The IGOS Geohazards Theme

1
The IGOS Geohazards Theme

• Stuart Marsh, British Geological Survey (BGS)
• Chairman, IGOS Geohazards Team
• Marc Paganini, European Space Agency (ESA)
  Co-chairman, IGOS Geohazards Team
• Robert Missotten, United Nations Educational,
  Scientific and Cultural Organisation
  (UNESCO)Co-chairman, IGOS Geohazards Team

2
The IGOS Geohazards initiative

• UNESCO, CEOS and ICSU initiated and scoped the
  IGOS Geohazards Theme in 2001.
• An Ad-hoc Working Group was formed, held an
  international workshop in Frascati (Rome), and
  delivered a proposal to the IGOS partnership in
  May 2002.
• An IGOS Geohazards Theme Team with BGS-ESA-UNESCO
  as co-Chairs and an ESA-supported Secretariat was
  set up.
• The Theme Team, representing 20 organisations,
  worked for 1 year with regular meetings.
• A Theme Report was delivered to the IGOS Partners
  in May 2003 for provisional endorsement.
• An international peer review took place during
  the summer 2003.
• The Geohazards Theme Report was then finalised,
  submitted to the IGOS partners and approved in
  November 2003.

3
The IGOS Geohazards theme report

• Context, scope and strategic objectives
• Beneficiaires, stakeholders and user needs
• Required observations and key systems
• Integration issues
• Filling the gaps
• Implementation plan and commitments to act

4
IGOS Geohazards scope

• Which Geohazards?
• the 3 main geohazards Volcanoes, Earthquakes,
  Ground Instabilities

• Building on previous works
• International Decade for Natural Disaster
  Reduction (IDNDR)
• CEOS Disaster Management Support Group (DMSG)
• Why different Geohazards in a single theme?
• all driven by geological / geophysical processes
• share ground deformation as a common thread
• similar ground and satellite based observations
  systems
• Which phases?
• Preparedness / mitigation, mapping, monitoring,
  and forecasting / prediction
• support to disaster response and to risk
  assessment
• Close links with complementary initiatives
• UN Action Team on Disaster Management
• International Charter on Space and Major
  Disasters
• other IGOS Themes (e.g. tsunamis with ocean team)

International Charter on Space and Major Disasters
5
Strategic objectives

• IGOS Mission Statement
• Develop a global strategy, for the next decade,
  to better integrate current disparate,
  multi-disciplinary, applied research into
  operational systems for an optimum exploitation
  of observations and exchange of knowledge
• Building capacity
• Improving observations
• Integrating effort
• Promoting actions
• Aims to increase capacity of all nations to
  manage risks related to their geohazards
• Ultimately, this will release resources for other
  issues, like sustainable development

4 lines of actions
6
Beneficiaries, Stakeholders, Users

• Citizens are the ultimate beneficiaries of the
  strategy
• But to deliver its benefit to society the
  strategy aims at 3 types of users
• Responsible Authorities, who are provided with
  key information by
• Scientists in Monitoring and Advisory Agencies,
  who are provided with geohazards knowledge by
• Research Scientists
• Other key stakeholders addressed are the IGOS
  Partners and the data suppliers (in-situ,
  airborne, satellite-based)

7
User shared needs

• Citizens questions are
• What will happen? How?
• Where? Over what area?
• When? For how long?
• Users have shared needs
• Baseline hazard inventory
• Ongoing monitoring of a hazard against baseline
• Rapid information supply during a crisis
• The three types of users have specific needs that
  are detailed in the report

8
User needs (earthquake hazard)
9
Most required observations

• Four common observational requirements but at
  different scales
• Baseline Topography
• Baseline against which to measure change
• Modelling of gravity process, visualisation
• Baseline Mapping
• Geology, structure, soils, faults, fractures
• Regional to local scales
• Deformation Monitoring
• Sudden change (catastrophic events)
• Gradual (on going processes, precursors)
• Seismic Monitoring
• Seismic magnitude
• Depth and location in the subsurface

Topography
Mapping
Deformation
Seismicity
Hazard(s) specific thermal, gasses, physical
properties
10
Key observational systems

• the Key observational systems are described in
  the report
• Baseline Topography
• Stereoscopy (Photogrammetry, Optical stereoscopy,
  Radargrammetry), Altimetry, LiDAR, Radar
  interferometry.
• Ground-based surveying tools (levelling, GPS,
  etc.)
• Baseline Mapping
• Aerial photography and field work.
• Various airborne spaceborne EO sensors.
• Deformation Monitoring
• Radar Differential Interferometry (DINSAR),
  multi-interferogrammes techniques (e.g. Permanent
  Scatterers)
• Levelling, EDM measurements, GPS, airborne and
  terrestrial LiDAR, ground-based INSAR.
• Seismic Monitoring
• In-situ networks of seismometers.
• Coverage, density, real time data.

11
Integration issues

• Better infrastructures are required to turn
  observations into useful information products
  for end users
• The Report considers 3 main integration issues
• Data Managementestablishment of strategic data
  sets long term complete global validated
  geographically registered accessible and
  visible.
• Integration and Modellingimproved knowledge, on
  which to base hazard models software to turn
  data into information products shared knowledge
  and experience, an integrated scientific
  community.
• Capacity Buildingcreation of a global
  geohazards community to support transfer of
  geohazards data, information, knowledge and
  technology to users in all countries.

12
Gap analysis

• Existing Observations
• e.g. No global high resolution topographic
  dataset
• Key Observation systems
• e.g. lack of continuity of L and C band INSAR
• Data Management
• e.g. Too few archives are visible and fit for
  purpose
• Integration and Modelling
• e.g. In-situ and EO integration happens rarely
• Building the Geohazards Community
• e.g. No global mechanism to implement strategy
• Science Research Agenda
• e.g. Models, knowledge not yet adequate for
  prediction

13
Co-event deformation mapped by ERS (C-band, ?
5.66 cm) InSAR
Akutan
14
Co-event deformation mapped by JERS (L-band, ?
23.53 cm) InSAR
Akutan
15
Implementation plan highlights

• Commence capacity building through IGOS
• Develop GARS as implementation mechanism
• Maximise existing observations
• Seek release of SRTM and ASTER DEMs
• Lobby for new observation tools
• L-band radar satellites and C-band INSAR
  continuity
• Promote integration of data into products
• Integration of INSAR with GPS networks
• Improve Infrastructures
• Support WOVO and use as a template
• Increase knowledge of geohazard processes
• Define a global geohazards research agenda

16
Detailed plan for 2004

• IGOS Geohazards Team Secretariat publish theme
  report, update website, by Q1 2004
• Establish IGOS Geohazards Bureau, by end Q2 2004
• ESA will fund a Bureau to support the
  implementation of IGOS Geohazards for three years
• This will have a full time staff member,
  dedicated to IGOS Geohazard Theme implementation
• Consolidate observational requirements, by the
  end of 2004
• Hold Theme Launch Workshop, before the end of
  2004
• Establish implementation mechanism for the Theme
  (complete the modification of the GARS program)
• Establish Steering Committee and Working Groups

17
Where to get the Final Report?
Final Report on line athttp//dup.esrin.esa.it/
IGOS-Geohazards For more informationigos_at_es
a.int
Geohazards Theme
Schedule / Docs
18
Thank you to many colleagues

• NOAA for kicking this initiative off
• ESA, ICSU, UNESCO, IUGS GARS for support
• Theme Team colleagues from
• BNSC, BRGM, CCRS, CNES, CNR, DMT, IPG-P,ITC,
  MRAM, NPA, RAS, USGS Universities Basilicata
  (Italy) Bonn (Germany)
• Workshop Participants
• and International Peer Reviewers
• giving us input from every region of the globe!