TRIAL INTO EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE FWD SYSTEM

1. TRIAL INTO EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE FWD SYSTEM Chris Samuel (Co-Chair, LRF EFWD Alert Trial Task & Finish Group)

2. Extended FWD Alert Trial • What is Extended FWD? • Background to Trial…. • Setting the scope…. • Preparing for the trial…. • Running the trial…. • Findings from the trial…. • Next steps…. • Trial Summary • Questions

3. What is Floodlines Warning Direct? Current warning service used by EA for flood events Uses an Opt-Out facility to warn residents, businesses and professional partners by landline in pre-defined flood warning areas Opt Out = more people receive flood warnings

4. Background to the Trial….. • No nationally available alerting system since demise of WW2 air raid sirens in 1980s • Civil Contingencies Act (2004) and introduction of Communicating with the Public Duty • 2010 - EA approach to Government re: potential for extending system to other fixed risks, e.g. reservoirs, chemical and nuclear sites

5. What would theTrial Project Involve? • Aim? To evaluate the suitability of FWD for use with other fixed risks • How? • Evaluate ‘As Is’ and ‘To Be’ situations • Live Alert Trial (1st Feb 2012) in Ellesmere Port • Evaluation of public and responder feedback • Other risks, other LRFs? • Report to Ministers

6. Who was Involved in Trial? • The community of Ellesmere Port • Local councillors • Innospec (Test site) • Fujitsu (FWD supplier) • LRF partner agencies • CCS (Cabinet Office)

7. Setting the scope...

8. What were the Trial Objectives? The trial objectives were defined early on and focused the work throughout: • determine the appropriateness of using the EFWD approach to areas and risks beyond flooding. • identify the level of change needed to the existing system used for flooding purposes. • engage a sample of users through the trial and deliver test alert messages to them. • evaluate the overall approach so as to be in a position to provide Ministers with advice as to the likely benefit of such a system. • produce a consultation pack, on which the views of other LRFs could be established.

9. Setting the scenario and location • Location • The LRF negotiated involvement of the site operator. • Recognised as a good test site - comparatively high population essential for the public feedback: Scenario • The scenario was chosen following consultation between CCS & LRFs in 2010. • CCS identified that COMAH sites/PIZ were likely candidates for system approach. • Cheshire LRF chosen due to high number of COMAH sites and previous working relationship with CCS

10. Location Information

11. Preparing for the Trial... aka getting the ducks in a row...

12. Who gets what? Warming up the public • Comms activity led by Cheshire LRF – essential for success! • Use of letter from ‘The Emergency Services’, social media and Shelter Days at local supermarket. • Enabled core ‘Go In, Stay In, Tune In’ emergency preparedness messages to be reinforced. • Agreeing the messages • Public: audio message only, focus on not causing undue concern. Tension with need to make the message realistic • Responders: defining who would receive which message (audio, email and SMS) as well as the content for each of these => Off site plan • Command and Control: who would activate the system and how

13. Reaching consensus on the approach It was essential there was common understanding between Cheshire LRF, the system suppliers, Environment Agency and the CCS: • Pilot Operating Principles – set out the high level approaches that would be taken specifying dates, times, players. • Trial Operating Procedures – defined the operational aspects of the trial including timetables, contact details and issue management.

14. Running the Trial... this is just a drill...

15. Live Alert Trial– Wednesday 1st February 2012 • Coincided with monthly siren test • 2 messages to approx 5,800 properties in Innospec PIZ:

17. Live Alert Trial– Wednesday 1st February 2012 • Coincides with monthly siren test • 2 messages to approx 5,800 properties in Innospec PIZ • 10-11am & 6-7pm • 70 second message: • Responder messages • Invite to public to participate in evaluation of trial

18. Findings from the Trial...

19. So how did it go? Quantitative findings • Volume • Telephone – 5738 @ 10:00, 1831 @ 18:00 • Email – 52, SMS – 41 • Speed/Duration • All first calls finished in 15 minutes • Average duration of successful calls – 1 min 29 • Survey Opt In • 781 Acknowledged • 239 Opted In • 453 Opted Out

20. Views from the public (1) A total of 230 people were surveyed during the weeks following the trial to understand their views:

21. Views from the public (2) As well as surveying those in Ellesmere Port, a UK-wide sample was also secured to enable a compare and contrast:

22. Views from the public (2) Recognising the need for pre-incident communications we also asked people about that:

23. Views from responders A workshop was held the week following the trial to understand the views of responders: • Command and control arrangements – The site operator - following their participation – did not believe they would have the capacity to activate the system in a real emergency. • Speed of cascade – the existing ring around by the police to notify responders of an incident took too long. • Secondary information sources – the capability of responders to quickly provide further information following the alert was minimal. • Mixed views on message type – there was no consensus about the optimal form of messaging to emergency responders.

24. Next steps... Check, check and check it again

25. Next Steps • What happens now? • Trial Report made available publically • Liaison with other LRFs and national stakeholders:

26. Validate the findings in other areas CCS working with DCLG RED and Devolved Administrations to hold a series of workshops with LRFs (May-June). Objectives are to: • Understand existing alerting capabilities employed by LRFs in the UK and the rationale behind this. • Gather views on potential improvements to civil alerting capabilities including views on the FWD trial, its findings and potential resource implications locally. • Validate the DSTL findings on ‘what makes an effective alert system’ with LRFs.

27. What happens now? • Trial Report made available publically • Liaison with other LRFs and national stakeholders • Nuclear facilities and reservoirs - comparisons? • Report to SRO (July) • Options re: scope and scale of any future national civil alerting system then presented to Ministers for decision in 2012-13 • Cell Broadcasting?

28. Cell Broadcasting - Update Early acknowledgement from CCS that no single approach will warn all impacted by an emergency Similar ‘opt-out’ approach being considered by CCS for mobile devices Cell Broadcasting trial was due to take place in parallel to EFWD – did not occur Why? Uncertainty re: impact on mobile network and implications of trial CCS still interested in understanding this capability – possibility of trial in 2012-13 – no firm plans in place CCS continuing to monitor work in USA, Netherlands, Israel & France to help inform UK understanding

29. Trial Summary The trial was a success: • Very positive findings from trial participants reported in the survey. • Strong desire for information immediately for notification and further information for decision making • Recognition from emergency responders in Cheshire of the need to improve local procedures. • Looking at ‘internal’ arrangements for notification and ability to update. • Helpful in understanding the level of effort associated with implementing something of this level.

30. Summary • What is Extended FWD? • Background to Trial…. • Setting the scope…. • Preparing for the trial…. • Running the trial…. • Findings from the trial…. • Next steps…. • Trial Summary

31. Questions? • For further details please contact: • Chris Samuel, CWaC (01244-976720) • Peter Dobson, EA (01925-543450) • David Barnes, CCS (020-7276-5401)