second of two parts emergency telecommunications … gsm-bos, ... proposals for action in view of...

Almost every emergency arising from everyday accidentsrequires the intervention of two or even three emergency serv-ices. Ambulances must help victims and the police have to reg-ulate traffic around the scene of the accident, or must start

investigations in case of criminal acts. Fire-fighters are often requiredto liberate victims from wrecked cars or from debris. They are the realprotagonists in the case of fires—where the other emergency servicesare also required. All these interventions require communicationsbetween the emergency services involved. This becomes imperative incase of major incidents and disasters covering wide areas and necessi-tating the intervention of emergency services from different local orregional authorities or even (in the case of disasters with a European orinternational dimension) of multi-national, multi-discipline teams.

Today, it is well known that intercommunication between differentemergency services in most of the EU Member States (in fact all overthe world) is (in most cases) impossible in case of large scale jointoperations in the context of major incidents or disasters. The main rea-sons given are the use of old radio systems operating in different fre-quency bands, the difficult or even impossible intercommunicationbetween the relatively newer digital communication systems TETRA,TETRAPOL, GSM-BOS, etc., as well as the lack of common protocolsand conventions at EU level for the communication between emer-gency services (TETRA, TETRAPOL, GSM-BOS sites).

The author does not consider himself to be a specialist in this field,as he lacks the appropriate technical knowledge. He has noted, howev-er, that the publicly available documents with lessons learned from theSeptember 11, 2001 disaster in New York, and the July 7, 2005 attacksin London, strongly underline the fact that the response of emergencyservices was hindered by multiple failures of communication systemsand processes, as well as by technological limitations. The same docu-ments stress the fact that emergency services urgently need improve-ments in telecommunications and technology capabilities to be able toface efficiently such events in the future (McKinsey, 2002;Commission 9/11, 2004; London Assembly, 2006). What would be thecase if a similar disaster struck other EU countries? What about civilprotection units coming together on the scene of a major emergency or

disaster within or outside the EU in the context of the recently upgrad-ed Community Civil Protection Mechanism (EC Civil Protection site)?Fortunately, the EU has taken action in this field, although this hasbeen done with considerable delay.1 In 2001, the Council decisionestablishing the Community Civil Protection Mechanism provided(article 4b) that the European Commission shall establish and managea reliable common emergency communication and information system(CECIS) to enable communication and sharing of information betweenthe monitoring and information center and the contact points designat-ed for that purpose by the Member States (Decision 2001/792/EC).The CECIS was fully operational in 2007.

In parallel, a report by a Group of Personalities in the field ofSecurity Research published in 2003 by the European Commission rec-ognizes the fact that a European Security Research Program (ESRP)should focus amongst others on intero p e rability and connectivity as keyelements of cro s s - b o rder and inter- s e rvice cooperat i o n ( E C — S e c u r i t y,2003). In this context the EU has launched such a specific EuropeanSecurity Research Program with the interoperability of control andcommunications systems amongst its main priorities (MEMO/11 62005). Furthermore, until recently, emergency services have not beenable to organize themselves at EU level in order to speak with one voiceand establish their current and future requirements concerning emer-gency telecommunications. Since 2002, several attempts by unoff i c i a lgroups of Public Communications Officers have been made to establisha common view and procedure (ETSI, 2005). Finally, in June 2006, theForum for Public Safety Communication Europe was launched with thefinancial support of the 6th Community Framework Program forResearch and Technological Development (PSC Forum site).

Several elements compromised the move of emergency services tothe Information Society age and the progress of several projects aim-ing at the establishment of the emergency telecommunications envi-ronment of the future (MESA site). The abovementioned lack of acommon approach from the professional users was one of them.Another was the fact that national industries have been trying to set theagenda in this field while unsuccessfully trying to impose it at the EUlevel. Furthermore, several issues concerning the efficient and effec-

International

Second of Two Parts

Emergency Telecommunications for Citizens in the EU:Communications between Authorities, Early Warning andAlerting Citizens

OLIVIER PAUL-MORANDINI

In the context of emergencies and disasters, emergency telecommunications cover communications from citi-zens to authorities, between authorities, from authorities to citizens and between affected citizens. This articlecovers the existing situation in all the areas mentioned above from a citizen’s perspective and contains someproposals for action in view of ensuring further developments in this field. Part two deals with communica-tions between authorities and from authorities to citizens and contains some proposals for action.

62 | ENPM | MAY 2008

emergency 4/22/08 2:39 PM Page 62

tive coordination of emergency services onthe basis of interoperable telecommunica-tions systems are beyond the scope of stan-dards setting bodies or technological fora.They include, amongst others, the use ofcommon verbal and non-verbal communica-tion protocols and conventions, the imple-mentation of quality criteria for the servicesprovided and the obligation for periodic eval-uation by independent bodies.

The creation of the PSC Forum will certain-ly contribute to the establishment of a betterunderstanding between industry and emer-gency services and will help the outcome ofseveral EU-funded projects aiming at the use ofT C P / I P and WiMax technologies by emer-gency services. Such projects include the fol-lowing: U-2010 (Ubiquitous IP-centricGovernment & Enterprise NGN Vision 2010),O R C H E S T R A (Open Architecture and SpatialData Infrastructure for Risk Management),WIDENS (Wireless Deployable NetworkSystem), WIN (Wide Information Network)and D e H i G a t e (Deployable High CapacityGateway for Emergency Services). Of course,well-established older technologies will contin-

ue being installed for some time, but Wi M a xsystems will increasingly challenge them (forexample, the new State-wide Wi r e l e s sNetwork to be installed in the State of NewYork—SWN site—and the Citywide MobileWireless Network installed in New York City).

Another important issue in this area is theavailability of bandwidth for advanced applica-tions. The European Commission in its recentproposals for the reform of the Europeantelecommunications regulatory framework,although ignoring the important issue of inter-o p e r a b i l i t y, seems to be taking good care of thebandwidth issue (COM 697, COM 480 2007).

Authorities Communicating withCitizens

In case of an imminent disaster (approach-ing chemical or nuclear cloud, threat of a ter-rorist attack, upcoming tsunami or extremeweather conditions, etc.), authorities needfirst to be warned through risk-specific,regional networks and then rapidly alert largepopulations via telecommunications net-works (radio, TV, sirens, GSMs, etc.) in orderto guide them to safe areas until the danger is

over. Several international conferences onearly warning systems for the reduction ofnatural disasters, have confirmed that effec-tive early warning depends upon multi-sec-toral and interdisciplinary collaborationamong all concerned actors (EWC’98, 1998;EWC II, 2003; EWC III, 2006). Severalmajor disasters hit the world in the lastdecade and unfortunately, many people werelost because of the lack of efficient earlywarning and alert systems.

Warning and alert systems and practicesfor citizens vary in the different countries ofthe EU. Siren and other audible alarm signalsare provided for in several policy areas (safe-ty in the workplace, nuclear and chemicalplants, wartime alerts, dam-breaking alerts,etc.) and they are not standardized or harmo-nized. Test arrangements for such systemsalso vary between Member States.A d d i t i o n a l l y, Member States and localauthorities have experimented with variousnew systems (intelligent sirens, mobile tele-phones, RDS car radios), but no generalizedcitizen-oriented solution has ever been pro-posed or implemented.

At the same time, EU citizens are clearlyconcerned about early warning and alert.According to the European Commission(Eurobarometer 51.1p 1999) a significantpercentage of EU citizens (65.2 percent) feelunsafe when in another EU country for vari-ous reasons (they do not know the risks in thecountry, do not speak the language, feel thatthe emergency services are less well-organ-ized, feel that signals and instructions are dif-ferent, etc.). It is evident that special alarmarrangements are needed for non-residents incase of many types of potential accidents ordisasters. Such an alarm may concern cross-border accidents or non-residents present intourist areas. The possible risks includenuclear power plants, chemical factories(Seveso and non-Seveso), transport of dan-gerous goods (by highways, ports, railroads,pipelines), dams, areas prone to avalanches,landslides, floods, extreme weather condi-tions and volcano eruptions as well as hotelsand other public places (fire risk, terroristattack, etc.). With millions of tourists fromthe EU visiting high risk areas all over theworld every year, this issue does not onlyconcern the EU Member States but all coun-tries accepting large numbers of EU tourists,as well as countries outside the Union, thecitizens of which visit Europe every year.

The EU has already been made aware of theproblems but without taking concrete action.The issue has been extensively discussed inthe context of the Civil Protection activities

Emergency Telecommunications for Citizens in the EU: Communications between Authorities, Early Warning and Alerting Citizens

asters hit the world and unfortunatelylost because of thearly warning and

l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n sl, the safety andWith the mobility

rnal market withinopean Institutionss efforts to ensureon at EU level in

of Emerg e n c ys needs its own big

ce and exhibitionrs and politicians,inal users, emer-

private companiesscuss their experi-and their products,neutral way.

l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n ssmponent Not to be

the Internationalon (IARU),1 assis- and disaster situa- tradition in theervice. In recentce of this activity

er and has, in fact,or argument in the

64 | ENPM | MAY 2008


mainly at a workshop on the technological aspects of modern warningand alarm systems (organized by the Finnish Ministry of Interior in thecontext of the major project on the information to the public—see MoIFinland, 2000), as well as in the context of the major project entitled“From Emergency to Crisis” (MoI Germany, 1999). The main conclu-sion of these actions was that alarm signals should not be linked with thetype of the emergency (nuclear, chemical, natural etc.) but with thebehavior expected by the population. More specifically, one signalshould induce citizens to go indoors and stay there while another shouldincite them to evacuate closed spaces. These and other projects also con-cluded that warning and alert should be provided through multiple vec-tors (Volkmar Held, 2001), i.e. use of audible alarm signals and moderntelecommunications networks (mobile telephones, pagers, RDS, digitalradio and television, etc.) especially for people with disabilities.Supplementary information to the public could then be conveyedthrough classic communication channels (radio, television) or modernnetworks (mobile telephones, internet, etc.).

Several pieces of EU legislation cover the obligation for the provi-sion of warning and alarm. Unfortunately, they fall under the responsi-bility of different policy areas and consequently their implementationremains uncoordinated. Directive 92/58/EEC on safety and healthsigns at work applies to safety in the workplace (in the policy area ofEmployment and Social Affairs). In its Annex VII it provides for a con-tinuous acoustic signal for evacuation.2 It also provides in its Annex Ifor regular check of the signaling devices. As the leisure area of oneperson usually is the work area of another, this directive could beapplied in general for the warning and alarm of people in public places.

In another context, the Seveso IIDirective 96/82/EC, which applies to asubset of chemical plants (in the policyarea of Environment), provides for theinclusion of the organization of alertand intervention around the so calledSeveso installations. It also providesthat emergency plans should includearrangements for early warning of inci-dents, alert and callout procedures, aswell as arrangements for providing thepublic with specific information relat-ing to the accident and the behaviorwhich it should adopt.

In another field, Directive89/618/Euratom, which was adopted after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster,provides for the information of the public in case of radiological emerg e n-cies. This directive which applies to all types of nuclear installations andtransport (and falls within the policy area of Energy) provides for infor-mation about emergency measures envisaged to alert, protect and assistthe general public in the event of a radiological emerg e n c y.

Directive 2002/20/EC regulating the attribution of licenses for theoperation of all types of electronic networks and services provides thatMember States may establish specific terms for operators concerningthe use of networks “during major disasters to ensure communicationsbetween emergency services and authorities and broadcasts to the gen-eral public” (see also COM 697, 2007). A special decision (Decision676/2002/EC) covers issues pertaining to the allocation of radio spec-trum (both these legal acts fall in the policy area of InformationSociety).

In 2005, the European Commission mandated ETSI to work on theimplementation of Cell Broadcast (CB) for GSM networks, in the con-

text of ETSI’s EMTEL group (INFSO-COCOM site). Furthermore,CHORIST, a specific EU-funded project addresses the issue of popu-lation warning and alert on the basis of information from heteroge-neous sensors and/or multiple agencies.

Improvements Needed

To better protect its citizens, the EU could use the previous acts as asolid legal basis for a European initiative in the field of warning andalert. Such an initiative would establish a legal obligation to warn, alertand inform citizens, in their own language, in case of an imminent dis-aster, by all available telecommunication means (radio, TV, GSM,siren, etc.). Information in this context would also cover the issuing ofinstructions about expected behavior in all possible cases of major dis-asters (nuclear, chemical, natural, terrorist, ...) even the obligation toensure (simple and comprehensive) training well before the disaster.Finally, the initiative could ensure the implementation of quality crite-ria for the service provided.

Additional justification for such an initiative may be provided by thewidening perception of the terrorist threat, the natural risks present inthe European region (floods, storms, avalanches, etc.), the numerousEU citizens moving around feeling unsafe, the need for the approxima-tion of legislations and the conclusions of several projects financed bythe Community budget in the fields of Civil Protection, Research,Information Society, etc. The initiative may aim at the generalized useof the two existing audible signals (one for evacuation, one for con-finement) and the testing of warning systems all over the EU on thesame day (e.g. on February 11, which links with EENA’s proposal forthe establishment of this day as the European Day of the singleEuropean emergency call number 1-1-2). It could also aim at theimplementation of multilingual capabilities in special disseminationsystems (RDS and digital radios, digital TVs, cell broadcast of mes-sages), the coordinated use of communication networks for warningand alert of people with disabilities and the follow-up information ofpopulations concerned. Finally, it could provide for specific measuresfor tourists and other non-residents as well as for the collaboration withbroadcasters and NGOs (environmental, search and rescue, medical,etc.) who play a key role in warning and informing the public (seeEmergency Telecommunicators and Radio Amateurs sidebar, page67). The initiative could be periodically evaluated in view of takingfurther actions at Community level.

Of course, launching such an initiative means that severalCommission services need to pull their act together and think in a cre-ative way with their priorities aimed at serving the citizens. Maybe thisis easier said than done—but the political clout of such an action wouldcertainly be very important for the college of the Commissioners. Thiscould be done in the context of the recasting of the Civil ProtectionMechanism (Decision 2001/792/EC) although the final text adopteddid not take into account the specific proposals of the EuropeanParliament to establish a system for the early warning and alert of cit-izens in disaster prone areas. Several members of the EuropeanParliament aware of this launched a written declaration which wassigned by more than 410 members of the European Parliament,requesting the establishment of such a pan-European early warningand alert system for citizens (EENA site).

Communication between Affected Citizens

In case of personal emergencies and/or major incidents or disasters, cit-izens expect, above all, to be offered the possibility to communicate withtheir relatives, either to inform them that they are well or to get reliable

66 | ENPM | MAY 2008


Table 1

When in dangerwithin the EU, callfor help the singleEuropean emer-gency call number1-1-2THIS NUMBER CANSAVE YOUR LIFE!Report problems to the Citizens’Corner atwww.eena.org


information about their condition. However,network availability and capacity have proveni n s u fficient in several cases of major incidentsand disasters to ensure such contacts. Instead,special telephone numbers may be establishedfor relaying information through the access ofcentrally constituted files with names of vic-tims and/or survivors. Additional initiativesmay also include the information and trainingof citizens (especially youngsters, see OASPsite) about the behavior they are expected toadopt in case of such events.

Important Horizontal Developments

In May 2006, Senator Hillary Clinton pro-posed a new Federal InteroperableCommunications and Safety Act in the U.S.(FICS, 2006). This act, which was neverenacted into law, provided for a newUndersecretary for Emergency Communica-tions and an Office of Emergency Com-

munications. The act provided for a NationalE m e rgency Communications Strategy toachieve redundant, sustainable and interoper-able emergency communications systems,and required State and local governments todevelop State-wide Interoperable Communi-cations Plans. It provided for a nationalassessment of the interoperability capabilities

MAY 2008 | ENPM | 67

EmergencyTelecommunications and Radio Amateurs

An essential component not to be

ignored.

According to the International Amateur

Radio Union (IARU),1 assistance in emer-

gency and disaster situations has a long

tradition in the Amateur Radio Service. In

recent years, the importance of this activity

has increased further and has, in fact, also

become a major argument in the defense

of the Amateur Radio bands and in the pro-

tection of this valuable resource against

potential interference by new technologies.

In some countries, the role of the amateur

radio service in case of emergencies and

disasters is well established and organized

or even institutionalized. In a large number

of countries, however, hams can perform

this important public service only in an

improvised manner if and when a disaster

occurs, something that may seriously affect

the efficiency of what radio amateurs can

contribute.

Radio amateurs have contributed over

the years in situations covering all the

aspects of emergency telecommunications

mentioned in the main article.2 They have

been requesting assistance in case of acci-

dents occurring in remote or isolated areas.

They have facilitated the communication

between emergency services in areas total-

ly devastated by major disasters.3 They

have helped convey the message of

authorities to remote or isolated regions

and finally they have ensured that relatives

from/at isolated areas were kept informed

about the well-being of their relatives and

friends. Using classical or satellite enabled

equipment, radio amateurs have proven

themselves indispensable in emergency

and disaster situations.

Notes

1.www.iaru.org/index.html

2.www.rsgb.org.uk/emergency/

newsboard.htm

3.www.aricc.org/

See us at NENA 2008 booth #809


at all levels at least every five years, as well asthe creation of an Emergency PreparednessCenter and the establishment of a NationalAlert System within a three-year deadline.This was the first time emergency telecommu-nications received such a high priority and theEU should implement something similar tak-ing in account, of course, Europe’s legislativeand administrative traditions and structures.

In June 2006, the London Assembly pub-lished a report on the response to the bomb-ings of June 7, 2005. The Report dealt in par-ticular with communications issues andpointed out that while the people involvedp e r fo rmed outstandingly, the emerge n cycommunication systems and equipment thatwe re supposed to support them did not.Furthermore the report also pointed out thatthere is an overarching, fundamental lessonto be learnt from the response to the 7 Julyattacks, which underpins most of our findingsand recommendations. The response on 7July demonstrated that there is a lack of con-sideration of the individuals caught up inmajor or catastrophic incidents. Procedurestend to focus too much on incidents, ratherthan on individuals and on processes ratherthan people. Emergency plans tend to caterfor the needs of the emergency and otherresponding services, rather than explicitlyaddressing the needs and priorities of thepeople involved (London Assembly, 2006).

Conclusions and Proposals

Emergency telecommunications concern,above all, the safety and security of citizens.With the mobility created by the internal mar-ket within the EU, the European Institutionsshould make serious efforts to ensure greaterharmonization at EU level in this field. Workalready undertaken should be encouraged andcontinued, while action should be initiated tocover new needs. Above all, the EU shoulddeclare its strong political commitment forimprovements in this field and declare it apriority, something that is not the case today.Ensuring better and reliable emerg e n c ytelecommunications in the EU means thatprocedures for the development of require-ments and processes in specific areas need tobe officially endorsed through multi-discipli-n a r y, multi-sectoral, multi-services groupsrepresenting governments and working withthe interests of citizens and victims in mind.Improving the 1-1-2 service chain, establish-ing rules for the interconnection and the inter-operability of systems used by emergencyservices, ensuring that all EU citizens (resi-dents and travelers alike) will be promptly

warned in case of an imminent disaster, areall highly political issues.

As a first step, the Council of EU Ministersshould consider the issue in view of formulat-ing a clear political mandate at the highestpossible level. In parallel the EuropeanParliament could continue playing a promi-nent role by keeping this issue on its agenda,as it has already done so on several occasions.E m e rgency telecommunications should betreated in a horizontal, interdisciplinary inter-sectoral and inter-services way within allEuropean Institutions (Parliament, Commis-sion and Council). The objective should bethe adoption of binding legal acts for theo rganization, intercommunication and inter-operability of emergency telecommunicationservices and systems for all emergency serv-ices/authorities, functioning in the context ofcommonly agreed quality levels. Some EUcountries (e.g. Belgium) have already estab-lished structures and systems and are movingtowards this direction. In other EU countries(UK, Netherlands, Scandinavian countries,Germany), providing high quality emerg e n c yservices is already a legal obligation. Ofcourse, given the investments involved andthe rapid technological advances, decisionsshould be based on sound analyses of costsand benefits for citizens, emergency servicesand related industries.

Should the EU consider the creation of aspecial agency for Emergency Te l e c o m m u n i -cations? Should Emergency Te l e c o m m u n i -cations for European Citizens be one of the pri-ority themes to be dealt with in the futureEuropean Electronic Communications MarketAuthority or within a not so useless CivilProtection Agency? Should the Commissionset up a special task force to deal withE m e rgency Telecommunications in a horizon-tal and holistic way? These are questions to bereplied at the highest political level, in view ofthe EU’s pledge to serve its citizens.

Finally, the field of Emergency Telecom-munications needs its own big periodic con-ference and exhibition where administratorsand politicians, professional and final users,emergency services and private companieswill be able to discuss their experiences, theirneeds and their products, in a horizontal andneutral way. Such an event could constitute acommon discussion platform which will setrequirements and help exchange best prac-tices to enable the field to develop further inorder to better serve citizens and the idea ofEurope. As mentioned in part one of this arti-cle, EENA has already contributed in thisdirection by setting up an advisory board

with the participation of citizens, Members ofthe European Parliament, professional users(namely NENA, WADEM, WHO, IAEM,etc.) and industry representatives. Its objec-tives for 2008 include launching projects toinform and educate citizens on the 1-1-2, pro-motion of the allocation of increased budgetsfor the emergency services and the setting upof several 1-1-2 excellence centers in the EU.ENPM

O l ivier Pa u l - M o ra n d i n i is the Founder andP resident of the European Emerge n cyNumber A s s o c i at i o n , a not-fo r- p ro fit associa-tion (Bru s s e l s , B e l gium). For more info rm a-tion on EENA , e-mail info @ e e n a . o rg or visitthe Web site at www. e e n a . o rg. An ab ri d ge dve rsion of the fi rst part of this art i cle was pub-lished in the June 2005 issue of the Euro p e a nJo u rnal of Nav i gation (see www. gi t c. n l ) .

Notes

1. “The Council of Ministers has repeatedly underlined the

necessity for using data banks (1987), advanced telecommuni-

cations systems (1989, 1990) including aerospace resources

(1990 - 1). The Council also considered desirable a system to

make more effective use of existing specific information and to

improve technical co-operation between rescue teams helping

in emergencies outside their own countries or regions (1990 -

1). In 1994 the Council considered that the experience acquired

in data transmission between Member States had demonstrat-

ed the need to set up a committee of users within the existing

permanent network of national correspondents, arrangements

to guide any new initiative in this field (1994).” See Council

Resolutions in the field of Civil Protection—Developments since

their adoption, Commission Staff Working Pap e r — S E C

(2000)136 dated 24.01.2000 (EC Civil Protection site).

2 . H ow e v e r, this is in contradiction with the ISO 8201 stan-

dard (Acoustics—Audible Emergency evacuation signal), w h i c h

provides for a three pulse temporal pattern followed by an off

p h a s e .

References

COM 697 (2007) final—Proposal for a Directive amending

Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulat o ry framework for

electronic communications networks and serv i c e s , 2002/19/EC on

access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications net-

works and serv i c e s , and 2002/20/EC on the authorization of elec-

tronic communications networks and serv i c e s , B r u s s e l s ,

1 1 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 7.

COM 480 (2007) final – Proposal for a Decision of the

European Parliament and of the Council on the selection and

authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services

(MSS), Brussels, 8/22/2007

Commission, 9/11 (2004) The 9/11 Commission report,

especially pages 336, 338, 339, 414; available at www.9-11

commission.gov.

Decision 2001/792/EC—Council Decision of October 23,

2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate rein-

forced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions

(2001/792/EC, Euratom) (OJ L 297, 11/15/2001 p. 7). An

upgraded version of this decision was adopted in October 2007

and will be published in the Official Journal of the EU shortly.

Decision 2007/162/EC—Council Decision of March 5, 2007

establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (2007/

162/EC, Euratom) (OJ L 71, 3/10/2007 p. 9).

Decision 676/2002/EC—Decision No 676/2002/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of March 7, 2002 on a

r e g u l at o ry framework for radio spectrum policy in the European

Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 4/24/2002 p. 1 ) .

Directive 89/618/Euratom—Council Directive 89/618/

Euratom on informing the general public about health protec-

tion measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event

of a radiological emergency (OJ L 357, 12/7/1989 p. 31).


68 | ENPM | MAY 2008


Directive 92/58/EEC on the minimum requirements for the pro-

vision of safety and/or health signs at work (OJ L 245, 8/26/1992 p.

2 3 ) .

Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards

involving dangerous substances (OJ L 10, 1/14/1997 p. 13) as

modified by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of December 16, 2003 (OJ of December 31,

2003); consolidated version available at http://ec.europa.

e u / e n v i r o n m e n t / s e v e s o / p d f / u n o f f _ c o n s _ v e r s i o n _ 9 6 _ 8 2 _ i n cl _

amend.pdf.

Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of March 7, 2002 on the authorization of electronic com-

m u n i c ations networks and services (Authorization Directive) (OJ

L 108, 4/24/2002 p. 2 1 ) .

EC—Security (2003) Research for a Secure Europe: Report

of the Group of Personalities in the field of Security Research

available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/security/.

EC—Civil Protection site at http://ec.europa.eu/

e n v i r o n m e n t / c i v i l / . Also contains pages on the single European

e m e r g e n cy call number 1-1-2.

EENA site—European Emergency Number Association at

www.eena.org.

ETSI (2005), Public Safety User Requirements & Technology

Solutions Workshop, February 23 – 24, 2005, available at

http://portal.etsi.org/workshopps/Home.asp.

Eurobarometer 51.1 (1999), Europeans & the environment,

European Commission, Brussels EWC'98 (1998), International

IDNDR Conference on Early Warning Systems for the Reduction

of Natural Disasters, Potsdam. Documents and conclusions

available at www.gfz-potsdam.de/ewc98/.

EWC II (2003), Second International Conference on Early

Wa r n i n g , B o n n . Documents and conclusions available at

w w w. e w c 2 . o r g .

EWC III (2006), Third International Conference on Early

Warning (EWC III), Bonn, Documents and conclusions available

at www.ewc3.org.

FICS (2006)—Proposal for a U.S. Federal Interoperable

Communications and Safety (FICS) Act, available at http://

f r w e b g a t e . a c c e s s . g p o . g o v / c g i - b i n / g e t d o c . c g i ?

dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3172is.txt.pdf.

GSM-BOS site: www.vodafone.de/bos (in German).

Infso-Cocom site—Communications Committee at

h t t p : / / f o r u m . e u r o p a . e u . i n t / P u b l i c / i r c / i n f s o / c o c o m 1 / h o m e .

London Assembly (2006)—Report of the July 7 Review

C o m m i t t e e , L o n d o n , June 2006, available at www.

london.gov.uk/assembly/index.jsp.

McKinsey (2002) Increasing FDNY’s Preparedness, (see

special chapter Improve communications and technology capa-

bilities), available at http://nyc.gov.

MEMO/116 (2005) Security Research in the 7th Framework

Programme prioritised amid high expectations, Press release,

4/7/2005, European Commission (available at http://europa.

eu.int/rapid/).

MESA site at www.projectmesa.org.

MoI Finland (2000), Report of the Workshop on Information to

the Public—Warning and Alarm System, Technical A s p e c t s ,

Finland (available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/

environment/civil/)

MoI Germany (1999), Final Report, Project From Emergency

to Crisis—A Challenge for Civil Protection, Akademie für

Notfallplanung und Zivilschutz im Bundesamt für Zivilschutz,

Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler 1999 (available at http://europa.eu.

int/comm/environment/civil/).

New York City (2006), Mayor Bloomberg announces selec-

tion of Northrop Grumman to build High Speed Wireless Data

Network for Police Officers, Fire-fighters and other City work-

ers, PR- 326-06, 9/12/2006 (available at www.nyc.gov).

OASP site—According to information made available from

Greek authorities after the 1999 earthquake, many children

indicated to their parents what they were expected to do on the

basis of the extensive training programs conducted over the

years by the Greek Earthquake Planning and Protection

Organization (EPPO)—see www.oasp.gr.

PSC Forum site at www. p u b l i c s a f e t y c o m m u n i c at i o n . e u ,

www.psc-europe.eu.

SWN site at www.oft.state.ny.us/oft/swnindex.htm.

TETRA MOU site at www.tetramou.com.

TETRAPOL site at www.tetrapol.com.

Volkmar Held (2001), Technologische Möglichkeiten einer

möglichst frühzeitigen Warnung der Bevölkerung (Kurzfassung);

Technological Options for an Early Alert of the Population (Short

Version) Schriftenreihe der Schutzkommission beim

Bundesminister des Innern Herausgegeben vom

Bundesverwaltungsamt—Zentralstelle für Zivilschutz im

Auftrag des Bundesministerium des Innern, German Ministry of

I n t e r i o r, B o n n — available at www. b b k . b u n d . d e / cl n _ 0 2 7 /

n n _ 4 0 2 2 9 6 / S h a r e d D o c s / P u b l i k at i o n e n / P u b l i k at i o n e n _ 2 0

Forschung/Band_2045.html.

MAY 2008 | ENPM | 69

emergency 4/22/08 2:39 PM 9