2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull , Iceland

1. 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull,Iceland

4. Iceland • Population: 311,058 (July 2011 est.) • GDP – per capital: $38,000 • GDP - composition by sector: • agriculture: 5.4% • industry: 24.8% • services: 69.8%

5. Preparations • Scientists monitor the activity of active volcanoes • Awareness: At school, using the media • Emergency plans are put before hand

6. Vulnerability • Vulnerability: the geographic conditions that increase the susceptibility of a community to a hazard or to the impact of a hazard event.

7. The perception of the population to the hazard • Icelandic people are well aware about the fact that they live in a hotspot.

8. Probability of Volcanic Eruptions in Iceland • Probability of a second Icelandic volcano erupting this year: more than 80% • Kolbeinsey ridge (Last erupted: 1999) or a new submarine fissure in its vicinity – probability of eruption: 80% • Krafla (1984)/ Theistareykjarbunga (after 1000 BC)/ Tjörnes fracture zone (1868) – probability of eruption: 52% • Askja (1961) – probability of eruption: 66 percent • Bárðarbunga (1903) and neighboring Grímsvötn (2004) – probability of eruption: 84 percent • Grímsnes (before 3500 BC) – 40% • Reykjanes (1879) – 50% • Katla – probability of eruption: 64% • Other Icelandic volcanoes not mentioned on this list: probability of eruption: less than 40 percent

9. The Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted in 920, 1612 and again from 1821 to 1823  •  It erupted twice in 2010 — on 20 March and in April/May. The March event forced a brief evacuation of around 500 local people, but the 14 April eruption was ten to twenty times more powerful and caused substantial disruption to air traffic across Europe. It caused the cancellation of thousands of flights across and to Iceland.

10. Hazard management to reduce the risk and damage • “Risk culture classes” so that the population know how to behave in case of a hazard • World class monitoring system which includes evacuation programs • Awareness to inform people about possible hazards • innovative hazard mapping methodology to experiment with a wide range of possible hazards and solutions • The culture of Iceland: open, honest and ask for help if needed

11. Spatial extent of the hazard

12. 20 March: first eruption, 500 people had to be evacuated • Second eruption on the 14thApriltwenty times more powerful than eruption in March; led to flooding in Iceland and disruption of air traffic in Europe due to a ash cloud

13. Magnitude and duration of the Eyjafjallajoekull eruption • January 2010 an earthquake swarm began under the Eyjafjallajoekull • Beginning of March 3000 earthquakes were measured in 24 hour time period with a • magnitude of 3.1 • 21st of March the eruption near the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier started, locals reported • lava fountaining and lava flow down the glacier • 14th April new eruptions and earthquakes occurred, 45 people in Langidalur valley • north of the Eyjafjallajökull glacier were isolated by the eruption, and 800 people • were evacuated; glacier flooding occurred • 16th April a new eruption takes places which leads to a major ash emission • 17th April the eruption continues • 18th April the ash emission continues • 20th April eruption continues

14. 22nd April Eruptions have decreased at Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland. • Present magma eruption rate is about 75 tonnes/second which is about 10% of • the 72-hour long maximum phase. About 100 million cubic • meters of material has been erupted so far. Ash fall is 30 m deep near the crater. There • have been no changes in crater size at Eyjafjallajokull volcano since 19th April. • 9th May: The eruption is still in the explosive phase. • 16th May: Ash emissions from Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland reached a maximum height of 27,000 ft on 15th May. An earthquake swarm was recorded beneath the volcano between 23:54 hr (14th May) and 02:45 (15th May). Over 30 earthquakes less than magnitude 2 were recorded at a depth of 30 km. • Summary: About 4 months, thousands of earthquakes, ash emission over Europe for about 1 month

15. Causes of the volcanic eruption • Eruption mostly occurred because of the shifting of the North American plate and the European plate • The plates moved away from each other • To plug the gap between the two plates lava seeps up • In order to have an eruption an earthquake has to happen like it was seen in Iceland • Summary of the causes: movement of plates in combination with earthquakes

16. Economic impacts of the volcanic eruption • Airline industry: cancellation of flights; leaded to a loss of $200million per day worldwide, total loss %1.3billion • European economy: import and export was affected, loss in these areas like pharmaceutics because they expired • African economy: eg: Kenya lost income if $3.8 million per day because of the lack of export of flowers to UK • Asian economy: companies for technology could not export their products like LG, Hong Kong’s hotels and restaurants faced a shortage of European imports

17. Impacts on politicians • Travel disruption: number of world leaders had to postpone planned trips or could not attend meetings due to the closure of airports • Funeral of Lech Kaczyński and Maria Kaczyńska: many politicians who planned to come like Obama, Merkel were unable to attend the funeral on the 18th April

18. Environmental impact • The volcano released approximately 0.15 million tones of CO2 each day • Cancellation of flights saved an estimated 1.3 to 2.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere by 19 April 2010

19. Responses to the disaster • Local: Icelanders have learned to live with their volcanoes, it was not the first time • National: airports in Iceland were immediately closed to international traffic • Evacuation where necessary • International: closing of international traffic

20. Future plans • the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) is urging European governments to take more action to integrate volcano risk as part of their air travel policies and legislation • Greater coordination and interaction between decision-makers and the scientific community.