IGOS geohazard workshop Capacity building working group

1
IGOS geohazard workshop Capacity 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-specif
  ic, in developing countries as much as in the
  developed world
• Training requirement is very location/level-specif
  ic, 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 cant entirely
  replace traditional education (good results e.g.
  UNIGIS 26 universities, but no geohazard)
• Also distance education, though cant 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 USGSs
  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 dont 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