slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Hans-Peter Plag 1 & Stuart H. Marsh 2 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Hans-Peter Plag 1 & Stuart H. Marsh 2

Hans-Peter Plag 1 & Stuart H. Marsh 2

125 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Hans-Peter Plag 1 & Stuart H. Marsh 2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The GeoHazards Community of Practice (GHCP) Reducing the Impacts of Geohazards-Induced Disasters through Improved Risk Management informed by Global Earth Observations Hans-Peter Plag1 & Stuart H. Marsh2 1) Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno 2) British Geological Survey (BGS), U.K.

  2. The GeoHazards Community of Practice (GHCP) - Origin of Proposal Idea - Comments on Motivation - Status of Proposal

  3. Origin of Proposal Idea January 18-21, 2010: 1st GHCP Workshop, UNESCO, Paris Main Outputs: - Workshop Report - Draft GHCP Roadmap - Strategic Target Key activity in Roadmap: - Implement core sites

  4. Origin of Proposal Idea STRATEGIC TARGET OF THE GHCP By 2020 put in place all building blocks for comprehensive monitoring of geohazards and the provision of timely information on spatio-temporal characteristics, risks, and occurrence of geohazards, in support of all phases of the risk management cycle (mitigation and preparedness, early warning, response, and recovery), and as a basis for increased resilience and disaster reduction. This will be achieved by developing a global network of very few carefully selected core sites. These core sites will provide focal points for a large geographical region, where all building blocks of a value chain from observations to end users can be linked together and applied to the phases of the risk management cycle relevant for this region. Thus, these core sites will demonstrate the concept, enable scientific studies and technological developments, provide for capacity building, and inform policy and decision making in the region.

  5. Comments on Motivation February-March 2010: Disaster SBA Review for STC: - Results presented to STC-13 (available on web page) - Issues with a few sub-tasks identified; subsequently resolved; - Common issues: - Integration of different techniques - Integration of observations and models - Extraction of relevant information from observations - Real-time/low latency networks - Products and information relevant for end users How to address these issues? Workshops on - Integration of different techniques - Integration of observations and models - Extraction of relevant information from observations Coordination efforts for enhanced real-time/low latency networks

  6. Comments on Motivation

  7. Comments on Motivation Supersites Initiative: Draft White Paper open for comments; available on Supersites web page Question/issues: - Consistency with GEO data sharing rules? - Interoperability of web page? - QA of material on web page - New structural element in GEO?

  8. Comments on Motivation • Large difference between developed/advance and developing/early stage regions in preparedness, mitigation, early warning, response, and recovery. • Many global elements (in observations and tools) are in place but not accessible everywhere. • Global programs focusing on risk management and disaster reduction provide conceptual framework. ==> Potential benefit from technology/knowledge/methodology transfer are very large, both for developing and developed regions

  9. COST Proposal Objective: Reducing the Impacts of Geohazards-Induced Disasters through Improved Risk Management informed by Global Earth Observations How: Facilitate progress towards Implementation of the GHCP Road Map: end-to-end links from Earth observations to end users Deadline for Pre-proposal: 24 September 2010 Support, if successful: order 100 KEUR/per year for coordination Participation: Global (with restrictions) Status: Draft proposal available Schedule: - September 6, 2010: Proposal meeting, London - September 7-20: Finalization of proposal and completion of partnership - September 24: Submission

  10. COST Proposal Proposed Working Groups: WG1: Capabilities and gaps WG2: Standards, protocols, data exchange, and services WG3: Core sites: end-to-end approach to risk management WG4: Supersites: serving disaster reduction research with earth observations WG5: Disaster clearinghouse in support of response to major disasters WG6: Demonstration pilots: Implementing Tandems

  11. COST Proposal

  12. Comments on Draft (1-1) Dear Hans-Peter, Thanks for your draft proposal and your interest for the COST mechanism. I feel this is a good basis for a good proposal. The envisaged activities are well suited for a COST Action. I have put some comments on the attached text. THey basically concern 3 issues: - be more specific in the general description of the objectives of the Action in order that evaluators have a good sense of the actual deliverables at the start of their reading (not at the end, as the WG activities are rather specific) - the need for the Action lacks of evidence: what is the situation now, what is missing, what are the gaps, how the Action will contribute to improve the situation - make clearer the European component and relevance of the Action, though it should be part of global networks and activities. I wish you success Sylvain

  13. Comments on Draft (2-1) Dear Hans-Peter, Thanks for the new version. I did not have time over the WE to send you my comments. I do hope that they are note late. The proposal has a good potential, but still must be refocused a little bit to the European needs and should be more "strategic" and efficient (the competition is high) to convince the Domain Committee (board of assessors of the pre-proposals). Do not hesitate to cut repetition of "bla-ba" and general sentences that are well known from the Background and Benefits sections. Remind them once shortly at the beginning and then cut things which are too general in order to be more specific and to better define the status and needs in Europe in terms of risk management:

  14. Comments on Draft (2-2) - What are the needs of the European countries? - What are the administrations/public services (policy and decision makers) that you target at EC level and at the level of individual European countries? - This is not clear that there is a need for a network at the European level in this area. Should be clarified. Do not hesitate to mention that there is need for harmonisation at European level. It can be even specified shortly in the main objective. - The reader should clearly see two "steps": development at EU level and then transfer at global level through GEO. - What will be the added value for Europe to launch a COST Action on this topic? - Which mechanism would support the transfer of the European expertise in GEO? - Methodology must be better explained; clarification about supersites and tandem sites is needed; better describe the deliverables and outcome expected; - A COST Action always runs 4 years; no need to specify it. - Do not hesitate to envisage Training Schools, which are powerful instrument for dissemination, training and transfer of knowledge to early-career scientists and end-users.

  15. Comments on Draft (2-3) - Minimum 5 COST European countries must be listed as interested partners - Non-COST institutions: Institutes that might be interested and involved in the tandem sites or in supersites from non-COST countries, international or intergovernmental instititutions, NGOs - All acronyms must be explained. - It is not allowed to submit figures - Minor spelling: use always "A" in the word "action" when you refer to the COST Action. Have a fruitful meeting, All the best, Carine

  16. Comments on Draft (3-1) Dear Stuart, First of all, I thank you for your invitation. I hope I can do my best for you. I have some thoughts for the proposal. It is shown at below; Turkey is one of the few countries of the world, subject to frequent natural disasters (Earthquakes, Landslides, Flooding, Fires, Pollution etc), due to its geological and tectonic structure. She is a natural laboratory for better understanding of systems of system of the nature. One of the core sites/Supersites, would be Istanbul city and its region ( Northern Anatolian Active Fault Zone in Turkey). WG3 , WG4 and WG 6 could be revised by considering the site Istanbul. On site activities for training purposes, could be added into WG3 and WG4. We are interesting to take roles and responsibilities in the following WGs, WG1 Capabilities and gaps, as a core Member of Coordination Platform WG3: Core sites: end-to-end approach to risk management WG4: Supersites, WG6: Demonstration pilots: Implementing Tandem

  17. Comments on Draft (3-2) The other Turkish Institutions may interest to participate to this action under TUBITAK coordination. Could you please also take into consideration this contribution. One point in my mind , There should be an interface between decision making process and scientific work. A principle and a mechanism must be designed and applied into reallife/world for the implementation of the scientific results. Otherwise scientists talk scientists only.. I am very soory that I cannot participate the teleconference today due to unexpected reasons. I wish a very fruitful meeting and good work.. Hope to hear and to meet you soon my best regards Tamer

  18. COST Proposal

  19. Comments on Motivation Presentation of GHCP in GEOSS Session at ISPRS Commission VIII meeting, Kyoto, Japan, August 2010