ࡱ> q` bjbjqPqP 4::cNCNCNC8CdCtMhjDjDDDD[E[E[Ḛΰΰΰΰΰΰ$he[E[EeeDD/j/j/jeDD̰/jḛ/j/j D^D PBENCf40M$۵Mh۵h۵[E O/jW]l[E[E[EiX[E[E[EMeeee+1d1 ICG/PTWS WORKING GROUP ON TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATION SYSTEM IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC OCEAN Ad Hoc Working Group Meeting 26 November 2007, Government Conference Room, Nukualofa, Tonga Minutes Meeting opened at 9:00 am Present: Filomena Nelson (Chair), Lasarusa Vuetibau, Paul Eastwood, Phil Glassey, Rick Bailey , Kelepi Mafi, Phil Cummins, Noud Leenders, Helen Pierce, Michael Bonte, Rajendra Prasad, Hiroshi, James Goss, Laura Kong, Thomas Toba, Morris Harrison, Lameko Talia, Bernard Pelletier, Fred Taylor, Cliff Frohlich, Matt Hornbach, Herman Fritz, Dave Herron Apologies: Ken Gledhill (GNS Science; NZ), Dale Dominey-Howes (NSW University) Welcome and Introduction Filomena Nelson The Meeting Chair welcomed the members and informs them that the Chair of this Working Group, Dr. Ken Gledhill from GNS Science New Zealand was unavailable to attend the meeting. The main objective of the meeting was to provide an update on tsunami-related issues and a forum for PICs to progress issues related to tsunamis at the international and regional levels and to encourage PICs that were not already members of IOC to join. The Chair then proceeded to go through the items for the meeting. South West Pacific Working Group Report 2007 The Chair presented a brief report on the Southwest Pacific Working Group Report 2007. The report noted that a special working group for a Pacific tsunami early warning system had been established at ICG/PTWS- XXI in Melbourne in May 2006 to evaluate and coordinate the capabilities of the countries in region to provide end to end tsunami warning and mitigation services. The Group noted that progress report of the Working Group had been provided to the members before the meeting in Ecuador. In the addition, the report noted that the working group recommended that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (PTWC) continues to provide coverage in the Pacific until such time a regional warning system might be established, that a database of existing instrumentation be established, and that a gap analysis be conducted in order to identify where stations were required. The working group members were invited to provide comments on the recommendations presented. Phil Glassey asked whether there was going to be a gap analysis, and if so, whether this was far away from being undertaken Rick Bailey replied that some efforts were being made in this area through the general PTWS sea-level network and Working Group 2. He informed the members that there was a need to assess what data was already available; that a gap analysis for the region was important, and that there was a need to coordinate country strategies to come up with a regional work plan, and that France is looking to install gauges in New Caledonia in addition to further stations being planned by Australia. There was also a need to collect metadata but maintaining and centralizing it was an issue, and that this was a SOPAC Secretariat-type function Paul Eastwood asked whether, in terms of data collection, there was a design for level positioning of gauges for South West Pacific tsunami warning. Rick Bailey noted that many gauges were not in the right place for tsunami monitoring (being established with different site exposures for monitoring sea level rise under climate change), which can lead to confusion, and cited the example of the Honiara gauge. Noted the need for guidelines for locating sea level gauges, but noted that there were also practical constraints, which also played a factor in where gauges were placed. Further noted that gap analysis was required first, as well as a need to keep track of what gauges in the region were working and which were not working. Paul Eastwood questioned whether such an analysis had been done. Rick Bailey replied that it had not yet been completed, but work was progressing under the Australian Tsunami Warning System (ATWS) Project. Phil Cummins noted that a criterion for such an analysis has not yet been set. Rick Bailey noted that criteria for an analysis had been done for the Indian Ocean Working Group 2, and that as agreed in a joint meeting of the ICG/IOTWS and ICG/PTWS Working Group 2 this needed to be transferred to the Pacific, so that the Pacific could use the lessons learned from the Indian Ocean. Rajendra Prasad questioned why the Pacific was learning from the Indian Ocean Working Group when a network in the region already existed. He also pointed out that what currently existed for developing a basic early warning system was not ideal, but there was a need to start somewhere, and that national warning centres were needed to provide input. Rick Bailey supported these comments and noted that Australia had connected its climate monitoring gauges in the region with satellite communications in the first instance to maike use of whatever data was available. He pointed out, however, that it was useful to learn from Indian Ocean since more effort had been dedicated to improve sea level data utility and requirements for tsunami monitoring as a result of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. Helen Pierce noted that a major issue is that countries do not have access to their own information yet. Rick Bailey pointed out that countries do indeed have access to the data collected by Australian supported gauges in the region through the Global Telecommunications System of WMO and Registered User web pages. The issue is therefore more about ensuring countries know how to access and utilise this data. Phil Cummins questioned the purpose of having the PGS working group running parallel to the STAR working group and questioned whether the reason for this was that the STAR group could make recommendations to Council. Rick Bailey noted that a formal intergovernmental process was required to ensure national resources are dedicated, maintained and coordinated in the region. The ICG/PTWS was established under UNESCOs Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) to serve this purpose. Noud Leenders noted that the Honiara meeting last year was an official PTWS meeting but this year, an ad hoc meeting was being held since time had been short, so full protocol could not be followed and that they wanted to use this opportunity to have countries which are not part of the group participate. He further acknowledged that STAR working group recommendations would go to Council. Rajendra Prasad noted that there was a need to look at what was the best way for implementing recommendations from the working group along with a time line for implementation since there was lots of talk but little action. Noud Leenders agreed with this statement and noted that the early warning strategy had some specific activities with a timeline but that it was difficult to work through different organizations and countries. Rick Bailey also agreed, again pointing out the value of the SW Pacific Working Group to give the region ownership of its own issues, a forum to discuss them and provide input and representation at the broader ICG/PTWS level. Outcomes from 22nd ICG-PTWS XXII Filomena Nelson presented the outcomes from the 22nd ICG-PTWS XXII meeting in Ecuador. Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System Rick Bailey presented the progress of implementation of the Tsunami warning capacity assessment project in the Pacific. Rick Bailey noted that the project was up and running, and that the AusAID funded project lead by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology was utilizing and helping to build on the IOC/WMO gap analysis of PICs who were Member States of SOPAC to receive and respond to tsunami warning. Noted that it was initially set up for the Indian Ocean because no warning system existed before 2004, and that a comprehensive assessment of it was needed before it was adopted in the Pacific. Noted that the Indian Ocean project had funds to send experts in-county to collect data and fill out questionnaires but that no such funding existed for the Pacific, and as a result relatively few Pacific countries had filled out the questionnaires they were given by the IOC prior to ICG/PTWS XX in Chile in 2005. He noted that AusAID project provided the resources that enabled experts to assist with the assessments in-country. Rick Bailey noted that Tonga was the first country to complete the assessment since it was being used as a pilot project, and that once lessons had been learned from Tonga, the process could be more streamlined. He noted that a team of 8 experts assessed everything from the way that warnings were received, to observations, legislation and local communications systems. He further noted that the team worked with Noud and Helen from SOPAC and 15 other organizations however, a collaborative process was needed, although it was ultimately countries that filled out assessments themselves. He also noted that the assessment was useful in bringing together all national stakeholders to discuss tsunami issues. Rick Bailey noted that working in a total of 14 countries was a massive commitment and would involve lots of work to meet all stakeholder needs. He noted that on the coordination issue, SOPAC was assisting. He also noted that the project was behind in schedule, but that hopefully assessments would be completed for all countries by August next year. He noted that the outputs would include a report for each country and an overarching report for the region. Rick Bailey emphasized that the process was consultative and that countries had a say on all summaries, and that information would be available to countries and donors to see where gaps lie and to identify the way forward. He also noted that once availability of experts was known, a provisional timetable would be drafted. Phil Glassey asked whether the information was publicly available. Rick Bailey responded that once countries signed off, this information would be made available. Rajendra Prasad asked for clarification as to whether summary reports for all countries would be produced. Rick Bailey responded that they would be as well as a regional report. Rajendra Prasad stated that the work being conducted would assist with improving cyclone warning systems. Rick Bailey agreed with this statement. Rajendra Prasad asked Rick Bailey whether there was more work to be done in relation to the in-country work. Rick Bailey responded that there were lots of work to do based on the experience of Tonga, such as community education and awareness and the need for back up systems Paul Eastwood asked what countries would be included in the assessment. Rick Bailey responded that in addition to the Tonga pilot assessment, Fiji, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Niue, Vanuatu, Kiribati, FSM, Marshall Islands, Palau, Cook Islands, Samoa, Nauru and PNG would be assessed. He clarified that all SOPAC member countries would have assessments done except for those countries with the resources to conduct assessments themselves. Rajendra Prasad asked whether the Fiji assessment would be conducted next. Rick Bailey responded that some assessments might be conducted in February and that they were hoping to conduct one to two assessments per month. Seismic and Sea Level Data Access and Support for PICs Lasarusa Vuetibau noted that he had seen some interesting presentations from Phil Cummins and Helen Pierce during the STAR session. He requested that since Australia and SOPAC intended to carry out some tsunami inundation projects in PICs, it would be useful if they could indicate which countries would be involved in the project. Helen Pierce noted that this information would be covered under the agenda item on tsunami modelling and assessment. Lasarusa Vuetibau informed the members that Fiji was working with a Japanese counterpart, and the information was presented for Fiji and Tonga during his STAR presentation. He stated that Fiji is currently trying to upgrade the system and upgrade seismometers to broadband, and that this project would be implemented by early next year. He further noted the intention to exchange data between Fiji and Tonga. In future, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands may also be approaching JICA for funding for similar projects. He further noted the importance of a long-term data exchange for a tsunami warning system. Hiroshi noted that in Fiji, networks were working but by mid next year, real-time data would be available and a server will be established. Phil Cummins asked whether the servers would be located in Fiji and Tonga. Hiroshi replied that the servers would be located in both countries. Phil Glassey asked about internet availability in these countries. Hiroshi stated that the speed of internet was a problem, but if internet speeds were fast enough, seismic wave data could be downloaded. Phil Cummins noted that it was important to take up the issue of internet availability, since it was crucial for receiving information. Noud Leenders asked how the data between Fiji and Tonga was currently shared. Lasarusa Vuetibau replied the information was shared through satellite transmissions, but that Fintel was changing to CSPOT. Phil Cummins noted that internet speeds were a fundamental problem if countries wanted to share data since this required high band internet. Noud Leenders asked what sort of internet speed was required to share data. Hiroshi replied that this is totally depended on specific stations. Lasarusa Vuetibau noted that internet services in government departments needed to be improved. Phil Cummins noted that 1 MB/second would be enough to share data. Noud Leenders noted that this was an extremely fast speed for Fiji. Hiroshi noted that the speed of the internet was 64 kb in Suva. Rajendra Prasad noted that although it was slow, Fiji still had access to the internet and with the Telecom sector opening up, it was becoming cheaper and faster in Fiji, so that in one to two years, internet speed should not be a problem. He also noted that most countries in the Pacific were connected to the GTS network. Rick Bailey noted that too much data would be transmitted for the GTS to handle seismic data. Phil Cummins noted that transmitting data from the station to the local area was not a problem but for sharing between countries, a good internet speed was required. Rick Bailey asked if future sustainability was an issue in Fiji given communications costs. Rajendra Prasad noted that it goes up and down depending on whether budgets remained in tact but that is was very hard to sustain such systems given communications costs. Lasarusa Vuetibau noted that communications costs for Fiji were about F$18,000 for satellites. Rajendra Prasad noted that this was not sustainable. Phil Cummins noted that all that was needed was internet. Michael Bonte asked how seismic upgrades being funded by China in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu fit into other initiatives. Vanuatu noted that China was still waiting for the proposal to be prepared on the Vanuatu side and that installation was still a long way off. Filomena Nelson noted that Samoa has signed a memorandum of understanding with China and that nine stations would be delivered early next year but noted that she was unsure of the type of equipment being delivered. Phil Cummins noted that Australia has put stations in Niue which are now running and that they are waiting to sign an MOU with PNG. Rick Bailey stated that the main issues to investigate were the type of information that is currently available and how it could be shared, and to make sure countries have access to appropriate websites and that they have the ability to interpret information, and that stations not reporting in real-time do so. He noted that with GTS it was very difficult to share information. Further noted that Australia was planning on extending networks in the region, and that they were currently doing an analysis of sites to see whether they meet criteria such as exposure, infrastructure etc. He noted that it was important to get satellite communication with existing stations first since until recently with real time, data was not collected at the right intervals for tsunami monitoring. He warned that the distribution of data must be done with caution as the press might misinterpret information disseminated. The real value for the media is in the warning intertpretations by the regional experts. Rick Bailey noted that Australia wanted more sea level measurements, and gauges in better locations, which would benefit Pacific islands as well. He stated however, that this project would not be a capacity building exercise, since Australia would install and maintain all of the equipment so there would be minimal Pacific island resource requirements. He also stressed the importance of signing MOUs with Pacific island countries, since stations were initially installed by universities, but that government agencies could not install and maintain new stations without formal agreements from Pacific Island governments. Noted that MOUs had been signed with Niue, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands, and they were close to being signed in Tonga, Fiji and PNG. He also highlighted the urgency with signing these agreements within months due to funding constraints. He urged the country representatives in the meeting to provide advocacy and support to their respective governments in order to get MOUs signed. The Chair asked Rick Bailey whether he would like to propose a recommendation in relation to the issues he raised. Rick Bailey stated that his recommendation included getting available data which already exists, getting data from existing stations in real-time, MOUS in place between relevant PICs and Australia to enable installtion of new stations by Australia, and to complete a gap analysis to ensure stations are in appropriate locations for tsunami monitoring. Rajendra Prasad asked about sustainability and maintenance issues related to the sea level monitoring projects and whether funding was provided for on an ongoing basis. Rick Bailey noted that funding for tsunami work was guaranteed, but the funding for climate change was subject to government review. Helen Pierce stated that there were issues with PICs having access to existing data, and that it should be available on GTS, but wondered what other options were available for accessing data. Rajendra Prasad stated that creating a regional sea level database would be one option, and that it would be logical to house this at SOPAC. He noted that initially when sea level monitoring stations were established they were only interested in metadata so GTS was sufficient. He further noted that there were problems with interpretation of data and that PNG and Kiribati were reporting slightly higher levels than in reality, and asked how these problems could be addressed. Rick Bailey agreed that for tsunami warnings, erroneous warnings based on misleading information were a problem. He noted that national warning centres must understand these problems and that training on how to interpret data was needed. Helen Pierce stated that current access to data in Pacific islands was an issue that should be resolved quickly since many countries did not have access to their own data. Phil Cummins noted that during the Ecuador meeting, there was discussion of SOPAC assisting with the MOUs, and questioned whether this issue should be raised at the meeting given its importance. Noud Leenders noted that the Australian High Commission had requested assistance from SOPAC on this issue but they will only be able to assist if they were able to see the full MOU. He further noted that any MOU had to be balanced so that countries were provided with infrastructure and resources, and that countries should have data sent straight back to them as well as having data shared with other countries. He further noted that the extra costs were likely minimal and that it would come with capacity building. He stated that it was critical for countries to have access to their own raw data so that they could interpret these themselves. Rick Bailey again emphasized that the data was available it was provided to registered users on a webpage and the GTS. Helen stressed that data was not available to Fiji or half of the countries in the region. Rick Bailey noted that they were working on this, and that there was a need to improve but that data was still available on GTS, and that is was more of an issue to of country capacity to access data. Noud Leenders noted that data access issues must be clearly spelled out in the MOUs. Rick Bailey noted that the MOUs included provisions for free and timely access to data. Helen Pierce stressed that although data was available it was not getting through on the GTS and that a range of options for access was needed. Rick Bailey re-iterated the data was on the GTS. The issue is ensuring PICs can access and interpret this information through their local GTS contact. Rajendra Prasad stated that in the MOU with Fiji, there were provisions to make data available in near real-time. He further noted that there is a risk of malfunction stations that no one would be aware of if countries do not have access to data. The Chair asked the meeting participants whether this issue could be captured in the recommendations. Paul Eastwood noted that this was an important issue with huge benefits across the region, and asked if once the project was implemented, the responsibility was with ATWC/ETWS to provide warnings to countries? Rick Bailey noted that it was the responsibility of countries to disseminate warnings to their populations. He also noted that Hawaii was responsible for sending advisories for the region, since Australia did not have the resources or mandate to do this. Noted PTWC advisories try to be as comprehensive and useful as possible so that countries can act. Paul Eastwood noted that Governments would act on PTWC warnings, so countries reliant on others for sound advisories because countries have no access to data or cant interpret available data. Rick Bailey noted that each country has different capacities. He also noted that national warning centres exist in all countries. He further noted that it was important to know who the right IOC focal person was for receiving PTWC messages and that this information be conveyed and regularly updated to both the IOC and PTWC. Rajendra Prasad noted that when countries have access to their own data its too late to provide warnings. He therefore stressed the need to exchange data between countries so that all can benefit from each others data. Rick Bailey noted that warnings issued by Australia will be Australia-specific and not a warning for the whole region. Paul Eastwood noted that this can still give support for countries to interpret data since it can be adapted into valuable warnings Phil Glassey questioned the capacity in countries to take data and interpret, and use to issue warnings. Rick Bailey noted that Australia had $70 million over 4 years to develop a program, which was not a trivial task. Noted the need for countries to determine where they wanted to put their own resources either in community response or building up own capacity to interpret data. He also noted that a middle road existed, but that assessments will help countries determine their needs. He further noted that it would be preferable for each country to be able to read and interpret warnings, but this was not easy to do. Paul Eastwood questioned whether countries had the capacity to interpret warnings and what role the working group can play in supporting countries in developing capacities in certain areas. Rick Bailey noted that this was one of the objectives of the WG and his project would help provide this. Rajendra Prasad noted the need to use advisories but to work them into local language, and that more help was required for the warning phase, information phase, and that SOPAC could assist with this. Helen Pierce noted the importance of countries getting access to University of Hawaii and PTWC data, and that Niue data was not available in region. Rick Bailey noted that the meeting could be used to provide a unified voice for Pacific in terms of getting data and the way the messages come out of Hawaii. Noud Leenders questioned whether PTWC and University of Hawaii data was available. Rick Bailey responded that Hawaii data was available on the web. Helen Pierce noted that some countries have to look at multiple sites to acquire data for their respective countries. Rick Bailey noted that PTWC has developed a tide tool package that countries can use to access sea level data on GTS. Helen Pierce stressed the need for regional sites like PIGOOS or Fiji Met with all data from the region. The Chair asked Rajendra and Phil Cummins to put together a recommendation on this issue for consideration by Council. Tsunami Modelling/Hazard Assessment of SWP Lasarusa Vuetibau questioned on behalf of PICs whether SOPAC could indicate which countries had been selected for tsunami inundation modelling. Phil Cummins noted that the next phase of the project would be developing modelling capacity at SOPAC, and if countries were interested in having modelling undertaken, they could approach SOPAC. Noted that scenario modelling in Tonga has been based on data availability, and that all countries had good bathymetry data but there were still some gaps. Noted a technique was needed to interpret bathymetry from remote sensing data and that Tonga was being used to validate this method or inundation modelling. Noted Solomon Islands would be used to interpret bathymetry using satellite data since no other data existed. Once the model had been tested, it would then be used in other countries. Phil Glassey questioned why tsunami inundation modelling capacity was being developed at SOPAC when it already existed in NZ, Australia and New Caledonia and why existing capacity wasnt being utilized, since models could not be run fast enough without prepared scenarios. Noted once capacity was built there was a risk of losing it again at the end of the project. Phil Cummins agreed that this was a crucial point that it was important to build capacity only if it was programmed into SOPAC otherwise this would indeed be lost. Further noted that they could get funding from AusAID to build capacity in PICs but no funding is available to do this in Australia. Helen Pierce noted that the preliminary hazard assessment had already done by GA and that it was now available on Pacific disaster net. Noted each country should explore whether sufficient bathymetry data in country is available for modelling. Noted countries can read reports in meantime. James Goss noted that to conduct inundation modelling, topographical data was needed. Phil Glassey noted that the other layer that would be needed was land cover especially around coastlines. Phil Cummins noted that the biggest gap was topographical data and this was another reason for this building capacity at SOPAC. Paul Eastwood asked if this was a long-term plan of the Community Risk Programme. Noud Leenders noted that this capacity was is the Oceans and Islands Programme, however Community Risk would be happy with any data and programming this into annual plans. Phil Glassey stressed the lack of topographic data as a critical issue. Paul Eastwood noted that the issue of core funding was crucial and that it should be put forward as a recommendation to council. Noud Leenders noted that SOPAC had had funding for modelling for more than 10 years. Paul Eastwood noted that although there was funding it did not come from the core budget. Phil Cummins noted that there had been an implicit assumption that funding for inundation modelling would become permanent. Michael Bonte if the need for funding was recognized getting donor funding wouldnt be an issue. Pacific Emergency Communications Dr. Laura Kong presented an update on Pacific Emergency Communications. Rajendra Prasad stated that recommendations should be made to put the onus on countries to develop communications and questioned if anyone had done a stock take of facilities in countries for tsunami warning. Noted some countries have done this already. Laura Kong noted that it was important to take advantage of the Pacific Communications Steering Group to ensure that all country tsunami efforts were captured Laura Kong noted that even if the process wasnt formalized, countries could still do a stock take of efforts and then begin discussions on structure and priorities. Rajendra Prasad noted that the WMO system was most robust and reliable as demonstrated in Niue during Cyclone Heta. Rick Bailey noted that the RANET prototype needed to be built in as an accepted operations system. At present it was a trial system, but dependencies were already being made on expectations it would continue (although not yet funded) Rajendra Prasad noted that most countries were not on board in eastern part of region. Laura Kong noted that RANET was used in Indonesia to distribute warnings using a channel that is being used for humanitarian purposes but that it was not operational and the group should think about it if they want this to be endorsed. Rajendra Prasad noted that RANET was probably the answer in the future. Noud Leenders presented an update from the RANET steering committee. Capacity building Noud Leenders noted the role that SOPAC plays in tsunami systems and the work done by CRP was driven by the regional framework for action, which provided a guide to PICs in relation to mainstreaming DRR. Noted Theme 5 of the framework addressed early warning strategies. Rajendra Prasad questioned whether there was in-house expertise to install and maintain systems at SOPAC. Noud Leenders responded that there was no full capacity. Rajendra Prasad noted that the use of consultants was costly and that Fiji has capacity for installation and maintenance but does not have the time to do this with existing resources, and that this was an issue that needed to be looked at. Phil Glassey asked about project being carried out in the Solomon Islands and whether there were overlaps with the tsunami hazard project, and whether these should be discussed at the meeting. Michael Bonte noted that the Solomon Island had asked SOPAC for assistance on a few things and that SOPAC had ordered satellite imagery with the idea that this could be used for the recovery and rebuilding phase following the tsunami. Pacific Events and Exercises Thomas Toba presented an overview of the Solomon Islands case, activities carried out in-country and lessons learned from tsunami events that affected them. Noted the first tsunami occurred in 1926 and that the worst event occurred in 1939. He also noted that a national exercise, which government agencies had participated in, has assisted with the April event by making people aware of tsunami hazards. Noted that following the tsunami, the Solomon Islands had learned that it was not prepared and that it lacked capacity, resources, and that external assistance from outside was needed. He noted that a body was needed to coordinate all activities and departments for future events. Further noted the need for a focal point to disseminate warnings and the problem is that only AM radio exists, which was not effective since many people dont have radios. In closing, he noted the importance of holding drills and the need for an effective warning communications system. Laura Kong presented the results from the Pacific Wave Exercise and plan for the 2008 exercise. Noted that there had never been a region wide exercise, which involved all 46 countries in the Pacific, and that this was needed to validate TWC dissemination, to see if all countries were receiving this information and to strengthen stakeholder coordination. Noted that it was a functional exercise, which only looked at communications and decision-making and that 44 countries participated in the exercise. Noted that warnings sent over GTS, email, fax were received by everyone but noted that it still took about an hour for messages to get from warning centre to country. Noted all warning focal points were contacted by PTWC prior to exercise but that some countries did not confirm but that now contact points for these countries had been clarified. Also noted some countries thought they were monitoring GTS but were not, and that email was the preferred method of communication but that it was dependant on commercial internet service providers that could be jammed. Stressed redundant communications were good. Noted that in the future, exercises would be run in real time versus compressed time and that countries should conduct exercises regularly at the national level. Phil Glassey asked what the media response had been, since in May 2006, media disseminated the warning before the government in NZ became aware. Laura Kong replied that this was a big problem since the international media tended to hype things and noted that UNESCO has been working with Reuters to develop a basic handbook, on what the media should they ask, what information the media can expect, who to ask following a disaster event. Noted following September 12th event off Sumatra, questionnaires were sent out to ask how countries responded. Noted 25 countries are compiling results, and that 21 countries replied, which was amazing given that not many response are usually received. Noted that a questionnaire could be developed and send out to countries following significant events. Rick Bailey questioned whether the group felt like a post event summary was useful. Laura Kong noted that there was a question of whether answers to questionnaire were accurate since countries may be saying that everything is okay but in reality, it is not okay when you dig down deeper. Rick Bailey noted that exercising was a fantastic tool to ensure the ongoing efficiencies of national and international tsunami warning systems. Laura Kong raised the issue of how truthful countries would be if things dont go right following a disaster. Filomena Nelson presented the lessons learned from the tsunami exercise in Samoa. She noted that alerts were sent to communities by sending text messages and airing bulletins on TV and radio. This new system came about because all radio stations close at midnight and there is no other means of alerting the public. The system involves the use of school/church bells, fire service sirens, ports, ferry/ships to warn the public of an approaching tsunami. She presented details of exercise, the lessons learned and the recommended way forward using power point presentation. Rick Bailey questioned whether there was a backup system if the phone system went down. Filomena Nelson replied that DMO was talking to LDS churches about using their sirens, and that VHF could also be used and that they were also looking at a mobile communication unit to be located further inland for all disasters. Laura Kong asked whether if all agencies buildings were located in the inundation zone, if these were damaged whether there was a remote office. Filomena Nelson replied that a remote office was located on the SPG grounds, which also serve as one of the evacuation sites for the Apia urban area. The meeting closed at 12 noon     DRAFT Minutes: SWP-TWG Meeting, 26 November 2007, Nukualofa, Tonga Page  PAGE 8 8?_`g|}  ( 6 A D G P _ l y Żűŧϓxofoo]ToxhBh>TCJhBhCJhkhCJhkh>TCJhkh|gCJhkh>ICJhkh; CJhkh; 5CJhkh35CJhkh 5CJhkhQ 5CJhkh 5CJhkhA95CJhkh>I5CJhkhA9OJQJ^JaJhkhb5\aJhkhA95\aJ @_`}C D E u v $a$gdXSdgdA9dgd~q  gd ?dgd>T $da$gdA9dgd $7$8$H$a$gdA9y C D E O P ] ^ a i k n p 0 6 : t v z  ( / t v 8 = ȿۿvngg hkh@zhkhXS5hkh?CJ hkhB hkhk hkh8 hkhXShkhA9CJhkh|gCJhkhCJhkh; CJhkh>ICJhkh~qCJhkh~q5CJhkhA95CJhkh>TCJhkh ?CJhkhXSCJ(v u v '(78ST34 $ a$gdXS 7$8$H$gd?$a$gdXS= ? K b!.>EIJST~LPfs #$56vQRnw[_s 1hu} hkhk hkh h h5h' hkh=h; hkh1: hkhXSQ%&(*Z0123]^_3Ujklm ~ !!""########$@$A$B$$$$%%º̈́hWb hkhhkh\F5 hXS5hkh6R5hkhXSH*hkhXS5H*hkhXS5hkh@z5 hkh\Fh\F hkh6R hkhsh{[@hshXS hkh1: hkh h hkhXS24_`mn! !!!""####$$$A$B$$$$a$gd6R$a$gdXS%%C%%%'''(9(D()))*#*$***++++,,----. .`.a.o.x...-/./sh&} hkhk hkh6Rh)LhWb hkhXSO$G(H( ++..b.c...//0/w/x/// 0 0z0{0!1"1j1k122#3$3$a$gdXS$33333<5=555888888-9.9q9r999::::S;T;;;$a$gdXS78[8\888888,9o9p9r9999::::::Q;R;;;,<-<I<L<q<r<<<==[=\===>>@?A?????F@G@@@SATAAAAAEBFBBB,C:CCC2D3D[FFFFFF-GDGFGGGGGHHHH IPIWIh>Phk hkhk hkh-I hkhXS hkhW;.</<s<t<<<==]=^===>>B?C???H@I@@@UAVAAAAA$a$gdXSAGBHBBBCC4D5DHH L L}L~LMMNNOOOOQQRRKSLS$a$gdXSWIXI~II(J)J*J+J-JNJvJwJKKxK|KKKWL|LLL M MMvM~MMMMMMNNoNsNNNNNQQQQISJS TTTTTTUUVVVVWWWFWHWlWmW7X8XXXXXPYpYwYxYyYZZ}Z hkh3h3hXS hkhk hkh=h*h>P hkh-I hkhXS hkh>PNLSTTVVWWoWpW9X:XXXXXyYzYZZ [ [p[q[D\E\]]i^j^$a$gdXS}Z~ZZZZZZZZZ[[n[o[[[\]]-]8]B]]]Y^h^j^u^^^^^^^H_K_Y_____ `)`*`+`3`7`9`L```jamaaabbbbb cc4c5cvcccccccccdddeee#e$eeefffgg hkh3h3h* hkhXS hkh=Wj^__``aaaaaaccdd%e&eeeff'g(g{g|ggg4h5h$a$gdXSg$g%gygzggggggh2h3hkhwhhhhhhhiiiiiii?jIjjjjj"k+k{?{@{A{T{X{w{a|c|||| }&}*}}}}}}}~~JdÀ؀́ hkhIhkhXS6h?. hkhhkhXS5 hkhXS hkh!.Rzzzz@{A{T{U{d|e||| } }}}~~*+ $ a$gdXS$a$gdXSɂ$49=؄(lnuxӊhӌԌ efԍՍ*/xƎ-14tmnUVȑ.<Ⱦhkh35CJhkh.CJ hkh#h# hkhDU- hkhhkhXSH* hkhI hkhXSG+ Ռ֌gh׍؍pqWXdgdA9$a$gdXS $ a$gdXShA$0JmHnHu h#0Jjh#0JUh#hA>jhA>Uhkh:%5CJhkhDU-5CJdgdA921h:p . A!"#$% @@@ A9NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListH@H Hz Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJjj t Table Grid7:V06U@6 v$e Hyperlink >*B*ph4@"4 EHeader  9r 4 @24 EFooter  9r .)@A. E Page NumberB'QB  ?Comment ReferenceCJaJ<b<  ? Comment TextCJaJ@jab@  ?Comment Subject5\@_`}CDEuvuv' ( 7 8 ST34_`mn ABG H ##&&b&c&&&/'0'w'x''' ( (z({(!)")j)k)**#+$+++++<-=---000000-1.1q1r1112222S3T333.4/4s4t44455]5^55566B7C777H8I888U9V99999G:H:::;;4<5<@@ D D}D~DEEFFGGGGIIJJKKLKLLNNOOoOpO9P:PPPPPyQzQRR S SpSqSDTETUUiVjVWWXXYYYYYY[[\\%]&]]]^^'_(_{_|___4`5```aaaaaaJbKbdenfofgghhii~iiijRjSjjkHkIkkk l!l|l}lll[m\m}m~mmmnnfogo ppppmqnqqrrrr@sAsTsUsdtettt u uuuvvwwww{{*+ Մքghׅ؅pqWX0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000K00aK00a@0I008a 00v' ( 7 8 ST34_`mn ABG H ##&{(!)")j)k)*:;;4<5<@@ D D}D~DEEFFGLKLLNNO:PPPPPyQzQR SpSqSDTETUUiVjVWWXYYYYY[[\\%]|___4`5``go ppppmq Մքgh00PLh00h00`0h00j00h000h00j00h0 00h00j00h000h00j00h000h00j00h00j00h00j00h00j00j00j00h00j00j00j00h0"0 #9h0"0 h0"0 h0"0h0"0j0"0j0"0j0"0h0"0#9h0"0h0"000000000h050000h090:p h090h090000h0?0@ h0?0h0?000000h0G0000h0K0000h0O0Pșh0O0h0O0h0O0h0O00h0U0 VTm:h0U0 h0U0h0U0h0U0j0Z0 j0U0j0U0h0U0VTm:h0U0h0U0000h0c000000h0i0jo:h0i0h0i0000h0o0000h0s0t:h0s0h0s0000h0y0z:h0y0h0y0000h00H:h00h00000j00 I00I00I00I00I00X bbbey = %7WI}ZgtJMOPRUXZ\_acv 4$$3;ALSj^5hsz+KNQSTVWY[]^`bdLV]_e!8@0(  B S  ?H "H #H H "H 1$H H tpH ,qH H xH "H H H $$H  "H #H + H ] H $H K!H 2$H H  H dwH LsH  rI T' I ( I 4I l* I 4I I 3I "I I  I \# I L " I 9 I J I 0I {$I ܤ I C I #I I !I |I wI 6I I l I \x#I #I YI lI #I [I IJ I g !I |#"I ##I o$I Do%I "&I "'I , (I l )I *I +I #,I #-I \".I "/I D"0I "1I  2I T 3I t4I 5I 8!6I $9!7I `8I ,a9I Tf :I f ;I I յ ?I յ @I DAI BI CI ,p DI lp EI p FI GI $HI dII #JI #KI <#LI :$MI :$NI ;$OI  "PI T "QI  "RI lSI TlTI lUI R>RqSETTUUUjVXXYYZZ[\1^?^^^__R_R_`___5`/c/cddMdMdggjIk!llhppqqQuQu7v7vvvvvwwyyyք#؆ooˊ݊݊      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789;:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~PX^^AlL3 C 5 5 ?qqSky d #$((/)v)))))))))**!*!***,,-8.B.B.t.t.A/K/K/_/s/s/)0)0000222[5[555+8+809099::*:*:O:`:::,;,;;;@<'@<@<@ A ABBCCCDFEIEIvKvKNEOEOQBRBR~SPTTUUUuVXXYZZZ \\;^E^b^$_$_\_f_f___@`4c4cdd\d\dgg jVk.lmlppqqUuUuFvFvvvvvxxyy(ssۊ   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789;:<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ 8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonNameB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState $ 011122007269DayHourMinuteMonthYear  ???  KOhh  ZZ      ##???@PAPA-B-BwBwBMEXE~E~ENNNNKWKW X XZZ[[ hh  ZZ      ##??PAPA-B-BwBwB~E~ENNNNKWKW X XZZ[[333Lhh  ZZ      ##??PAPA-B-BwBwB~E~ENNNNKWKW X XZZ[[5f?ZSe &&..T\:i4s Ώjl.,dZ@c3'L33ݒe9C7TF+y8Pj'?H ^\6VEN㶠"QP&.Uܑ/g\Ytfc`8y2@D`$~a6l@Jz? a ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh ^`o(hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h 88^8`hH.h ^`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h xx^x`hH.h HLH^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`o(hh^h`o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hH ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH0^`0o(0^`0o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........h ^`o(hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(.^`o( pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o(hH.h^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`o(hh^h`o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........+y8.,6VEe 33j'? i4@D`"QPg\Y:@c3s @Jzfc`U5f?e9C70~a0.T                           p                                                                                                   t                                           5-IaAb\fj83B ; Q  N =4*>P;~qt?8 ?S !Q!3!2="c"/$A$%:%y+',d,#- -DU-!.?.^./}/333A91:!;La;7={[@OTA$FwHeK)L!L~L/N_NAP:RXS'S>TYV`WbJeuev$esMuvlvIx&Az\{Lh>o2NjX q'sK|g=+ytI\F^>ktQ.@zI>IV{.M+x&}Q_Wly#<@n\n\$Wn\n\P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h&&CTFuFuF!4dYY 2qHP ? 28ICG/PTWS WORKING GROUP ON TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATIONKenfilomena.nelsonh                  Oh+'0$ <H h t  <ICG/PTWS WORKING GROUP ON TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATIONKenNormalfilomena.nelson2Microsoft Office Word@F#@+$@D5@D5u՜.+,0H hp  ),Institute of Geological & Nuclear SciencesFY 9ICG/PTWS WORKING GROUP ON TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATION Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdeghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FPEData f1TablenCWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89qRoot Entry F`E@Data f1TablenCWordDocument4le4 $, SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  ),Institute of Geological & Nuclear SciencesFY 9ICG/PTWS WORKING GROUP ON TSUNAMI WARNING AND MITIGATION Tit