PRESENT

4 WELCOME

James Bathurst welcomed the participants to the meeting and thanked Jose Maria Garcia-Ruiz and his team for making the necessary arrangement for the meeting to take place in Zaragoza.

5 PROJECT OVERVIEW

James noted that all partners had made good starts to their project components and that progress was documented in the submitted partner reports. An important aspect of the meeting, though, would be to go beyond consideration of the individual workpackages and review the exchanges between the workpackages. James reported also that he had now held a coordinator's meeting with all the project end-users and that he had a very positive feeling concerning their support for the project. We also have a good understanding of their interests, which we should consider as we develop the various project outputs. Finally James reported that he had been asked to give a review of project progress to the EC on 15-16 November.

6 REVIEW OF ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

-  The consortium agreement has been generally agreed but we need to check if it has been signed and is officially in force.
-  The bullet-point progress reports were helpful and should be continued.
-  The partners developing models still need to circulate a list of the model requirements, especially to the data collection partners. The requirements can be the preliminary, to be refined later as the models are developed.
-  Fausto Guzzetti had established the project web site and it already contained partner information. However, one-page descriptions of the study areas and the models are still required.
-  A flow chart showing the links between the three project models is still required.

7 PROGRESS IN INDIVIDUAL WORKPACKAGES

Reports were presented by all the partners, describing progress in each  of the five workpackages. Full details are in the submitted writtenreports and are not therefore repeated here. A number of discussion points are treated in the next section.

8 WORKPACKAGE LINKS

8.1 WP1 Inputs to WP3 and WP4

a) The Padova debris flow model (WP3) should be run for a site in the Pyrenees focus area by the end of the project, a) as a demonstration of the model's relevance to the Pyrenees and b) to support the training of Spanish users. As this will be a training exercise the data requirements are not as detailed as they would be for a real hazard assessment. In particular the fan topography does not have to be surveyed in detail. A hypothetical topography representative of the site can be interpolated from a few measurements. Mario Lenzi and Jose Maria Garcia-Ruiz to liaise in selecting a test site by the time of the next progress meeting. Mario to put the general specifications on choice of site and data needs for model use for hazard assessment on the web site.

b) The Newcastle landslide erosion model SHETRAN (WP4) is to be run for a site in the Pyrenees focus area. The specification for the choice of site is in the Newcastle progress report. James and Jose Maria to liaise in selecting a site by December. The rule-based description of debris flow behaviour in the Newcastle model is to be refined using functional relationships derived from field data. James to send details of the current rules to Jose Maria to help in the development of new relationships.

c) Data on debris flows are being collected by several partners at various sites in the Pyrenees and Italian Alps. To ensure compatibility between data sets and a uniform project output, partners should use a common approach to data collection and archiving:

- CSIC-IPE, ITGE and U Milan-Bicocca to use Mario's table for debris flow description;
- Jose-Maria and Alberto Cararra to agree a common approach to discriminant analysis of the conditions favouring landslide occurrence (Giovanni please inform Alberto);
- data files should indicate how the data were collected or measured (eg by using a DTM of given resolution, field technique....).

8.2 WP3 and WP4 Inputs to WP2

a) There was an action from the start-up meeting to show the links between the three workpackage models in a diagram. However, it is easier to integrate the models via a table. (This is provided in the Coordinator's Management Report for this meeting.) We discussed how the SHETRAN landslide model could be used to enhance the GIS hazard assessment model (WP2). The following was suggested:

- create the hazard assessment model using recorded debris flow and land use data;
- validate SHETRAN for the current conditions using existing debris flow data. This might be for a specific event (perhaps in a particular catchment), for 100 years of recorded debris flow data (perhaps in a second catchment) or for a "worst case" scenario represented by a historical review of events over 1000 years;
- generate scenarios for future climate and land use and run SHETRAN to produce a new map of debris flows for future conditions;
- recreate the hazard assessment model for the future conditions using the land use scenario and the SHETRAN simulated debris flows;
- compare the hazard assessment models for current and future conditions.

b) Focus catchments are needed in Lombardy and the Pyrenees for running the SHETRAN landslide model (WP4). The likely Lombardy site is Valsassina as there is good information (including radar rainfall data) for a major landslide event on 28 June 1997. (See the U Milan-Bicocca's progress report for details.) To use all the available landslide data, the focus area will include several small catchments adjoining Valsassina. It may also be possible to obtain information on sediment yield for the event by surveying the delta which formed in Lake Como. James to liaise with Jose Maria and Giovanni.

c) Two methods of representing spatial variability for regional scale hazard assessment are being compared; by pixel (a convenient approach for computation, used by CSIC-IPE) and by geomorphological unit, such as a small basin (a geomorphological approach, used by the U Milan-Bicocca). Jose Maria and Alberto Cararra to discuss how to carry out a comparison for a common dataset.

8.3 WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4 Inputs to WP5

All partners should support the web site by providing details of models, datasets, maps and deliverables as the project proceeds. The web site will be the principal means by which we put our results quickly into the public domain.

8.4 Integration of End-users into the Project

To keep the end-users well integrated in the project, the relevant partner should arrange to meet them every six months and inform them of progress. Feedback from the end-users on development of the deliverables should be circulated among the partners. The end-users should also be encouraged to check the web site from timeto time.

9 CONTRACTUAL MATTERS

9.1 Consortium Agreement

U Padova and CSIC-IPE reported changes in the administrative officers signing the agreement, with implications for the date from which the agreement is effective. This needs to be checked at U Newcastle.

9.2 Payments

The advance payments have been received by all partners. U Milan-Bicocca to agree with Lombardy Regional Geological Survey a mechanism for transferring subcontractor fees. Partners with subcontractors should ensure that the subcontractors keep financial files for possible EC audit. Time sheets. All partners must keep records of the monthly time inputs of all staff associated with the project, beginning 1 March 2000. James will check whether U Newcastle has a recommended form and will circulate this for all partners to use.

9.3 Technology Implementation Plan (TIP)

All partners to download the TIP Data Sheets from the cordis web site and review the requirements for the TIP. James will check our obligations. Probably we will draft a first version in 2001.

9.4 Quality Assurance

Partners should keep a careful "audit trail" of data collection and transfers of data to other partners. Dates, methods, analysis techniques and transfers should all be documented. The detail should be such that if James, as coordinator, were to visit you and ask to see a file with record sheets, you could immediately show him such a file. An important reason for doing this is to ensure that we have a record of how data were collected and analysed (to maintain our scientific credibility) and of which partner has which data (to avoid confusion and the loss of data).

9.5 Reporting

CSIC-IPE to circulate Figure 2 of the progress report (missing in the report). Annual progress reports should be sent to James for 31 January 2001. James will circulate instructions on writing the reports but the main points are in the EC's Guidelines for Reporting (Section 3) which were circulated before this progress meeting. Section headings should refer to the relevant workpackage number. Financial claims should be submitted shortly after the end of the first year (28 February 2001). James will circulate instructions.

9.6 Publications and Conferences

All publications must refer to DAMOCLES with its contract number in the acknowledgements section. The next European Geophysical Society meeting is in Nice during 25-30 March 2001. There are several sessions on landslide hazards. Giovanni will discuss with Fausto the possibility of convening a session related to DAMOCLES type research for the EGS meeting in 2002 (22-26 April). Mario is investigating a conference in Venezuela. Interpraevent meets in Japan in 2002 and Trento in 2004.

9.7 Partner Information

The principal contractors completed the EC's data sheet.

9.8 Date of Next Meetings

The next meeting will be in Padova during 9-11 May 2001. The following meeting will be in Newcastle at the end of October or beginning of November.