A National Multi-Hazards Warning System for Sri Lanka

Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia Malathy Knight-John, LIRNEasia and Institute of Policy Studies

Ceylon Chamber of Commerce 17 February 2005

Imagine . . .

 Another tsunami coming to Sri Lanka in 2016 . . .     A 24-hours/day, 365 days/year national multi hazards warning center gets the alert from the international system A warning is issued within 9 minutes to emergency services, district administrative authorities, hotel groups, telecom operators, etc. When the waves hit within 90 minutes, evacuation was complete Casualties amounted to 300

Background

   Desperate need for warning system  First contact of tsunami at around 0836 hrs Sri Lanka time in vicinity of Kalmunai  Waves kept hitting points further north and south (and then the West Coast) over the next 3+ hours   No warning of tsunami based on seismic or tsunami warnings No warning based on what happened on the East Coast Hawai’i changed their entire disaster warning/ response system because 61 people died in the 1960 tsunami We lost around 40,000 . . . .

Consultative, participatory process

  International input  International disaster communications expert  Expert referees, including those at news conference Local input      Local team: Samarajiva, Malathy Knight-John, Ayesha Zainudeen, assisted by others Expert consultation: January 26 th   2005 Alumni of Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre Those who responded to the advertisement Web comments, including on discussion document Video news conference on 10 th of February Ceylon Chamber of Commerce event on 17 th of February

Public Warning as component of a Risk Management System

Focus of this concept paper Risk Management System Education

What is not included

   Hazard detection & monitoring systems, e.g.,   Indian Ocean tsunami warning system, including seismometers and deep-sea tsunami sensors Cyclone detection and monitoring system Emergency response functions  Police and other agencies responsible for evacuation, etc.

Disaster awareness and education

Why?

   Accept that first-best solution is an integrated comprehensive risk management system But, in an environment of “all talk, little action,” best approach is to focus on critical component and fix it Chose public warning because it is important, low-cost and solvable, though few are paying attention to it and because we have expertise  Our model  http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/ppw/docs/1 1_25_2002report.pdf

Key excerpt

 Bringing diverse warning resources together and focusing on a unified all-hazard warning system will improve the effectiveness of all warnings significantly. More people at risk will be warned. Improved warning systems and procedures will clearly save significant numbers of lives every year, will reduce losses from natural and man made disasters, and will speed recovery. Building and operating a unified all-hazard public warning system is beyond the capability of any local community, state, federal agency, or industry. It requires the cooperation of all these groups to work effectively together in partnership.

Effective Public Warning (I)

  Rationale:  Human, Economic, Social and Political Prerequisites:    Education and awareness raising Planning Testing and assessment

Effective Public Warning (II)

 Parameters      For ALL -hazards Linked to regional and global systems Ubiquitous and accessible warnings Credibility of warning Large role for Public-private partnerships  Dissemination via existing and emerging private networks as well as media   Role for telecom and broadcasting industries  Key role played by private sector firms in the dissemination chain

Why multi-hazard system in Sri Lanka?

     Statement at expert consultation: “Sri Lankans are good at installing but not at maintaining” Problem is more about systems than technologies (though technologies matter) Have to keep systems in perfect operational order, though they are used infrequently  Best method is to have a multi-hazard system that will be used more frequently than a single-hazard system We can concentrate the best people in one place for the task Cheaper

A National All-Hazards Warning System

  Public warning is   A public good: not supplied by market CORE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT Two options:   Government supply:

PLAN A



Variant: Government delegates task to non government entity

Public good is ‘bundled’ with private goods, supplied by private sector:

PLAN B

PLAN A: The Island of Good Governance

 Government supplies warnings, funded through taxation  Design elements and safeguards to ensure high performance: provisions for     deployment of proper expertise and equipment, adequate levels of funding, insulation from day-to-day political interference, and transparency and accountability (necessary safeguards in light of substantial independence given) Will require large effort and time in order to get it right

Plan A, Variant

  In Bangladesh, the Red Crescent Society operates the cyclone warning system   Government provides some funds and meteorological data Tightly integrated to community based awareness and shelter programs Many lives have been saved

PLAN B: Private Sector Takes Action

 Private sector establishes warning systems    Likely to take the lead  Insurance  Tourism Can complement national system when it comes into being Requires government support (indemnification, access to hazard information, etc.), especially if extending outside employees and guests to adjacent communities

PLAN B: Private Sector Takes Action

 Private sector supplies warnings  Unlikely that a national all-hazard system will emerge  E.g., coastal hotels will cooperate on a tsunami and cyclone warning system while interior hotels will focus on other hazards This is second or third best solution; something is better than nothing for now

Action…

  Immediate:   Localized and partial efforts focused on hazards relevant to specific industries/entities can be implemented Education and awareness raising Medium-term (six months from now):  Nationwide ALL-hazards warning system needs to be carefully designed and diligently implemented  Perhaps with contributions from the ground-up systems

Key points

     Urgent need for effective system to convey information on hazards to all citizens, visitors and organizations  Systems, not limited to technology System should be at national level, with links to regional/international systems It should convey authoritative watches and warnings to the media, emergency response authorities, and relevant others It should be a multi-hazards center, with best possible governance and independence May be complemented by industry-run warning systems

Interim Concept Paper (& some comments) available at: www.lirneasia.net

www.vanguardfoundationlanka.org

Open for comments until February 19 th 2005 Finalization and submission by February 26 th 2005