1/4/2010 Kuniyoshi Takeuchi
1/4/2010 Bruce Stewart
1/5/2010 Andres Szollosi-
1/5/2010 Avinash Tyagi
1/5/2010 Fabrice Renaud
1/6/2010 Siegfried Demuth
1/6/2010 Kuniyoshi Takeuchi
1/6/2010 Avinash Tyagi
1/6/2010 Kuniyoshi Takeuchi
1/7/2010 Srikantha Herath
1/7/2010 Siegfried Demuth
1/7/2010 Bruce Stewart
1/7/2010 Bruce Stewart
1/7/2010 Avinash Tyagi
1/7/2010 Stefan Uhlenbrook
1/8/2010 Srikantha Herath
1/8/2010 Bruce Stewart
1/14/2010 Bruce Stewart
1/14/2010 Bruce Stewart
15/1/2010 Siegfried Demuth (1
15/1/2010 Siegfried Demuth (2
15/1/2010 Siegfried Demuth (3
16/1/2010 Kuniyoshi Takeuchi
16/1/2010 Siegfried Demuth
18/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
18/1/2010 Srikantha Herath
19/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
19/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
19/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
19/1/2010 Avinash Tyagi
20/1/2010 Avinash Tyagi
20/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
20/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
21/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
21/1/2010 Ali Chavoshian
26/1/2010 Bruce Stewart
26/1/2010 Reid Basher
3/2/2010 Bruce Stewart
10/2/2010 Ali Chavoshian
15/2/2010 Ali Chavoshian
2/3/2010 Bruce Stewart
Based on your positive responses and agreement, I would like officially start the first round of IFI e-WS. I hope we can develop a
fruitful discussion in this first trial of e-WS by your active participation and valuable inputs.
Let me reorganize the e-WS agenda in four main categories (see the attached file for detail).
1- Agenda and administrative issues of this e-WS
2- Follow-up of three IFI commitments according to the last IFI meeting at ICHARM on October 2009 (IFI policy briefs, IFI reference
series, IFI web tutorials)
3- Follow-up of IFI commitments in the "Water and Disaster" report by UNSGAB/HLEP
4- Other IFI related activities (conferences, related international programs/campaigns....)
Shall we start with the No.1 on agenda and administrative issues?
- Please state anything if you like to say at the beginning of this e-WS to make it very productive.
- Raise questions necessary to be fixed before starting the discussion.
- Adopting the agenda (any items to add or remove?)
- Please nominate or volunteer for the e-WS moderator. Please note that if there is none, I have to nominate one and request
whoever nominated to take responsibility.
IFI secretariat at ICHARM will assist the moderator.
- Let's fix the date of the SKYPE net meeting. Please vote for any of the following
dates or suggest a new date:
21st Jan. (Thu.)
26th Jan. (Tue.)
How about the starting time? We would like to suggest starting time from 9:00 GMT
for a 120-minute meeting.
After receiving your responses (first one in the next 48 hours) and summarize them,
I think we can proceed to the next topic on triple IFI outcomes.
We will send you the necessary documents regarding this topic to start the discussion.
I like the idea of setting a time limit and keeping the discussion moving. It is important that we all understand exactly what is
expected of us in responding and that we reach a conclusion on a point before moving forward. It will also be important to recognise
that there will be time differences so immediate response may not be possible.
I assume that at the end of the e-WS, we will have a final set of minutes recoding the outcomes etc.
I think the agenda covers everything, but note that some items are much larger than others and so we may need to devote extra
time to the bigger items. Some items contain "information only" and perhaps these could be addressed through an information
Either date is okay with me. For 21 January I will be in Melbourne, for 26 January I will be in Geneva.
On behalf of UNESCO-IHE Prof Stefan Uhlenbrook will coordinate and lead our contributions.
I suggest that the subject of the E-mail should now be changed as per the Agenda Item under discussion. This will help keep the
discussions focused as already suggested.
In my opinnion, we should concentrate on Item 3 and expand it to include other possible activities from among those identified as
short-term products under Annex (p 18-21) to the Brochure on IFI published in September 2007. Of course new products could be
In this meeting Agenda 6,7,and 8 should not be discussed. Although they are obliquely related to the flood issues, collaboration
between the IFI partners for these can be discussed under other meetings organized by the drivers of these events. Mind it that IFI
was never meant to be a platform for coordinating conferences and symposiums.
Item 5 should also be discussed separately.
I cannot provide a moderator for this e-WS due to other activities that require attention at this period of time
26th January is Okay with us. Regarding time we have to take account of the time difference, particularly for the ICHARM
participants, Bruce and Eugene (American and Canadian participants).
Are we inviting observers also to join SKYPE meeting?
Many thanks for the email. For the next skype meeting, I would be available on the 21st (the time you suggest is fine).
The 4 different agenda items are in general agreeable, the question we have is whether we can settle all the four items in our
discussion or whether we should concentrated on single one. We need for the skype session a moderator and somebody who
takes the minutes. ICHARM is willing to take the minutes. UNESCO has not the capacity to act as moderator, but of course we can
give input to the minutes of the skype session.
Category 2: We need to have a discussion about the IFI commitments which are mentioned here. What we observe is a mismatch
between the commitments we have formulated in the brochure and the commitments referred to; related to the October 2008
meeting. We have to discuss: whether we stick the terms of references in the brochure or whether we would just change our terms
of references according to our current activities. Of course we need to have a more flexible approach. The question is also who is
monitoring the achievements of IFI from the different participating organizations. We have also to think about on how to promote IFI
and make it more visible to the member states.
We also note that the list of participants is quite large. We wonder whether we need to include participants from
regionally operating organizations and if yes why do not have somebody from Africa, Latin America,
and other regions.
26th January would fit us well.
Thank you for your response. I add Stefan Uhlenbrook in the adressee's list.
Please note that the addressees now are only those of UNESCO, WMO, ISDR and UNU. How far and when we add others are the
discussion matter which Avinash is also raising a question.
We like to have ISDR's comments before summarize agenda item 1.
1. Perhaps it is better that the four major organizations involved in this Initiative, first sort things out. Once we decide on what each one
of us will be willing to do, we can approach other partners.
2. On the issue of working on the activities, I tend to agree with Demuth that we should start with our committements as brought out in
3. In so far the advocacy is concerned, in IFI, we have just done that for last four years (efficiently or otherwise is a different matter).
Therefore, before we further launch ourselves on Advocacy, let us put something concrete on the table as joint products etc.
4. Please keep in mind my proposal of dropping Item 6,7,8 for the e-WS.
I would like to make a proposal of the moderator.
I propose Bruce Stewart to take the responsibility. I am sure Bruce kindly accepts if you have no objection.
Bruce, please proceed from tomorrow morning. ICHARM will support you as much as possible.
I would like to introduce participants from UNU-ISP. In addition to my self, Dr. Yi Wang (Landslides, floods), Dr. Hidayat Rahman (Tsunami,
coastal resilience) and Dr. Akhilesh Surjan (urban risks), all from UNU-ISP, will be following the discussions and contributing.
For this initial discussion, I tend to agree with Avinash to keep it compact and focused on commitments. In addition to these commitments,
we may need to discuss a mechanism to relate ongoing other activities with IFI (adding IFI logo, listing in IFI home page, etc.)
Listed agenda items (with possible shortening ) is fine to start up.
Comments to item (1)
(a) With regard to agenda item 1, are we going to set up a mailing list (like google) for the e-WS? Or are we going for some other discussion
platform like 'active collaboration' or 'basecamp'? I personally find discussion platforms are efficient but a bit troublesome to use. I suppose
a mailing list would be a good compromise.
(b) For the net meeting either 21 or 26 is fine with us.
We agree to drop Item 6, 7, 8 for the e-WS.
Just a quick message to inform you that I have agreed to act as moderator for the IFI e-WS.
I urge you all to contribute strongly to this activity so that we can gain the most benefit from you expertise and experience.
Please find attached my summary/conclusions from the discussion of Agenda Item 1. If all agree, then tomorrow we can start on
Agenda Item 2 and I will formulate the first e-mail accordingly.
You will also find at the following website a copy of any documents produced and an XCEL spreadsheet (also attached herewith for
your information) which has recorded the contributions and will be continuously updated as we proceed.
Provide comments on the summary/conclusions from Agenda Item 1 (next 24 hours);
Prepare for providing inputs to Agenda Item 2 (commencing 8/1/10).
Thanks Bruce. 26th Jan is also the Republic Day in India! I agree with the proposed approach and summary of discussions as
provided in the attachment.
thanks Bruce. I agree with the agenda and I am available 26 Jan.
Thank you for the summary and the register. We agree with the summary.
I am calling now for the first contributions to Agenda Item 2 - Follow-up on the Commitments to IFI.
Under 2.1 of this item, we need to decide on the framework that we want to report against and in doing so need to consider this in
terms of where we want to be in the future. If all we do is report against what we are already doing as individuals (and sometimes
bilateral activities), the true benefit and value of IFI will not be reached. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this if possible so we
can get into the more important topic of what progress is being made.
IFI must be used as a platform to add value to our current activities and assist in the development of new activities that will see a
combined approach to flood related issues. To achieve these activities, we will need the commitment of the major players (that is,
We may have an issue here with terminology flowing from interest to commitment to outputs, so perhaps we should have
agreement on this first:
All groups have identified interest in a range of the IFI topics, but this doesn't mean any commitment, nor the identification of an
output or product.
All groups have identified outputs that they either have produced or had planned on producing anyway. This however, also doesn't
mean that there is a commitment to the production of anything under the IFI umbrella.
What I believe is being sought is your commitment to individually, or as a sub-set of the IFI partners to deliver a product or output
which will be badged as being a contribution to IFI, preferably with the IFI having in some way added value to that output, through
for example, wider peer review, additional contributions from other parties, improved distribution through other parties, etc.
Currently, we have in effect two frameworks that people want to report against:
1. http://www.ifi-home.info/e_WS_Brochure_Commitments.pdf provides a list of topics and identified interest in these topics across
topical areas such as vulnerability, flood risk management, governance and participation, people-centred early warning and
emergency management, etc. It then goes on to identify outputs/products from Research Agenda, Education and Training Agenda,
Information Networking Agenda and Technical Assistance Agenda perspectives.
2. http://www.ifi-home.info/Third_IFI_meeting.pdf promotes three types/kinds of output, namely IFI Briefs, IFI Reference Series, IFI
Web Tutorials. In effect this is just another way of framing the outputs into specific product types as opposed to outputs within the
Agenda areas identified above.
http://www.ifi-home.info/e_WS_UNSGAB_HLEP_IFI.pdf also provides some identified commitments.
If we can agree that 1. is really just an expression of interest and the identification of those things that we are already doing that are
related to IFI, then we should continue to report to this, but only on a "for information" basis (so a secondary agenda item).
The silence has been deafening, so I am assuming that all are happy with my evaluation and that we should move forward to the
next element. We can come back to this issue perhaps after we have completed the next couple of sections of the agenda on the
So my suggestion is that we park 2.1 Framework here for a while and I will send a request regarding 2.2 Commitments.
In many ways, this is the meat of our discussions and what is required is for each group to provide a brief report on the activities
that they are undertaking under IFI. Can I suggest that each group report on the following for each Commitment:
1. Title of the Commitment - also identifying where this has been identified in the two frameworks
2. Expected outcome/product of the initiative
3. Progress achieved to date
4. Any issues that have arisen that members of IFI may be able to assist with
5. Actions planned for the next six months
6. Expected completion date
Please keep the text to a minimum, but with sufficient information for us to see how things are progressing.
If we are to make any progress in this e-WS, we must have these inputs by early next week (Monday) at the latest.
UNESCO-IHP had some major activities in 2009-2009 within IFI some of which where jointly organized together with IAHS and
others together with ICHARM.
- With IAHS we produced a compendium of extreme flood events. In this document we looked into the typology of floods, the history
of extreme flood compendiums itself, the hydro-meteorological conditions e.g. the evolution of flood discharge. Furthermore the
human impacts were assed. The document has to undergo a scientific editing which will be done this year and then will be
- One of the outcome of the flood compendium was a table of the major floods over the past decades which was a contribution the
- UNESCO-IHP is partnering a consortium of international institutions in a cost project of the European Union. The project is
coordinated by the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Wallingford, UK. The project title is: European procedures for flood
frequency estimation. The project acts as European focal point for fragmented research into flood frequency estimation being
undertaken at Member State level. It will constitute the first comparative study of different methods for flood frequency estimation on
a European scale. A COST Action developing a network of experts involved in nationally funded flood frequency estimation
research projects provides an excellent opportunity for sharing knowledge and data, and to develop the next generation of
hydrological tools providing solutions to common problems. Currently no standardized European approach to flood frequency
estimation exists. Where methods do exists they are often simple and their ability to accurately predict the effect of environmental
change (e.g. urbanization, land-use change, river training and climate change) is unknown. Also, the problem of consistent
estimates of extreme floods for trans-boundary Rivers is rarely considered. This project will be a UNESCO IHP contribution to IFI.
- UNESCO-IHP has just published together with the German IHP/HWRP guidelines for managing extreme flood events (2009). The
full title of the publication is: Managing Extreme Flood Events – analyzing, forecasting, warning, protecting and informing and can
be downloaded from the German IHP-HWRP webpage. The guidelines will help hydrological services to enhance managing
extreme floods in the future and will assist in mitigating the consequences of floods, thus improving the protection of the population
against flood damages.
- UNESCO-IHP Jakarta office and ICHARM and HTC are partnering in a project on the assessment of flood forecasting and
warning system for humid tropic regions. The system will be established in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and
(Continue in the next row)
_ UNESCO-IHP Accra office together with ICHARM has written a proposal on Flood Disasters. The project will contribute to
enhance the flood disaster resilience of the West Africa countries in general with a major focus on six flood prone selected
countries for this first phase namely Benin, Burkina, Ghana, Mali, Niger and Togo. The priorities considered in the project are
among those identified within the ECOWAS disaster reduction policy adopted in 2008 and during the Niamey workshop (July 2009)
attended by the representatives of the six selected countries. The project will have two components: sub-regional component
addressing regional issues and national components in each selected country. For each of the six selected countries, the project
will contribute to enhance the capacity of those countries to produce two national country reports: one on flood risk assessment and
socio-economic impact of flood. The second one is on a flood preparedness guidelines/standard considering underlying socio-
economic factors. The findings of the two reports will be used to shape or revisit national policy, strategy, plan and legislations
regarding flood disaster risk reduction and management. The reports will also help to select flood prone communities or areas for
future pilot detail study of the flood risk (hazard, vulnerability, exposure, coping capacities) and implementation of concrete
adaptation measures at the local level (community early warning systems, flood risk mapping, education and public awareness, ..).
After completion of the proposal a next step will be to attract donors.
- UNESCO-IHP has completed a mapping of the flood activities with the FRIEND programme. The activities of the various regional
groups are summarized in the attached files.
- UNESCO-IHP has just finished a comprehensive study on flood activities of various international organizations such as EC,
WMO, ISDR, ICHARM UNESCO IHE, UNESCO FRIEND, IHAS and IWA. A synthesis report has been produced and will be sent
very soon to the IFI partners.
Let me share some observations related to the working spirit within IFI: UNESCO has with some partner’s bilateral cooperation in
some areas but that does not make the IFI initiative working. We do have to make sure that the partners feel responsible for the
initiative and have a strong will for its success. We do have to develop regular reporting mechanism and consultation mechanism
before we start with new activities. We also have to find ways to produce maybe on a yearly base a document summarizing the
major achievements. We have also to establish a mechanism to check against the agreed commitments whether they are fulfilled
or not. We have also to get more confidence to work together. I have the impression that there is a lack of willingness to cooperate
and to consider IFI as a flagship of the partners. I also think that the initiative is too ambitious there are too many tasks. We should
identify two or three areas we work on and then set up a group of individual from the different organizations to work out a proposal
which then could be circulated for comments.
(Continue in the next row)
Note: Please find all attachments in the following URL under the UNESCO-IHP submitted reports:
Policy briefs on floods led by UNESCO: We plan for the current biennium 2010-2011 to design a programme producing guidelines
for flood management with a focus on Africa. We will discuss at our next African National IHP meeting in Benin in February which of
the African countries have an interest in working with us on Policy briefs. But we would like to broaden up towards guidelines for
African countries to mange floods which would include policy briefs, look into the institutional setting, what are the research
priorities, what kind of technical assistance is necessary (e.g. tools for risk assessment, tools for vulnerability assessment, tools for
early warning etc.) and finally to look into social aspects. We will work on an outline and would like to circulate the outline for
comments from the different partners and then make a joint effort. We are aware that the governance issue is very difficult in Africa.
Therefore another option would be to come up with guidelines on flood management under climate change bypassing the
I hope this information is of use to continue our discussion.
Note: Please find all attachments in the following URL under the UNESCO-IHPsubmitted reports:
Thank you Demuth for your input.
I think it is better for us to follow the format given by Bruce such as: Demuth, please correct.
1. Title of the Commitment - also identifying where this has been identified in the two frameworks
IFI Policy Brief (lead by UNSCO in cooperation with ISDR and ICHARM) commited at ICHARM in Oct 2008
2. Expected outcome/product of the initiative NOT DECIDED OMMITTANCE OF GOVERNANCE MAY BE PROPOSED
3. Progress achieved to date NONE
4. Any issues that have arisen that members of IFI may be able to assist with ???
5. Actions planned for the next six months START DISCUSSING WITH AFRICAN IHP COUNTRIES IN FEB
6. Expected completion date BY THE END OF 2011 (What is the month?)
So far IFI's only commitments are the three items decided at ICHARM 2008 and HLEP/UNSGAB. Agenda item 3 wil discuss HLEP.
So, the question of 2.2 is on Plicy brief lead by UNESCO, Referece series lead by WMO and e-Tutorials lead by UNESCO-IHE.
Before introducing any new output proposal, let us try to complete the table above on the three outputs.
If nothing is decided, it is OK. But lead organization is expected to make some proposal.
With respect to policy brief there is no progress. Please note the activities which I have mentioned in my previous email. It also
relates to policy brief.
Siegfried: Many thanks for the great input.
Let me respond to call for responses to 2.2 on behalf of UNU. When we revert back will further make some comments on how we
can collaborate on existing/on going activities to provide some added value (response to 2.1)
Please find attached a brief note on present state of our response to commitments made in the attached file, with links to the
experimental web site.
Note: Please find the above attachments in the following URL under the UNU submitted report:
Srikantha: Many thanks for the response.
I want to add to Siegfried's comments regarding commitment to the IFI and how we could make this Initiative work better.
Siegfried made some good points and I will add my comments to these:
1. Just having cooperation doesn't mean it is working - I agree that we need concrete outputs/outcomes.
2. The Initiative is too ambitious there are too many tasks - Agree, if the agenda is too large, we spread ourselves thin and don't
make progress. We must identify a small number of high priority activities that we can work on TOGETHER. We need to have an
agreed process whereby we identify the key priority activities.
3. We have to properly scope of the activities - Yes, small inter Partner teams to do this would be a good way forward. We need to
identify the small set of things first and the how we will achieve them, including the commitments of all partners.
4. We have to develop a regular reporting mechanism - Agree, but it must not be complex and place a heavy burden on partners.
5. We need to establish a mechanism to check against the agreed commitments whether they are fulfilled or not - Agree that we
need this, it must not be onerous, but must be transparent and understanding of resource and other constraints.
6. There is a lack of willingness to be involved - If there is, how do we get over this? Partners must see that there are benefits from
involvement and that they can therefore justify the cost of being involved.
I think that ICHARM believes that the three commitments - Web-based Tutorials, Reference Series and Policy Briefs are the three
priority areas (i.e. 2 above) and were seeking that the leads of these areas undertake 3. now and that together we develop 4. and 5.
Based on earlier comments I am not sure that this is the position for all of the partners. Am I right or wrong?
I have taken Srikantha's and Siegfried's input and combined them into one reporting format.
I am happy to add the reports of others to this format as we move along and have this as one product of our IFI e-WS.
I am sorry for the delay in response on Item 2. I will be sending the required info by today evening.
I have updated the report in the format provided by Bruce.
Sorry for this delay.
As we are approaching 1/26 for SKYPE net-meeting we need a SKYPE ID for each of you. Please note that SKYPE has a limitation
of up to Max. 9 parties for a net-meeting at the same time. Therefore it seems we should have representatives ID of each
organization as focal points.
We think the following list could be a possibility for ID allocation:
WMO - Moderator (1)
UNESCO (1+1 for IHP and IHE)
UNU (1+1 for ISP and EHS)
ICHARM (1+1 for ICHARM and Kuni)
One ID as a reserve
Please let us know if we can use you personal/private IDs. All parties will need to tell us their IDs in advance of the net-meeting.
However, if you don't have or don't want to use a private one, ICHARM can make IDs for each organization for them to use in the
Please let Ali and me know your details and/or requirements for using SKYPE.
Avinash: Many thanks
We now have a table that summarises the progress on the Commitments made to date and also provides some information on
other related activities (we can add to this as necessary, but I believe that it is a good starting point). I have taken the liberty of
adding a few of the related WMO activities to the later part of the list.
The next Agenda Item (if there are no questions etc) is Item 2.3 where we requesting the identification of new activities that we
should consider under the IFI Banner.
Therefore, I am opening the discussion to proposals for new commitments to the IFI.
Again it would be good if we could have a few of these identified prior to the SKYPE Conference next week and perhaps make this
more the focus of discussions.
From my point of view, I did wonder if the topic of coastal inundation (combined high tide/river flooding) could be a topic of particular
interest. You will note from the table that JCOMM and CHy are just beginning to look into this topic on a joint basis and this activity
could benefit from wider involvement.
Thank you for your swift response. Please make sure to add all of IDs to your SKYPE contact list.
The Starting time is 9:30 am (UTC/GMT) on Jan. 26.
It is 10:30 in Geneva, Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam.
Japan time is 18:30.
Please try to be online at least 15 minutes before the starting time.
For the SKYPE Conf I propose the following Agenda
1. Introductions - very quick/ Agree on Agenda
2. Recap on discussions to date - Moderator
3. e-WS Agenda Item 2 - Discussion on reports of commitments to date
We will work through the tabular report on Commitments and progress made focussing on:
(a) Areas where we can add to the current activities under the IFI banner, e.g.
- additional expertise required
- additional geographical inputs/opportunities/synergies
- additional involvement through participation
(b) Any commitments not covered in the Table 1 that are IFI commitments, e.g. from Brochure
(c) As above, but from "Water and Disaster" UNSGAB/HELP
(d) Identification of and discussion on possible new initiatives to be added to Brochure.
3. Agenda Item 4 - Promotion of IFI.
4. Conclusion and wrap-up
A quick reminder that the papers are all at: http://www.ifi-home.info/IFI-e-WS.html
FYI, our current approach in respect of water-related risk focuses on:
1) WWDR, both the side publication and the WWDR-4 theme of uncertainty and
risk. This includes work on an interim terminology of water-related risk.
(Objective: - technical guidance on water-related disaster risk reduction.)
2) UN Water, to continue to advocate and support awareness and activity on
risk and disaster risk reduction. (Objective: - coordination within UN
3) UNSGAB, to promote high-level political engagement and action on water
and disaster. (Objective: - Political commitment, where there is a big gap
4) Climate change, to start better connections between CC, DRR and water
risks. DRR is now quite well placed in the UNFCCC agreements but water is
largely invisible. Moreover most current DRR-related adaptation is actually
being undertaken in the water sector. (Objective: - stronger integrated
engagement of water expertise and organizations in adaptation arena.)
I hope that in the near future we will have more time and capacity to
devote to the very important work of the IFI.
Please find attached the minutes from the SKYPE Conference on 26 January.
Please provide any feedback by 8 February and then Ali and I will draft up the e-WS minutes incorporating these and providing an
Many thanks to Ali for drafting these notes up.
Thank you for your participation in the IFI e-WS and your valuable inputs.
On behalf of Bruce, I would like to send you the draft of the IFI action list according to the IFI SKYPE meeting on Jan. 26. Please
find it attached and provide any feedback by 15 February. The action list is consisted of three types of items in short-term, mid-term
and new proposals. There is also a coordinator, task force and contributors for each item of the action list. You will find a tentative
next steps and deadlines as well. Please feel free to send us any of your comments to finalize it.
I would like also to inform you that the previous IFI SKYPE meeting minutes is available at IFI website in PDF format.
Bruce and I are looking forward to receiving your feedback on the attached action list by 15 February.
Good to hear some discussions have already started on IFI action list (e.g. item no. 1, 7 and 11 of the attached file). As a few of our
IFI partners are in business trip and need more time for discussion, let's postpone deadline for any feedback on IFI action list until
the end of February.
Firstly, I would like to thank you all for your contributions to the e-WS and also your commitment to the IFI. The e-WS was very new
for me, but I found it a rewarding and stimulating experience and I believe that we achieved a significant amount through this
For your information, all of the documents that we examined and prepared can be found at:
The action list (attached) has been agreed to by the participants and represents the next steps forward.
Herath and Stefan (IHE) met each other in Beijing last week. They will continue discussion on web-tutorial and will report to us on
Actions 2 and 3:
WMO will send ICHARM two manuals for peer-reviewing by IFI members.
ICHARM is finalizing its large-scale flood report to send IFI members for peer-review. The target date is now the end of March.
Kuni Takeuchi has already sent Siegfried the contact of Eugene regarding Flood Frequency Analysis. Bruce Stewart has sent the
contact details for Janice Green in Australia and some details of the process/timeframe.
The IFI Secretariat is planning to attend the next meeting of the IHP-IGC (as recommended) to report on IFI activities and
The 5th International Conference on Flood Management is planned to be held in 2011 in Tsukuba and IFI partners will be members
of international organizing committee.
Once again many thanks for your inputs and a special thanks to the IFI Secretariat - ICHARM for their support and enthusiasm. In