CAP & European Emergency Response Capacity Control Centre interoperability

1. CAP & European Emergency Response Capacity Control Centre interoperability Stefano Marsella & Marcello Marzoli

2. Overview • Italian National Fire Corps (CNVVF) • Interoperability btw CNVVF and emergency stakeholders Control Centers • side effect: Interoperability within CNVVF branches • Case 1: cooperative search for missing people in hostile environment • Case 2: public warning to evacuate WUI for an approaching forest fire • Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake (April 2009) • European Emergency Response Capacity

3. Italian National Fire Corps Ministry of Interior

4. Interoperability btw Control Centers The 100 CNVVF Control Centers cooperate and exchange info daily with a large number of other first responders’ C&C type of incident selected on the basis of: location /jurisdiction

5. Common Operational Picture Since the first calls, each Control Centre try to collect as much data as possible from the calling citizens to assess type and scale of the event Notwithstanding the effort, the op. pictures remain confuse, incomplete, contradictory

6. COP & Unified Control Centre To solve the issue, many push for one only Control Room able to coordinate the others and build up one only operational picture

7. COP and unified control center Even though a unified control room can solve the coordination problem btw the rescuers’ directly involved It is almost impossible to include all the cooperating organisations (e.g.) RN Squads Local Police Technical Services CB Squads Bomb Squads Local Volunteer Fire Brigades Not only for ‘improper’ mutual competition Local Volunteer ambulance serv. Emergency Assistance Numbers But because they often need to have access to a different set of info and cannot share all of their data with the others

8. COP and multilateral data exchange Each rescuers’ Control room need a different perspective of the same operational picture Where a unified control room is implemented, firstly it build up the common picture, then filters are applied to build the customised picture to fulfill each rescuers needs But filtering is a tricky process, valuable info can be cut off, whereas other info passed on could reveal itself unnecessary then confusing It is wiser to take a step back: • avoid to centralise all the available info • enhance the exchange of info between the existing control rooms

9. Data exchange: present situation Control Centers use sophisticated IT systems, but different ones

10. Data exchange: present situation One C&C collect info from the citizens call the other C&C to pass the info who input again data into his system input data into their system

11. Why not to exchange data too? & Using voice as the only “communication device” seems ineffective Cons: Time and accuracy lost in spelling names, roads, numbers Plus: Consolidated procedures? Legal basis? Traceability? Only one real plus: it is the only “channel” fully interoperable

12. TheREACT project • Funded by the EC under FP6 • 2.5 years, 10 partners • Trials in Italy, Germany, UK • Scope: improving emergency management through data sharing by defining open data Protocols and a distributed architecture scalable from local level up to European level

13. After REACT: residual challenges Aiming at an actual adoption of the REACT concept in real operations, the main organizational challenges for Emergency Services were: To get authorization by all decision makers of the organisations willing to share data; such authorization should take the form of an agreement defining operational procedures, IT security and compliancy levels with in-force regulations and laws The agreement on common operational procedures for sharing data and information on events The integration of interoperability functionalities with existing legacy systems operating in command and control rooms

14. Org. challenges: CAP adoption by CNVVF

15. Org. challenges: CAP adoption by CNVVF

16. Org. challenges: Open standards Non-proprietary standards allow all emergency Services to adopt them without costs for licensing or special tools: • CAP(Common alerting Protocol) used for structuring information in an XML file • Italian CAP Profile for the further definition of additional information fields • ATOM FEED as distribution mechanism of CAP messages in a many-to-many distributed architecture

17. CAP Protocol CAP example

18. CNVVF CAP Profile

19. ATOM Feed published by CNVVF

20. Authorization & common operational procedures : approved agreement

21. Integration: legacy system SO115 rule settings

22. Integration: REACT-VF architecture • A web application (CAPGenerator) for creating CAP messages. • An access to a Routing application (CAPRouter) for creating and distributing ATOM FEEDs with CNVVF • A web application (CAPRetriever) for retrieving ATOM FEED and storing CAP messages on DB • A web application (CAPReader) visualising CAP messages available on DB in text format (no integrated map available) All of the above now installed on CNVVF servers

23. Integration: REACT-VF web-interface

24. Side effect: internal interoperability • Real-time transmission of interventions for forest fires from the 100 CNVVF HQ to regional and National Control Centers to calculate number and total area of burnt scar during the fire season 2014 Real-time transmission of interventions for forest fires to a new System for forest fires’ video surveillance and remote sensing

25. Side effect: internal interoperability For the internal interoperability only the Fire Corps system settings include 377 OIDs exchanging data over 1,455 (unidirectional) channels (through a central repository – without publishing feeds) As OIDs the CNVVF has provisionally adopted the certified e-mail, as provided by the Directory of Italian Public Administrations (Indice delle Pubbliche Amministrazioni – IPA -http://www.indicepa.gov.it/documentale/english.php), which was set up on purpose to supports the interoperability among public administrations.

26. Case 1: cooperative search for missing people in hostile environment • From now on: agreements to exchange data with other rescuers CC (first one signed with the Municipality of Venezia) • When (daily…) persons are reported missing (e.g. in mountain area) rescuers are many and belong to several areas: • National , regional, municipal government, public service providers • Now: agreement on the spot: CNVVF distribute locally terminals to each team to collect their data

27. Case 1: cooperative search for missing people in hostile environment The internal procedure to regulate such agreements will be issued next October (today one only ‘experimental’ agreement is in force). But many others will come (all feeds with CAP attached). E.g. today the Control Center of CNVVF Venezia HQ exchange (by phone) location-wise information with: • 8 local branch of National and regional organizations and • 86 local organisations If you multiply per 100…

28. Case 2: public warning to evacuate WUI for an approaching forest fire Concept to be demonstrated into the EU FP7 R&D integration project • By the Law, CNVVF cannot issue a Public Warning • However those who can (e.g. Prefectures), rely on information from the field and expert advise which easily involve CNVVF- today some CNVVF CCs have the task to trigger some warning systems (sirens) too when ordered by the Prefect – • CNVVF is going to keep the Prefectures up-to-date with the event evolution through a CAP flow originated by CNVVF Control Centers • The Prefectures will have then to forward a tailored CAP message to public warning systems reason why CNVVF is so interested into the Public Warning Design Guidelines for FIA Messaging

29. Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake 6th April 2009 Within the first day, more than 1.000 responders of the National Fire Corps reached the city and the towns around Aquila, working on 24 hours shifts to save the most of lives. The emergency life-saving operations have been performed until every missing person has not been found.

30. Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake Within the third day after the earthquake, the CNVVF has deployed: • nearly 2.300 firemen • 1.111 vehicles • 3 Satellite Communication Vehicles • 5 helicopters • 92 Special teams • 24 Search teams with dogs • 7 Base camps • 20 local command units • 100 engineers to assess the safety conditions of buildings • 8 engineers/architects to assess safety conditions of monuments • 1 medical team

31. Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake In the first days after the earthquake, the Department has deployed: • 5.434 tents • 44.852 beds • 9.851 cots • 107.289 blankets • 7.663 heaters for tents • 36 assembly tents • 96 electrical plants • 58 power units • 5 mobile refectories • 216 toilets - shower units

32. Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake This kind of response was possible because in the first phase CNVVF was the only responsible and is organized as a National, hierarchical organization… What kind of interoperability tool was possible to apply afterwards, when needed? Solution the Italian Civil Protection had to adopt to allow interoperability between all the actors during the L’Aquila earthquake. L’Aquila Earthquake 6th April 2009 DICOMAC - Direzione Comando e Controllo

33. Case 3: Response to L’Aquila earthquake The CAP-enabled system used to manage daily emergencies could easily be extended to the management of large emergencies inside or outside the National borders when hosting or bringing international aid. Using CAP, the hosting Nation can assign tasks to - and receive reports from - the supporting teams seamlessly and respecting the chain-of-command of each team - cutting down drastically activation times so high to often leave the hosting Nation alone during the most critical phase. This concept will be demonstrated in Greece next November in the framework of a multilateral exercise organized by the project Interoperability of data and procedures in large-scale multinational disaster response actions (EU FP7 R&D integration project – on going)

34. European Emergency Response Capacity The Decision call for a more efficient European response based on interoperable emergency response capacities committed by Member States. Most of the effort will aim at physical interoperability between fire hoses, power plugs, etc… But CNVVF is going to push to extend the concept to the emergency data exchange between rescuers… …based on CAP! Since 1 January 2014 is in force the new European Decision on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism

35. Thank you