1. EMMA EM 2008 10: way forward

2. EMS Amsterdam September 2008

3. C33 Summary (Rekjavik)  Council approved the continuation of the EMMA Programme in principle and that ZAMG will continue as RM (with the close support of KMI).  The next phase will start on 1st November with the Program Proposal to be re-presented to Council at C34. Between C33 and C34, the PM is asked to clarify the requirements that are additional to the public’s needs and develop options for meeting them, with the risks, benefits and costs clearly articulated.  The PM should note Council’s desire to fix EUMETNET Members’ contributions at current levels.

4. C33 Council decisions C33 on EMMA III 1.To consider the objectives for the Programme as set out on in the Proposal and confirm they meet with Council’s approval. 2. To note the financial implications. 3. The Council agreed to approve the continuation the Programme for a further 4 years, starting on 1st Nov 2008 4. To confirm the EUMETNET and cooperating member contribution to the EMMA programme and the additional funding that will need to be sought from the EU. 5. The EMMA Advisory Board recommended to the Council that ZAMG continues in the role of Responsible Member with close support of KNMI. The Council agreed.

5. C33 Council comments 1 / 5  Before confirming how EMMA should respond to the requirements from the civil protection community, a clear statement of the requirement for this user group should be established and then options presented to Council illustrating how the requirements could be met and the associated risks and benefits.

6. C33 Council comments 1 / 5  Before confirming how EMMA should respond to the requirements from the civil protection community, a clear statement of the requirement for this user group should be established and then options presented to Council illustrating how the requirements could be met and the associated risks and benefits. Requirements (June 2008 Brussel meeting):  Information about the rain / flood situation, if possible for up to 5 days  Information on other weather parameters that could cause warning situations for the same time range

7. C33 Council comments 1 / 5  Before confirming how EMMA should respond to the requirements from the civil protection community, a clear statement of the requirement for this user group should be established and then options presented to Council illustrating how the requirements could be met and the associated risks and benefits.  Options & risks and benefits  Option 1 – not to respond Risks: MIC and Civil Protection of other countries will seek info where available (webscraping, private weather info providers, centralized forecasts (SAFER flash flood project) JRC etc.  Benefits: ?

8. C33 Council comments 1 / 5  Before confirming how EMMA should respond to the requirements from the civil protection community, a clear statement of the requirement for this user group should be established and then options presented to Council illustrating how the requirements could be met and the associated risks and benefits.  Options & risks and benefits  Option 2 – stepwise approach: Countries integrate their info according to their possibilities at the moment Risks: none, because each country decides individually Benefits: fulfills EMI approach with a network structure and leaves competence with NMHS. Secures visibility of each NMHS.

9. C33 Council comments 2 / 5  In principle the budget from EUMETNET Members should not increase (increased funding from other sources is OK, provided Council approves).  EMMA II contributions were 188 kE per year (UK bid 2005 217 kE)  EMMA III is proposed with 185,5 kE per year  In real money this corresponds to a reduction of 15 to 20%

10. C33 Council comments 3 / 5  The primary role of Meteoalarm is to communicate weather warnings to the public. Once there is a clear understanding of the additional (non-public requirement) the PM should discuss with Council whether EMMA, or some ‘sister’ system should be used to meet these requirements (since they may be quite different).  EMMA I recommended to develop “alerts” together with Civil Protection. This has been accomplished during EMMA II. (Expert contributions and Brussel 2008 meeting)  User environment for CP would be the Intranet for day +2 to +4. Content format would be consistent with Day 0, +1, additional info would be provided by the NMHS in direct contact to national CP and from there to MIC if necessary.

11. C33 Council comments 4 / 5  Council noted that there was a desire from the civil protection community to integrate flood warnings (only make the information available). This is OK where the NMS has responsibility for flood warning at the national level, but will be more difficult for most. Again, this requirement should be captured clearly as an additional requirement (as per the first bullet above) and options for delivery discussed with Council.  Options as for point 1  In the meantime most partners reported strongly improved cooperation agreements or informal cooperation with partners from Hydrology, while some countries still have open questions to be solved. Convergence till 2012 to be seen.

12. C33 Council comments 5 / 5  The programme should ensure that work is carried out to conclude necessary remedial action to correct outstanding technical problems, ensuring that the terms and conditions of use are consistent with Council’s agreed policy and to allow for handling of local NMS warning procedures (such as Metéo-France’s rain/precipitation case.

13. C33 Council comments 5 / 5  The programme should ensure that work is carried out to conclude necessary remedial action to correct outstanding technical problems, ensuring that the terms and conditions of use are consistent with Council’s agreed policy and to allow for handling of local NMS warning procedures (such as Metéo-France’s rain/precipitation case.  T & C: Info is copyrighted, but for use by the public, when (C32):  source (EUMETNET - MeteoAlarm + NMHS)  time of issue  no changes possible  The commentaire for the french rain and/or flood has been set

14. C33 Council comments 5 / 5  The programme should ensure that work is carried out to conclude necessary remedial action to correct outstanding technical problems, ensuring that the terms and conditions of use are consistent with Council’s agreed policy and to allow for handling of local NMS warning procedures (such as Metéo-France’s rain/precipitation case. Intellectual property The logos featured on this site are registered trademarks. The material featured on this site is the common property of the Meteoalarm partners, and is subject to copyright protection. The ownership and intellectual rights on all operational and updated awareness and warning information delivered to the Meteoalarm system remain with the Meteoalarm partners who originally delivered this information. The information on this web site may be used freely by the public. Before using information obtained from this server special attention should be given to the date & time of the data and products being displayed. In case this information is re-used: This information shall not be modified in content and the source of the information has always to be displayed as EUMETNET - MeteoAlarm, or if a single country, the providing national Institute (for internet application in all cases in the form of a link to: www.meteoalarm.eu). The time of issue at www.meteoalarm.eu must be count. Third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material of this website must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the source of material incorporated and stating that such material is not subject to copyright protection. Further information can be obtained from this following address: meteoalarm@zamg.ac.at

15. C34 Council (Brussels) 2008 10 17  Presentation Peter BIlling (MIC, Monitoring and Informnation Center DG Environment)  Presentation of revised Project EMMA

16. C34 Council Presentation from Head of MIC– draft minutes The Head of the EU's Monitoring and Information Centre, Dr Peter Billing, gave a presentation and explained that they are using Meteoalarm in their monitoring work and said that it is very beneficial tool for them. They said that they are not interested in local or provincial detail and the information can be relative quick and "dirty" provided they have the necessary contact points to get more information if necessary. Regarding the MIC's needs from Meteoalarm he said that EUMETNET is going in the right direction.

17. He also said that it is important to improve the update frequency if possible. He commented that if a whole country is red it is quite alarming so maybe the overall map could be little more differentiated but not too detailed. He also requested that maybe we could include more hazards to the system and asked if hazards could be forecast 5 days in advance on the basis that this information would be only available for the civil protection users. The most important thing for them was to keep Meteoalarm as simple as possible and to keep it user friendly. In response to questions, Head MIC also indicated that funding may be possible later next year, but to note that it would be a competitive process. C34 Council 13. Presentation from Head of MIC– draft minutes

18. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes The Programme Manager, Michael Staudinger presented the revised paper10. Chair announced that the European Meteorological Society had given Meteoalarm "2008 Media and Outreach Award". Many Council Members thanked PM and his group for the good work they have done.

19. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes DWD said that in their minds the objectives of this Programme have not changed and the target audience is still the public and media. MIC and other civil authorities can use Meteoalarm if they want but they don't have any special status other than public, because we don't take any responsibility for the information or any commitment concerning the update or backup systems. Concerning new members they said that if we would need new servers which mean more money it is a problem. Some Members shared this concern and said that it is not EMMA's objective to do capacity building and that should be done via RAVI.

20. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes DWD opinion was that maybe in these cases users like MIC could finance the new servers because e.g. ECMWF contributes to EUMETRep without influencing to Programme. DWD considered that if MIC have requirements DWD would give the information first to the national civil protection authorities and they should pass it to European, because if there is any commitment involved that is the way to do it – not through EUMETNET.

21. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Some Members were worried about the enlargement of the system with new parameters because we are still struggling with the present ones and we don't have common thresholds. If we have new parameters problems would probably increase and they wouldn't like to see that. It was also expressed that if we would give information extending to five days in intranet we should think carefully which hazards are such that this can be done in reliable way.

22. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Some of the Members said that we need to think carefully do we want Meteoalarm to be something other than it is now, because some things might be outside of our mandate. SMHI said that if our aim is to increase the visibility then it would be more important to give more parameters instead of concentrating too much to the quality of the information.

23. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Some members (Si) were worried about the RSS feed and how it would be possible to control the data and there should be very strict control on the usage of data and clear terms and conditions.

24. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes UK wanted to emphasize that the decision from the last meeting was to fix the contributions on the current level and this has not been done. MIC had sent a letter to the UK Cabinet Office which had effectively 'boxed' them into a corner so that they couldn't go any further even if they would like to.

25. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Some Council Members said that the budget increase seemed to be big because the system is alive and running and it was surprising to see that funding to maintain the system is equivalent for the cost which was used to build the system. So all costs should be considered and justified very carefully.

26. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Council concluded that a clear indication was received that we have to maintain the current budget level which was decided to be 110k€ per annum and ZAMG should come back to December's council and explain what they can do with that money.

27. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes PM and ED will work together on the proposal, including identifying parts of this proposal for which we could seek funding from third parties if necessary. DWD commented that they don't currently see any need for third party funding and they would first like what can be achieved with the current budget.

28. C34 Council revised EMMA Programme proposal - draft minutes Council agreed that the scope of the Meteoalarm should not be changed but it was realized that we have assumed some need from a European level and we need to confirm is there a real demand and how we are going to deal with it and possible make decision based on this in the future Council.  Decision C34.15 Council previously approved the EMMA Programme at C33 subject to a revised proposal being approved. Council C34 was unable to approve the revised proposal from ZAMG but agreed the budget envelope of €110k.  Action C34.18 The PM and ED were asked to work together to develop a further revised proposal for C35 that can be delivered within this budget and to identify options for 3rd party funding and how this would be managed.

29. Hardwareconfiguration

30. WP 1. Europe of regions

31. 2. More participating countries: Joined after project start  Operational:In technical preparation:  SlovakiaMalta  Czech RepublicCroatia  SloveniaSerbia  PolandEstonia  RomaniaLatvia Interest: Ukraine etc.

32. 2. More participating countries: Necessities for new partners:  EUMETNET Council agreement  Agreement with national Civil Protection  Quality control, Quality assurance  Cooperation with the MeteoAlarm forecasters / expert group  Technical abilities (GIS / XML etc.)  Shape files, XML files on an operational basis

33. WP 3 Coastal sea area warnings  Experiences:  High number of accidents of weekend sailors & limited experience  Warning products already existing, but not known across boarders  Simple colour code brings attention for further info

34. WP 3 Coastal sea area warnings - coastal zones

36. WP 4. Users: Input in other Info systems:  RSS feeds  CAP (Common Alert Protocol)  User feedback

37. WP 4. Users: Input in other Info systems:

38.  RSS feeds  CAP (Common Alert Protocol)  User feedback

39. WP 4. Users: Input in other Info systems:  RSS feeds  CAP (Common Alert Protocol)  User feedback Advantages:  strengthens the „single voice principle“  places responsibilities at the most competent institutions  involves the private sector  has relatively little costs

40. WP 5 Civil Protection 5 - day forecast (password protected) Day 0Day +1 Day +2Day +3Day +4 (Internet) (Intranet)

41. WP 5 5 - day forecast (password protected Intranet only) Alert / Early Warning / watch / weather info for day 3 to 5: Similar or equivalent information available at: Partly on public NMHS websites Intranet websites for Civil Protection General media (warnings sell well)

42. Comments from WMO - Questions for a strategy  Who are the users?  How can they be serviced?  Who are natural partners?

43. The start of EMMA - 2002

44. Output from EMMA I  Chris Little 2005

45. Output from EMMA I  Chris Little 2005

46. Denis Peter DG research As representative of DG Research (Natural Hazards research sub-activity) I took part to the recent seminar on early warning organised in the frame of the French Presidency by the French and the EC Civil protection unit in Aix en Provence last week. I have heard your presentation and would like to raise a few points.  The objective of my message is to consult you on the specific research needs and gaps that you may have identified in the field of early warning in the frame of your activities.

47. Denis Peter DG research In broad terms, if early warning concerns: 1. Hazard detection /forecasting; 2. Threat evaluation/warning-alert assessment 3 Alert dissemination/communication 4. Preparedness and response I would be grateful to you if you could highlight in a small text what are still for you the key research items that should be addressed in science in particular for point 1 and 2. Some priorities need to be given in order not to end up with a shopping list.

48. Denis Peter DG research -Concerning hydro-meteorological hazards (as storms, coastal flooding, flash floods, inland floods, etc…) what are still for you, in relation to early warning, the key problems to resolve from a scientific point of view. Where possible and for economies of scale and efficiency, early warning systems should link several hazard-based systems. How do you see the feasibility and development of such systems for the above mentioned hazards.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

49. Feedback from users  Replace colour texts with:  Weather report!  Be aware!  Be prepared!  Take action!  Point out local / foreigners vulnerability  Help text  Warning texts in all countries – automatic translations(?)  To be discussed  Skip „minutes“ in warning texts

50. WP - Activities 1Continuation of the operations, consolidation, filling existing gaps 538 2New Partners80 3Coastal Warnings17 4Users67 5Cooperation (other services)7 6Civil Protection33 7Data for forecastersin kind Sum 2008 – 2012742

51. WP - Activities 1Continuation of the operations, consolidation, filling existing gaps 440 2New PartnersExt Funding 3Coastal WarningsExt Funding 4UsersExt Funding 5Cooperation with non Met- ServicesExt Funding 6Civil ProtectionExt Funding 7Data for forecastersin kind Sum2008 – 2012440

52. WP 1  Continuation of the operations, consolidation, filling existing gaps  Hard & software maintenance  Replacement of components after end of service contract  Increase of resilience (peak for single hours)  Reduction of the refresh cycle to 5 min (-)  Implementation of the Europe of regions (-)  Servicing of the shape files (-)

53. WP 1 1Development and maintenance of further statistical and interactive display tools for the harmonisation of alerts and overall monitoring of the system performance. 160 2Enlargement of the language database for static texts with translations provided by member countries30 3Establish progressively and maintain an archive of alert levels covering in the future for the past 25 years.44 4Maintenance of the EMMA website www.meteoalarm.eu with the functionality described in the definition document (EMMA I), increase of resilience to 100 Mio hits per day 46 5Maintenance of load balancer, server park with the production and display servers and the connectivity features necessary to upload warnings in form of XML files till Nov 2012 with adequate replacements of all components after 3 years (according to the increase in resilience). 142 6Update of methodologies for input to EMMA and the website www.meteoalarm.eu via XML, Web interface and secondary lines of communication as safeguards. 12 7www.meteoalarm.eu supported 24x7 at all levels (Intranet and external visible Internet) via mail, SMS and phone as a component of the system quality control 154 8Reorganisation of the calculation time (less than 10 min) to minimise the response time to the XML input scheme. 560 9Reorganisation of the filter function for particular awareness types, which makes it possible to see only certain awareness types. 70 10Update of shape files and display features of existing partners in case of necessary changes3224 11Program Management, coordination of user requests, maintenance of updated documentation on all Program parts available in the password protected Intranet. 3022 12Establish internal and external communication rules, conferences.36 Tot 538440

54. Questions?