IGOS geohazard workshop Capacity building working group

1. IGOS geohazard workshopCapacity building working group Rapporteurs: Norman Kerle, Peter Zeil, Juan Murria

2. Participants • Robert Missotten (UNESCO) • Norman Kerle (ITC) • Richard Teeuw (Uni Portsmouth/UK GRSG) • Juan Murria (FUNVISIS) • A. K. Sinha (Uni Rajasthan) • Emannuel Kouokam (Ministry of Industry and Mines) • Peter Zeil (Centre for Geoinformatics Salzburg) • Emilie Crochet (Ministry of Interior) • Remy Louat (IRD) • Juliet Bird (ARUP) • Gari Mayberry (USGS/USAID) • Antonio Colombi (Geological Survey)

3. Goal: • Competence in observing and monitoring geohazards with the aim to reduce vulnerability, and input to risk reduction, is existing.

4. Purpose: • Capacity building – facilitates knowledge transfer for access, interpretation and integration of products and services by (i) appropriate dissemination and (ii) optimal infrastructure to improve the performance of individuals and institutions in the disaster management cycle

5. Expected outputs: Points of departure: - Focus training on prevention instead of response - KISS (Keep It Simple …)

6. (1) Inventory of current and forthcoming capacity building projects that IGOS can link to is compiled: • Training requirement is very location/level-specific, in developing countries as much as in the developed world • Training requirement is very location/level-specific, in developing countries as much as in the developed world • Define ‘capacity building’ – hazards are the same, but vulnerability and mitigation strategies differ • Regional training networks – way to go

7. Also distance education, though can’t entirely replace traditional education (good results e.g. UNIGIS – 26 universities, but no geohazard) • Also distance education, though can’t entirely replace traditional education (good results e.g. UNIGIS – 26 universities, but no geohazard) • Do GEOSS and CEOS have capacity building initiatives?

8. Relate to existing strategies (e.g. Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance [OFDA] and USGS’s Volcano Disaster Assistance Programme [VDAP] etc.) • Use existing tutorials (e.g. RRCC www.cla.sc.edu/geog/rslab/rsccnew/) • Consider low-tech vs. high-tech

9. (2) Identification of geographical zones and disciplines where capacity building activities are insufficient • No coordination on natural disaster management in EU • Multi-hazard training better than focusing on a single hazard • Questionnaire will provide input here

10. (3) Means to close the gaps are identified • Not just collect and make available data, but also teach how to extract information • Translate fancy research output into information on how to set up infrastructure (e.g. tsunami – much is known, but how does that information help in the region specifically?) • Integration with other information, e.g. socio-economic and non-scientific data

11. ‘communication’ problem – scientists don’t know how to talk to politicians and local/regional authorities • ‘products’ need to be addressed to fit the right level (politicians, scientists, local community levels, general population) • Train experts locally/regionally • Training of trainers • Often lack of flexibility in curricula

12. (4) Potential funding sources are identified • Success always depends on (i) funding and (ii) high-level support • Missing: cost-effectiveness overview/study – how do we reach most people at appropriate level with least amount of money

13. Activities/action points: • Continue the working group after this meeting, including other relevant partners, and link it to CEOS – jointly chaired by Peter Zeil, Norman Kerle and Richard Teeuw [precondition to all results] • Develop a survey of end user needs [identify the end users and their requirements] [results # i and ii] • Create and maintain a catalogue of available tutorials and training opportunities, including their respective metadata [result # i]

14. Compile an inventory of best practice and existing infrastructure for CB (e.g. regional training centre [such as ADPC]) [result # ii] • Approach CEOS to review policy on easy and low-cost data access [result # iii] • Link up with the GMES process to secure funding to compile, inventorise and advise on the production and use of material on geohazards capacity building [results # iii and iv]