)BAL
ation and
mentation
After an
lings and
id require
e Is some
posure to
[he Team
r disaster
'. Such a
r disaster
ible to all
1s, value-
of space-
(ers.
1e Action
led report
. General
the scope
ng space
fore well
f natural
| change,
g world
f land use
n natural
iency and
how that,
contained
)pulations
) Human
suffering
effects of
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B7. Istanbul 2004
disasters on such countries are more severe and longer-lasting,
compared to countries that are economically better off, where
greater investment is made in preparedness and losses are
predominantly financial, especially for settlement of insurance
claims, and related to property and infrastructure damage.
During the past decades, significant progress has been made in
the scientific understanding of the various planetary
phenomena, in the atmosphere, on the land and in the oceans.
Space systems and technologies are making important
contributions to this understanding. Many events that were
previously perceived as erratic and inevitably fatal, such as
volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis and ocean storms,
among others, are now much better known for their causes and
effects, and their manifestation is becoming more and more
predictable.
Space systems provide a global perspective. They are excellent
tools to observe and monitor natural disasters and to help model
their evolution. They also have the unique capability of
allowing multi-scale observation of an area hit by disaster, from
synoptic viewing to localised assessment, thus facilitating the
activities of the authorities involved in disaster relief and
recovery. The benefits that space systems can provide should
consequently be extended to the humanity as a whole, and
should not remain limited to a privileged few in the technology
affording nations. A clear advantage was therefore seen in the
initiative that folloved UNISPACE III in the field of disaster
management, for both the advanced countries that offer space-
based tools and technologies as well as for the less developed
states that are least prepared to cope with disasters on their own.
2. ACTIVITIES
2. Introduction
The CCF co-chairs of the Action Team followed a three-year
workplan in a phased approach to fulfill the Action Team
mandate of carrying out studies and analysis and proposing a
scheme for a global disaster mitigation and management system
or systems that would fully utilize existing resources. The
Action Team conducted its business through regular plenary
sessions and task-oriented working groups. In addition, the
CCF co-chairs held frequent discussions by means of
conference calls and meetings and with the complete support of
the Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA). The following is an
account of the activities undertaken to gather the necessary
material and information on which to base the Action Team's
findings and recommendations.
2.2 Survey of Needs, Capacities and Systems
The main challenge for the U.N. Action Team was to relate
information on available space technologies to the needs of the
user communities, which had a varying degree of experience in,
and knowledge of, these technologies. ^ A broad-based
consultative process was launched in order to collect
information on the needs of the countries for managing disasters
and on the resources available to meet the needs. The Action
Team conducted a global survey on user needs and national
capacities, using customized forms. The Action Team also
compiled an inventory of existing space systems that had
capabilities believed to be relevant to disaster management.
Based on the responses to the surveys received, the usefulness
or adequacy of the available space technologies for disaster
857
management could be assessed. The results of the surveys and
the subsequent analysis are described below.
2.2.1 User Needs: The replies to the survey covered a wide
variety of disasters, from floods and ocean storms to forest fires
and droughts. The user needs in terms of spatial and temporal
information and the responsibility centre varies from disaster to
disaster. For example, in the case of floods and fires, the main
spatial information need is about the extent of the affected area,
whereas in regard to earthquakes, the priority spatial
information need for planning is basically associated with the
assessment of land use and urbanization. For a technological
disaster like oil spills, the most important information by far is
the location and extent of the oil slick and the rate of its
displacement. The ground resolution requirement would vary
depending on the observation target, whether it is the
submerged infrastructure (10m) or the flood map (20-30m). For
forest fires likewise, the critical ground resolution needs range
from 10 m or less for infrastructure and buildings and 100-300
m for burnt or forested area. The spatial resolution in the case
of ice hazard is 100 m for detection and 50 m for
characterization of sea and lake ice; a resolution of 30 m is
required for tracking a beset vessel. The detection of drought
conditions could be made on the scale of 30 m in the case of
farmland and up to 500 m for a landcover map. The temporal
resolution for this disaster ranges from days and months to
years, more in line with forecasting and prevention, than for
disasters like forest fires and floods, when the information
turnaround should be within hours. A field office is the most
important responsibility centre for fast evolving disasters like
floods and forest fires. The responsibility for action in the
event of an earthquake lies with decision makers, rescue
workers and insurance sector at the local level.
2.2.2 National Capacity: Only a few respondents could
identify a designated disaster management authority in their
country. In most cases, the authority is ill-defined or spread
over administrative and vocational boundaries. One of the main
obstacles to the use of space-derived information is the delay in
information dissemination. Many countries do not have access
to fast transmission devices, nor do they have the space data
processing and fusion capabilities. Geographical information
and cartographic databases necessary for reporting the space-
based data is also at a variable state of development in the
surveyed countries. The need for a comprehensive international
training program, both at the level of experts and the level of
field officers, was widely recognized in the survey. The results
of the survey indicated that the number of people to be trained
would be in the order of 500 at the expert level and no less than
5,000 at the filed officer level. In summary, countries can be
grouped into three categories in terms of the national capacity
for using space information: The more developed nations
increasingly concerned with national security issues; countries
having some capacity but where the progress is slow because of
funding problems; and a vast majority of the remaining
countries for which space applications are still to find use.
