Subject: Report GEO Tsunami Working Group
From: Tilo Schöne <[email-masked]>
To: "Prof. Markus Rothacher" <[email-masked]>, "Ruth E. Neilan" <[email-masked]>, Hans-Peter Plag <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:19:24 +0200

Dear All,

a meeting of the GEO-TWG took place on June 21st in Paris. The meeting
was attended by around 20 participants.

The chair opened the meeting giving an overview about the overall
activities. He stated that the WG was in some points successfully, in
other not. Especially the role of IOC was reviewed, concluding that IOC
goes faster than GEO. GEO does not play a major role in the
establishment of tsunami warning systems.

A documents was distributed to the WG (I typed it below) and discussion
in detail (Lessons Learned and Accomplishments).

The chair asked for the endorsement of the group to propose the
termination of the WG to the GEO-EC. Representatives gave their opinion.
The general conclusion was that still GEO may supportive to IOC/Tsunami
activities (e.g. IOC does not control seismological networks, IOC does
not have access to telecommunication infrastructure or satellite
imagery), but may not longer be focused to Tsunami but more generally to
disaster.

After this discussion I had to leave, to get my flight. Dr. Lauterjung
from GFZ/Germany attended till the end.

The conclusion of the group was that a small core team should work on
the identification of gaps and areas where the Tsunami-WG would be
helpful. This work should be done before the ministerial summit in
November. A final meeting will be announced well in advance.

With my best regards
Tilo

I apologize of not being able to attend the GGOS-SC meeting. I urgently
need to visit Indonesia to push the tsunami activities forward. However,
If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Documents distributed (as copy)

++++++++++++++ Accomplishments of the WG

1) The Working Group, through its deliberations, developed and defined
the role, scope and mission of such a group to function within the
concepts of GEO

2) WG addressed specific questions from the Executive Council e.g.
should the WG expand to address all hazard or multi-hazard. WG collected
and evaluated member input and made recommendations to the General
Council. Issue was brought forward and addressed by the General Council.

3) WG evaluated the GEO tasks related to Tsunami and submitted its
recommendations to the GEO.

4) WG evaluated the leadership and contributions of members and
participating organizations to each of the tasks and submitted findings
to the GEO.

5) WG evaluated the transition of research accomplishments to operations
within the GEO framework i.e. policies, transnational issues and
regional strategies.

6) WG conducted sessions to address regional strategies and
accomplishments, e.g. Mediterranean region.

7). WG demonstrated ability to work virtually as well as face to face

+++++++++ Lessons Learned

1) Charter and Terms of References need to be carefully crafted to
assure actions appropriate and pertenant.

2) Assignments need to be focused and task oriented and mechanisms for
accomplishment must be provided

3) WGs need to be structured to allow for extensive interaction with the
GEO Standing Committees.

4) WGs need to have a mechanism for capturing and distributing products
and soliciting feed back from WG members and others.

5) WGs need both geographical and technical discipline diversity and
completeness.

6) Role and responsibilities of WG chairs needs to be defined

7) Staff support must be commensurate with the WG assignment

8) Policy implications need to be recognized and considered in the
organizational structure of the WG

9) Considerations must be given to the extent and duration of WG to
assure efficiency and relevancy