A pilot project for Environmental Mapping & Risk Reduction

In cooperation between

Joint OCHA-UNEP Environment UnitSwedish Defence Research InstituteSwedish Rescue Services Agency

Joint Research Centre

Leif JönssonGudrun Van Pottelbergh

Environmental Risk Identification

• Large infrastructure

• Industrial facilities containing hazardous materials

Located in the affected area

The big and obvious

Disaster Risk Reduction

Response

Recovery

TimeDisasterstrikes

ERI in Disaster ManagementPerspective

ERI: Where do we want to go?

Level 0: Before the ERILevel 0: Before the ERI

Level 2: Response preparedness toolLevel 2: Response preparedness tool

Level 3: Disaster Risk Reduction Activities,Level 3: Disaster Risk Reduction Activities,for example APELLfor example APELL

Level 1: The ERI as a response tool - Level 1: The ERI as a response tool - Current statusCurrent status

Primary Target audienceNational authorities

Secondary Target audienceInternat’l org (ISDR, UNDP)

Tertiary Target audienceEmergency responders (e.g. SRSA)

AC

TI

ON

T

IME

0 % 100 %

IDENTIFIED HAZARDS

Current

Target audience(s)

ERI in RIWG

• First pilot phase1. Improving the response tool through

analysing past experiences 2. Investigating other means of obtaining

data 3. Determing the accuracy of the information

through conducting a pilot project to map one hazards in one country

• Second pilot phase (link with Seveso)Mapping of vulnerable countries

UN Country Teams and UNDAC

Immediate Response, Relief

Early Recovery

Disaster Preparedness

Risk Reduction

Recovery/Reconstruction

REA

FEAT ERI

Response tool of JEU: 30 natural disasters

ERI as a response tool

Some statistics

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

J an March May J uly Sept Nov

Number of ERIs per month in 2007

ERI as a response tool

Some statistics

Number of ERIs per type of disaster

9

42 1

14

FL TC EQ WF VC

ERI as a response tool

Case-study: Mt Kelud Volcano, Indonesia

• Sitrep on 17 October 2007• ERI prepared and sent on 18 October • OCHA Country Office received • Translated on local language• Faxed to authorities• Local authorities tried to identify exact

locations of sites• No infrastructure damaged

ERI as a response tool

Mt Kelud Volcano, Indonesia Good practices

• Reaction authorities– Alert– Timing more important than accuracy– Concise and user-friendly format of data (data

was available, but scattered)– Shared with responsible agencies of facilities

• OCHA office to authorities– Requested to provide update on facilities– Encouraged to develop similar tool

ERI as a response tool

Activity 1: Feedback

• Feedback from– UNDAC members– OCHA Country offices– OCHA Regional offices– OCHA Desk officer New York– UNDP Environmental officers

ERI as a response tool

Actions upon receipt ERI

• Shared with (sometimes upon request)– Disaster management authorities– Ngo’s– Private sector

• Sites inspected – hardly any damaged

• Authorities asked to take appropriate action: preparedness actions, updating data, etc

ERI as a response tool

Feedback: How useful?

• General– First advantage: Alert on environmental risks – Would have been more useful if disaster was

stronger

• Authorities: – Format: Disaster-specific, readily usable

• UNDAC: – First indication what to expect

ERI as a response tool

Room for improvement

• Need for more detailed locationsAction: Further development roadmap

• Need for continuous update of new dataAction: Authorities prepared to fill in

• Better information about objective ERIAction: Insert in outreach strategy – TA1

• Overcome language barrierAction: Add symbols

ERI as a response tool

New lay-out ERI

Priority Facility Location Hazardous materials

Hazards Risk Label

1 Fertilizers - X - Ammonia, nitric acid, nitric oxide, ammonium nitrate

Toxic, FlammableExplosive

4 Dyes - Y - Cyanide Toxic

Prioritization Symbols

ERI as a response tool

Activity 2: More data

• International Charter: « Space and Major Disasters »– Natural and Technical Disasters– Triggered by Civil Protection or UN agencies

Questions:• Space date useful for Natechs?• To be translated to commercial databases:

Feasible? Interest? Legal consequences?

ERI as a response tool

Activity 2: More data

• Additional data– Raw Materials group– Mbendi (Other investment companies?)– FOI database on Environmental and Health

hazards areas in crisis and conflict areas– TNO Database on environmental accidents

!! Most data in national framework

Fits into for ERI as respons preparedness

ERI as a response tool

Activity 3: Pilot country

• Objective: – Response preparedness tool– to improve quantity and quality of data

• Responsible actors: SRSA – Input from FOI and JEU

• Time-frame

• Choice of pilot country

ERI as a response preparedness tool

When & What & Who?

Level 1: The ERI as a response tool - Level 1: The ERI as a response tool - Current status Current status

Level 0: Before the ERILevel 0: Before the ERI

Level 2: Response preparedness toolLevel 2: Response preparedness tool

Level 3: Disaster Risk Reduction ActivitiesLevel 3: Disaster Risk Reduction Activities

Pilot C

ountry 2008

ERI as a response preparedness tool

Pilot country

Outcome:

• DRR in pilot country: Link with APELL, national DRR-platforms

• Lessons used for second project phase

• ….

ERI on Disaster Risk Reduction - level

THANK YOU!

Questions

How useful would such a tool be for your country? Are you aware of the existence of data identifying industrial facilities

within your country? What are the conditions for its use? Your opinion on the ‘Space Charter? Would your country be interested in implementing the ERI? What criteria should information sources have? Should the ERI continue to be used as response tool once

databases of hazardous installations have been established? Do you have suggestions on the existence of related disaster risk

reduction activities, such as APELL, that can follow-up on the outcome of the ERI in the Rosersberg framework?

…