Paul Murphy: Is Flood Data Being Held Back?

Thanks a lot and thanks for coming before us. Just to start with Mr. Moran or someone else from MetEireann as appropriate, does MetEireann guard information that is relevant to the risk of flooding? Thank you very much Deputy. Well first of all MetEireann's mission is to protect life and property. That's what we're here for in the context of extreme weather and the impacts of that. So that's our core mission, that's what we always do. Second of all MetEireann is a very prolific public sector organisation and delivery of open data in a transparent fashion. We are hugely motivated to ensure that as much of our data as possible is available, is usable, is accessible, is understood so that people can make decisions themselves. That is absolutely our core motivation. I think your question relates to flood forecasting specifically. Thank you very much. So in the development of the first stage of the completion of the first stage of stage one, the focus was on supporting emergency management so that they can actually take this additional hazard information, the hazard being flooding, and combine that with local knowledge, their expertise, any other resources that they might have to be able to make their response, their preparation decisions. So we focused on that as a matter of priority and that made sense. So we packaged that information into a technical service that we provide to all local authorities on a daily basis and if there's an extreme weather event we go through that particular technical document blow by blow explaining the river, sorry, the catchment forecasts and explain to them the various different parameters and where the different areas might be, which counties for example might be affected most. So that's what we've been doing for the last two years. Now since 2005, internally in MetEireann, though we're still just one party of the whole NFFWS, but internally in MetEireann we've been looking at that information and looking at how we can facilitate additional information being available to the public. And we are currently working on that process. At the moment we expect to make a proposal to the NFFWS group so that we can provide a public relevant, less technical reference material as best as possible. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Can I take it that the answer to the question then is effectively no, you don't guard it. I mean guarding information would imply that you have the information and you're choosing not to make it available for some particular reason. You're working on making more information available, I understand that the answer, but you're not guarding information as it currently happens? No, but I suppose, I mean we're a scientific and technical organisation and often what we do can seem unclear, so these type of questions need to be addressed on a regular basis. So for various sequencing reasons and prioritisation reasons, we focused through the NFFWS in providing the technical information that we provide to the local authorities and are now moving along that sequence to provide the best information we can to the public. Our priority is to get as much information as possible out to the public. Thanks a lot. Just to return to some of the line of questioning of Deputy Boland, when do we expect to have the public alert system in operation, even the first phase of the public alert system? Okay, so as we were saying, at the moment we've delivered the Flood Forecasting Centre which is providing catchment-based forecasts across 36 catchments on a national scale and that's been going on for two years. And your question relates to Stage 2 and what we're working on at the moment, what the NFFWS subgroup of the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning is actively working on at the moment is putting together the Stage 2 plan and that will include all those timelines. Yes, okay, so we don't even have a timeline as it currently, you're working on a timeline, the NFFWS is working on a timeline? Yes, I mean, that timeline has been actively formulated. And is it, and I'll turn to the OPW in a second, but I mean it certainly has been reported in the media that a problem here is the lack of a lead agency that has clear responsibility to drive this forward in terms of the public alert system. What you're saying to us here is that for the moment Stage 2 is under the guidance of a subgroup of effectively the Department of Defence. Will they have the responsibility for pressing the button in terms of the activating an alert system? Is that what's envisaged or it's not clear? I mean, do you think there's clarity? Has this been a problem with the delivery of the public alert system? Is not a clear agency responsible? Well, perhaps the OPW might want to come in and comment here because they have provided the oversight since the start of this particular project. But certainly I would say that the leadership hasn't hindered the technical progress of an operational system. In actual fact, it's progressed in a timely fashion, delivering all the objectives with savings to the exchequer so far. And what is being worked on at the moment is putting in place the new governance structure to scale up the existing capability, to focus on higher resolution capability to be able to reach citizens and neighbourhoods as quickly as possible. So there will be a different governance structure and there will be different lines of layers of responsibility. But having said that, in the short term, of course, we're engaging again as part of a partnership with the local authorities, the OPW and the Office of Emergency Management and NDFEM to maximise the flood risk information that we can provide today. So we are working on that as well. So in the short term, there will be accrued benefits associated with the continuous development of this particular system. It's important to stress that this is not like baking a cake where you put in all the ingredients and shove it in the oven and wait for the cake to be produced. This is a gradual build-up process. This is a scaling up of capability. So that scaling up process will translate those benefits to the overall risk and flood resilience that we need at a local level. So we're also in the short term focusing on that coordination of agencies to maximise the information we do have. Thanks. If I could just, because I want to give the OPW a chance on this. I mean, do you think this is an issue in terms of the lack of a clear lead agency on the public warning system? I'd ask Mr Mooney to address this first. Thanks. No, no, absolutely not. I think there's there's a piece there about understanding what the trajectory is here and what was planned. So as colleagues from MetErin has said, it was a staged approach, agreed with respect to delivery of the National Flood Forecast and Warning Service. And it does involve a number of agencies. That's just a fact. There's a requirement of input from a range of people. So stage one has been delivered. It was to deliver catchment forecasts and colleagues from MetErin, as they've outlined, are providing a whole range of projects which feed into that emergency management space, including daily flood guidance statements, high tide advisories, river flood advisories, hydrometric observations. They put in place an extensive platform which has all this information on it, which can be accessed by all of those people. And as they've mentioned, at this point in time, MetErin are looking at the possibility of making some of that information available to the public as a first step. Just in terms of the alerts that we're Stage two then is to develop the forecasting methodology to the point where local forecasts can be delivered. And in this world, a warning is considered to be specific information about a hazard or a specific location at a specific time. So the models have to be able to do that in order for what's called a warning to be issued. Now that very much sits in the emergency management space and there has to be an end-to-end alignment between forecasting, impact assessment, warnings and emergency response. And that's effectively the space we're in at the moment. So the move across to the Government Task Force reflects that. And you're saying it therefore makes sense that the Department of Defence fundamentally will be the people who are making the call? It's the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning. It's been chaired by the Department of Defence. Yes. And they're happy with that? They are the lead agency in terms of reports into the Cabinet Committee on Climate Action, Environment and Energy. And it is very much taking a proactive response as we have been reporting into that committee on progress as well. And you think it makes sense for them rather than, I mean the OPW is the main agency responsibility for flooding in general, but you think given the emergency element here it makes sense for them? I think the issues in Stage two lend themselves to that. It's all of that. And recently sort of in terms of the committee has recently endorsed a range of actions which are designed to develop the emergency management aspect of the National Flood Forecast and Warning Chain would be the way I'd put it. So it absolutely makes sense. I think just in terms of the alerting piece which you were referring to, there's probably a conflation of two issues here. There's a broader alerting system for all emergencies which is being developed. That doesn't sit under the remit of the National Flood Forecast and Warning Service. But obviously you would have to dovetail with that. And that's once again the sense of having it in under the Government Task Force on Emergency Planning. Excellent, thanks. Thanks Deputy Murphy.