yet  Some EWS more advanced than others  Emerging technologies (e.g. cell broadcast)  MIC needs to be in a position to develop simple applications to ensure that reliable EWS signals reach the MIC in good time

Appropriate and timely actions in response to the warnings

Situation: appropriate and timely actions in response to the warnings Significant activities within the Mechanism to improve… –Preparedness –Training –Exercises  The MIC should be in a position to promote EWS through workshops, seminars, exchange of best practice

Conclusions (I) Progress in establishing EWS Important gaps remain Technologies and systems evolve rapidly MIC should be able to participate in and benefit from this development

Conclusions (II)  MIC has no interest in  developing local early warning systems  financing deployment of sensors or infrastructure for early warning systems  developing full-fledged early warning systems inside or outside the EU  investing in basic research on early warning  interfering with national competence, e.g. issuing warnings from the MIC to the general population

Conclusions (III)  Key objectives of the MIC in early warning are:  to have rapid access to existing and new EWS through multi- hazard based applications, integrating and interlinking EWS.  to provide conceptual input to development of new EWS from an end user point of view  to facilitate exchange of best practice and dissemination of knowledge on EWS  Specific actions contributing to the development of EWS within the context of the Mechanism:  to develop a European version of GDACS  to upgrade MIC Daily and other tools available to the MIC (e.g. integrate available flood alerts; „MIC Flash“)  to integrate new EWS into the MIC system (e.g. GITEWS)  to support innovative approaches (e.g. Dutch cell broadcast project, feasibility studies)  to provide input to other Commission initiatives (e.g. joint workshops with CP experts and research community)

Thank you