Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14 PDF

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Technical Series
113
EXERCISE
INDIAN OCEAN WAVE 14
An Indian Ocean-wide Tsunami
Warning and Communication Exercise
9–10 September 2014
Volume 2 Exercise Report
UNESCO
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Technical Series
113
EXERCISE
INDIAN OCEAN WAVE 14
An Indian Ocean-wide Tsunami
Warning and Communication Exercise
9–10 September 2014
Volume 2 Exercise Report
UNESCO 2015
IOC Technical Series, 113 Vol.2
Paris, March 2015
English only
The designations employed and the presentation of the

material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariats of
UNESCO and IOC concerning the legal status of any
country or territory, or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of the frontiers of any country or territory.
For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows:
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. 2014. Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14:

An Indian Ocean-wide Tsunami Warning and Communication Exercise, 9–10 September
2014. Volume 2: Exercise Report. IOC Technical Series No. 113 Vol.2. UNESCO.
 UNESCO 2015
(IOC/2015/TS/113Vol.2)
Page (i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 EXERCISE CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATION ................................................ 1
2. EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS ............................................................... 3

2.1 OBJECTIVE 1 –
TSP MESSAGE DISSEMINATION ................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Message Dissemination ........................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Issues to be followed up for Objective 1 .............................................. 4
2.2 OBJECTIVE 2 – NTWC MESSAGE RECEPTION
AND ACCESS TO TSP WEBSITES ................................................................. 4
2.2.1 Reception of TSP Notification Messages ............................................. 4
2.2.1.1Comparison with Previous Exercise and Tests
– Message Delivery ....................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Access to TSP Websites ..................................................................... 10
2.2.3 Issues to be followed up for Objective 2 ............................................ 10
2.3 OBJECTIVE 3 –
NTWC REPORTING OF NATIONAL WARNING STATUS ............................. 11
2.3.1 Reporting of National Warning Status................................................ 11
2.3.1.1Comparison with Previous Exercise and Tests
– Web Access and Reporting....................................................... 12
2.4 OBJECTIVE 4 – PROCEDURES
FOR TSUNAMI WARNING DISSEMINATION ................................................ 14
2.4.1 Standard Operating Procedures
for dissemination of tsunami warnings............................................. 14
2.5 OBJECTIVE 5 – PROCESSES
FOR PUBLIC WARNINGS AND EVACUATIONS ........................................... 16
2.5.1 Decision making on warnings and evacuations ................................ 16
2.6 OBJECTIVE 6 – METHODS
FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INSTRUCTION ....................................... 19
2.6.1 Methods of notifying and instructing the public................................ 19
2.7 OBJECTIVE 7 – ELAPSED TIME
FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND INSTRUCTION ....................................... 21
2.7.1 Elapsed time for public notification and instruction ......................... 21
Page (ii)
3. OVERALL SUCCESS OF THE EXERCISE ............................................................. 23
4. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 24
ANNEXES
I. MEMBER STATE PARTICIPATION LEVELS
II. TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

OF TSP NOTIFICATION MESSAGES SENT TO NTWCS
III. MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

FOR THE JAVA SCENARIO
IV. MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

FOR THE MAKRAN SCENARIO
V. NTWC ACCESS TO TSUNAMI THREAT

INFORMATION ON TSP WEBSITES
VI. NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING STATUS REPORTS :

REPORT TIMES AND NUMBERS
VII. NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING

STATUS REPORTS: CONTENT
VIII. AGENCIES/AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE

FOR DISSEMINATION OF WARNING MESSAGES
IX. MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

AND GOVERNMENT FOR THE JAVA SCENARIO
X. MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

AND GOVERNMENT FOR THE MAKRAN SCENARIO
XI. TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

OF NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING AND DISSEMINATION POINT
XII. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC WARNING

AND EVACUATION DECISION MAKING
XIII. ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

FOR ISSUING PUBLIC WARNINGS AND ORDERING EVACUATION
XIV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
XV. MEANS OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THAT WERE USED

IN THE EXERCISE OR WOULD BE USED IN A REAL EVENT
XVI. EXERCISE PLANNING, CONDUCT, FORMAT, AND STYLE
XVII. BENEFITS OF THE EXERCISE
XVIII. IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE EXERCISES
XIX. LIST OF ACRONYMS

Page (iii)
Executive Summary
The Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004 was one of the most devastating natural
disasters ever, in which over 230,000 people were killed and more than 1 million people were
displaced. Recognising the need for a tsunami early warning system in the Indian Ocean
region, the Intergovernmental Coordination Group for the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning
and Mitigation System (ICG/IOTWS) was set up in 2005 as a subsidiary body of the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), with the purpose of establishing a tsunami
early warning and mitigation system to cater to the needs of member countries in the Indian
Ocean region. At that time, arrangements were also put in place for the Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center (PTWC) in Hawaii and the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA) in Tokyo
to commence provision of an Interim Advisory Service (IAS) for the Indian Ocean, pending
the establishment of the IOTWS.
The Tsunami Service Providers (TSPs) of Australia, India and Indonesia commenced
providing service for the Indian Ocean on 12 October 2011, coincident with Exercise Indian
Ocean Wave 11 (IOWave 11, IOC/2013/TS/99). From 31 March 2013, the TSPs of Australia,
India and Indonesia assumed full operational responsibility and the IAS provided by PTWC
and JMA ceased.
A total of twenty-three (23) earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 and greater have occurred in the
Indian Ocean since 2005. Four (4) of these earthquakes generated tsunamis resulting in a
large number of casualties and property loss. These tsunamis recalled the need for effective
implementation of the ICG/IOTWS tsunami mitigation programme in order to be prepared for
future potentially destructive tsunamis in the region.
The IOTWS works as a “system of systems” with three (3) TSPs generating tsunami advisory
products simultaneously and making them available to the National Tsunami Warning
Centres (NTWCs) of the Indian Ocean countries. It remains the responsibility of NTWCs to
issue tsunami warnings for their countries. The tsunami warning centres of Australia, India
and Indonesia have built up their capabilities for provision of Indian Ocean-wide tsunami
advice and are the designated TSPs for the Indian Ocean region. The ICG/IOTWS also
focuses on enhancing the capacities of the NTWCs to modify their Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) to handle the products being generated by the TSPs.
The Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14 (IOWave14, IOC/2014/TS/113Vol.1) was conducted on

9 and 10 September 2014 to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of IOTWS and its
operational TSPs, NTWCs, and Disaster Management Organizations (DMOs), in responding
to potentially destructive tsunamis. It also provided an opportunity for Indian Ocean countries
to test their communication methods and review their SOPs, tsunami emergency response
plans and tsunami emergency preparedness.
The exercise highlighted both the strengths and weaknesses of the IOTWS, identified areas
requiring further attention, and provided a benchmark of the present status of the system.
The three (3) designated TSPs and twenty-four (24) Member States with designated
Tsunami Warning Focal Points (TWFPs) participated, with two (2) countries taking the
exercise down to the community level, and all countries providing feedback via a post-
exercise survey questionnaire. The objectives of the exercise were to:
1. Validate the dissemination by TSPs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages to

NTWCs via the designated TWFPs of Indian Ocean countries.
2. Validate the reception by NTWCs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages and

access by NTWCs to the tsunami bulletins and other products on the TSP websites.
Page (iv)
3. Validate the reporting by NTWCs to the TSPs of their National Tsunami Warning
Status.
4. Validate the SOPs within countries for disseminating tsunami warnings and other
threat information to their relevant disaster response agencies.
5. Validate the organisational decision-making process within countries for the issuing of
public warnings and ordering evacuations.
6. Identify the methods used to notify and instruct the public.
7. Assess the elapsed time for public notification and instruction.
Key Findings
Exercise Conduct, Participation
Twenty-four (24) IOTWS Member States participated in Exercise IOWave 14. Twenty-three
(23) of the twenty-four (24) countries agreed that the exercise planning, conduct, format and
style were satisfactory. Specifically, seven (7) countries strongly agreed with this statement,
sixteen (16) countries agreed with this statement, and one (1) country indicated a neutral
opinion in regards to this statement.
Exercise IOWave 14 comprised, for the first time in Indian Ocean exercises, two earthquake
scenarios on successive days. Fourteen (14) Member States participated in the Java
scenario on day 1 and eighteen (18) Member States participated in the Makran scenario on
day 2. Eight (8) Member States participated in both scenarios.
Objectives 1–3: Communications, Access to Information, Status Reporting
Dissemination of TSP messages to NTWCs by email and GTS (the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) Global Telecommunications System) was very successful, with
message delivery rates of 85% to 89% across the two scenarios for email, and 77% to 80%
for GTS. Dissemination by mobile-phone SMS achieved a 57% to 60% success rate, while
fax delivery success rates were poor at 36% to 39%. These results are similar to those
achieved in the regular IOTWS Communication Tests.
Access to the tsunami threat information on TSP websites by NTWCs was very successful,
with success rates of 93% to 98% across the two scenarios, and only two (2) NTWCs having
difficulty accessing the websites at any time.
Reporting of national warning status by NTWCs on the TSP websites was improved in
comparison to recent IOTWS Communication Tests, with 72% to 79% of NTWCs reporting
they lodged status reports across the two scenarios. However, the TSPs did not receive the
reports from several of these NTWCs, so further investigation is needed.
Objectives 4–7: Procedures, Decision-Making, Public Notification
Dissemination of tsunami warning messages to response agencies and government is in

most cases the responsibility of the NDMOs (47.5%), followed by the NTWCs (31%) and
other agencies/authorities (21.5%). In this exercise, the warning information issued to
response agencies and government was reported as being both timely and appropriate.
The issuing of public warnings and the ordering of evacuations is again in most cases the
responsibility of the NDMOs (46%), followed by NTWCs (22%), provincial/district DMOs
(19%) and local authorities (13%). In this exercise, fourteen (14) countries reported the
Page (v)
participation of their authority for public warnings and evacuations, and two (2) countries
(India and Seychelles) carried out exercise evacuations.
In this exercise, nineteen (19) countries reported they have national-level SOPs for tsunami
warning in place, with fifteen (15) also having local-level SOPs in place. More work is needed
by Member States without full SOPs to establish and test them. A number of countries also
do not have adequate pre-existing local threat information such as hazard assessments,
inundation maps and evacuation plans.
Notification of the public is done via many methods and communications media, with all
countries making use of public television and radio, and most countries (80% and higher)
also using mobile phone broadcast and/or text messages, email, and websites. Most
countries use five (5) or more different methods of notification, with many using ten (10) or
more. Public notifications were issued in a timely manner by six (6) of the seven (7) countries
who issued them in this exercise.
Reported Benefits and Suggested Enhancements for Future Exercises
Member States listed many benefits from the exercise including the testing of SOPs,
collaboration between response agencies and the media, testing of communication systems,
improving Member States’ understanding of the TSP services, and raising overall levels of
tsunami awareness.
Member States also suggested improvements for future exercises including revising and
updating their SOPs, more training to Member State agency staff, making products from
TSPs more consistent in format, and having independent IOC observers in Member States
during exercises. Communication linkages between in-country agencies that interact during a
potential tsunami threat should continue to be improved.
1. INTRODUCTION
Overall 38% of the world's population lives within 100 km of the coast or estuaries and these
coastal communities are directly exposed to threats from natural disasters such as cyclones,
storm surges, coastal erosion, and tsunamis. Though tsunamis are infrequent, the death toll
from tsunamis is huge compared with other natural disasters. The 26 December 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami resulted in disastrous loss of life and property. Around 230,000 people died
with the highest death toll in Indonesia, which was near the tsunami source. Casualties were
also reported in countries as far away as Somalia, Tanzania and Kenya. The 11 March 2011
Tohoku, Japan tsunami, which is believed to be the most costly natural disaster in the world,
resulted in some 20,000 people dead or missing and US$210 billion of economic damage
(estimated by Japan's Cabinet Office [CAO] and Reconstruction Agency and reported by the
World Bank, 2012).
The major challenge with tsunamis is that they are infrequent, which requires great
persistence in sustaining the process of capacity building and preparedness. Because of this
infrequency, instruction through mock tsunami drills is the best way to train coastal
communities to prepare for devastating actual events. A very high level of public awareness
is essential, especially in the regions which are close to tsunami source locations. These
communities need to be trained to act on their knowledge of natural signs plus awareness
acquired through tsunami drills, rather than waiting for warnings from local officials. This
situational awareness and ability to respond quickly is best achieved through pre-event
education and mock drills. The drills not only educate the public on natural signs but also on:
where they would receive the official warnings, by which means, what those warnings
indicate, how to understand them, and what they need to do in response.
1.1 BACKGROUND
During the Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Coordination Group for the Indian Ocean
Tsunami Warning And Mitigation System (ICG/IOTWS-IX) held in Jakarta, Indonesia, from
27 to 30 November 2012, it was decided to conduct an Indian Ocean-wide Tsunami Warning
and Communication Exercise (IOWave14) during the second half of 2014. A Task Team was
established to organize it, with membership comprising Australia, India and Indonesia.
Keeping in view the major tsunamigenic earthquakes in the last few years, the readiness of
the IOTWS was tested thoroughly through this tsunami exercise.
1.2 EXERCISE CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATION
Exercise IOWave14 was conducted on 9 and 10 September 2014 (IOC/2014/TS/113Vol.1).

Twenty-four (24) IOTWS Member States participated. The participating Member States were:
 NTWCs: Bangladesh, Comoros, France (La Réunion), Iran, Kenya, Madagascar,

Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Seychelles,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Yemen.
 TSPs (also NTWCs for their own country): Australia, India and Indonesia.
Exercise IOWave14 comprised, for the first time in Indian Ocean exercises, two earthquake
scenarios conducted on successive days, 9 and 10 September, with each scenario run in
real-time. The scenario details are given in Table–1.
Page 2
SCENARIO 1 – JAVA SCENARIO 2 – MAKRAN TRENCH

Wednesday 10 September
Date Tuesday 9 September 2014 Date
2014
Time 0000 UTC Time 0600 UTC
Magnitude 9.1 Mw Magnitude 9.0 Mw
Depth 10 km Depth 10 km
Latitude 10.4 S Latitude 24.8 N
Longitude 112.8 E Longitude 62.2 E
Location South of Java, Indonesia Location Off Coast of Pakistan
Table–1. Earthquake parameters for the Java scenario and the Makran scenario
Fourteen (14) IOTWS Member States participated in the Java scenario, eighteen (18)
participated in the Makran scenario and eight (8) participated in both scenarios (Figure–1).
 Java scenario participants: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France (Reunion), India,

Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Seychelles, Singapore,
Thailand and Timor-Leste.
 Makran scenario participants: Australia, Comoros, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya,

Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Seychelles,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Yemen.
Figure–1. IOTWS Member State participation in IOWave14. Yellow indicates participation in only
the Java scenario, green indicates participation in only the Makran scenario and purple indicates
participation in both scenarios.
Page 3
The level of Member State participation in IOWave14 is summarised in Table–2. All twenty-
four (24) countries exercised their tsunami warning and mitigation SOPs to varying degrees,
with all countries also reporting that the TSP notification messages were received by their
NTWCs. Disaster management and emergency response organizations also participated in
seventeen (17) or 74% of countries, table-top or functional exercises were carried out in
fifteen (15) or 65% of countries, the provincial or local level of government participated in ten
(10) or 43% percent of countries, and public evacuation drills were conducted in two (2) or
8% of countries (India and Seychelles). Refer to Error! Reference source not found. for full
participation details.
ACTIVITY %Y No. Total
IOTWS-TSP messages were received in a

100% 24 24
timely manner.
Disaster management and emergency
74% 17 23
response organisations were involved.
Table top or functional exercises were carried
65% 15 23
out.
The provincial or local level participated. 43% 10 23
Public evacuation drills were conducted. 8% 2 24
Table–2. Summary of Member State participation levels.

%Y= percentage answering yes, No. = number of countries answering yes,
Total = total responses.
Following the exercise, Member States were asked to complete an online survey
questionnaire describing their participation in the exercise. This report is a compilation of
those results.
2. EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS
2.1 OBJECTIVE 1 –
TSP MESSAGE DISSEMINATION
Objective 1: Validate the dissemination by TSPs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages

to NTWCs via the designated Tsunami Watch Focal Points (TWFPs) of Indian Ocean
countries.
2.1.1 Message Dissemination
This objective was assessed by asking NTWCs if the notifications issued by the TSPs were
timely and if the methods used by the TSPs to send notifications were appropriate. Tables 3
and 4 summarise the NTWC responses for the Java and Makran scenarios, respectively.
Page 4
Percent No. Total

Java Scenario TSP
Agree Agree Responses
1(a) Judged against the nature of this event, Australia 100% 14 14
information issued by the Tsunami Service India 100% 14 14
Provider(s) was timely. Indonesia 93% 13 14
1(b) The method(s) used by the Tsunami Service Australia 100% 14 14
Providers to send bulletins to us were India 100% 14 14
appropriate. Indonesia 100% 14 14
Table–3. NTWC assessment of the timeliness

and delivery methods of TSP notifications (Java Scenario).
In the Java scenario, most NTWCs agreed that notifications issued by the TSPs were timely.
However, Thailand reported that they did not receive notification messages from TSP
Indonesia. All NTWCs agreed that the methods used by the TSPs to send notifications were
appropriate.
Percent No. Total

Makran Scenario TSP
1(a) Judged against the nature of this event, Australia 100% 18 18
information issued by the Tsunami Service India 100% 18 18
Providers was timely. Indonesia 100% 18 18
1(b) The method(s) used by the Tsunami Service Australia 100% 18 18
Providers to send bulletins to us were India 100% 18 18
appropriate. Indonesia 94% 17 18
Table–4. NTWC assessment of the timeliness
and delivery methods of TSP notifications (Makran Scenario).
In the Makran scenario, all NTWCs agreed that notifications issued by the TSPs were timely.
Most NTWCs agreed that the methods used by the TSPs to send notifications were
appropriate. However, Pakistan reported that they did not receive any notification messages
from TSP Indonesia via SMS or email.
Refer to Error! Reference source not found. for details of each NTWC’s assessment of the
timeliness and delivery methods of TSP notification messages.
2.1.2 Issues to be followed up for Objective 1
 Indonesia: Check on delivery of TSP Indonesia notification messages to Thailand and

Pakistan.
2.2 OBJECTIVE 2 –
NTWC MESSAGE RECEPTION
AND ACCESS TO TSP WEBSITES
Objective 2: Validate the reception by NTWCs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages and
access by NTWCs to the tsunami bulletins and other products on the TSP websites.
2.2.1 Reception of TSP Notification Messages
This section contains an analysis of the TSP notifications received by the NTWCs for each
delivery method, based on the information given by NTWCs in the exercise evaluation
survey. ANNEX III and ANNEX IV provide detailed message arrival-times for each TSP
issuing centre and each receiving NTWC.
Page 5
The percentages of NTWCs who received the TSP notification messages are presented for
all arrivals regardless of delivery time and for arrivals only within 15 minutes of being issued
(Table–5). In general, email was the most effective method of communication, followed by
GTS, SMS and then fax.
Java Scenario Makran Scenario

TSP
Email GTS SMS Fax Email GTS SMS Fax
Australia 90% (89%) 78% (76%) 62% (61%) 51% (42%) 92% (92%) 82% (77%) 64% (64%) 58% (53%)
India 83% (83%) 80% (79%) 74% (74%) 39% (33%) 87% (87%) 76% (76%) 65% (64%) 38% (37%)
Indonesia 83% (83%) 73% (72%) 47% (46%) 17% (12%) 87% (86%) 82% (79%) 47% (47%) 21% (19%)
Average 85% (85%) 77% (76%) 61% (60%) 36% (29%) 85% (85%) 89% (89%) 59% (58%) 39% (36%)
Table–5. Percentage of TSP notification messages received by NTWCs for the Java and Makran
scenarios. Messages received anytime are indicated in bold font and messages within 15 minutes of
being issues are shown in parentheses.
Note: TSP Australia reported exercise-specific issues during the Java scenario (arising from
running special manual test procedures) which resulted in a number of its messages being
issued several minutes earlier than the planned times. Also after TSP Australia messages 1
and 2 were issued, the next two messages were incorrectly numbered as 1 and 2, but no
message 3 was issued, and message 4 was issued 34 minutes late. Subsequent TSP
Australia messages were issued at the correct times and with the correct numbering.
 Email
Email was the most effective method of communication in terms of both the number of
messages received and their timeliness. For the Java scenario, the average number of
messages successfully received was 85% (with this figure remaining unchanged when only
messages received within 15 minutes are counted). For the Makran scenario, the average
number of messages successfully received was 89% (with this figure also remaining
unchanged when only messages received within 15 minutes are counted). Refer to ANNEX
III (Java scenario) and ANNEX IV (Makran scenario) for the details of email message receipt
by each NTWC.
All countries received email messages from at least one TSP during the exercise. However,
during the Java scenario, Timor-Leste only received a total of three email messages and two
of these arrived 30 minutes after being issued. During the Makran scenario, Comoros did not
report receiving any email messages and India reported that two email messages arrived
later than 15 minutes after being issued.
TSP Australia Email Messages
For the Java scenario, the average number of email messages successfully received from
TSP Australia was 90% (corrected to 89% if only messages received within 15 minutes are
counted). For the Makran scenario, the average number of messages successfully received
from TSP Australia was 92% (with this figure remaining unchanged when only messages
received within 15 minutes are counted).
All fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving at least one
email message from TSP Australia. Seventeen (17) of the eighteen (18) countries
participating in the Makran scenario reported receiving at least one email message from TSP
Australia with Comoros being the exception.
Page 6
TSP India Email Messages
TSP India was 83% (with this figure remaining unchanged when only messages received
within 15 minutes are counted). For the Makran scenario with this figure was 87% (remaining
unchanged when only messages received within 15 minutes are counted).
Thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one email message from TSP India with Malaysia not receiving any
messages. Sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the Makran scenario
reported receiving at least one email message from TSP India with Comoros and Malaysia
being the exceptions.
TSP Indonesia Email Messages
IOTWS-TSP Indonesia was 83% (with this figure remaining unchanged if only messages
received within 15 minutes are counted). For the Makran scenario, the average number of
email messages successfully received from TSP Indonesia was 87% (corrected to 86% if
only messages received within 15 minutes are counted).
Twelve (12) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one email message from TSP Indonesia with Thailand and Timor-Leste not
receiving any messages. Sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the
Makran scenario reported receiving at least one email message from TSP Indonesia with
Comoros and Pakistan being the exceptions.
 GTS
GTS was the second-most effective method of communication. For the Java scenario, the
average number of messages successfully received was 77% (corrected to 76% if only
number of messages successfully received was 80% (corrected to 77% if only messages
received within 15 minutes are counted). Refer to ANNEX III (Java scenario) and ANNEX IV
(Makran scenario) for the details of GTS message receipt.
For the Java scenario, Madagascar reported that they did not receive any GTS messages
and Timor-Leste reported that they received very few messages. France, Malaysia,
Maldives, Myanmar, Seychelles and Thailand reported one or two messages arrived more
than 15 minutes after being issued.
For the Makran scenario, Iran, Madagascar and Yemen did not receive any GTS messages.
Most of the messages received by Comoros and a couple of the messages received by India
arrived more than 15 minutes after being issued.
The Maldives indicated that the GTS at their end is intermittently faulty. Yemen cannot
receive any GTS messages because of a problem with the cable between Yemen and Saudi
Arabia in Jeddah.
TSP Australia GTS Messages
For the Java scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 78% of
recipients (corrected to 76% if late messages of 15 minutes or more are not counted). For
the Makran scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 82% of
recipients (corrected to 77% if late messages are not counted).
Page 7
Twelve (12) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one GTS message from TSP Australia, with Madagascar and Timor-Leste
not receiving any messages. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the
Makran scenario reported receiving at least one GTS message from TSP Australia, with Iran,
Madagascar and Yemen being the exceptions.
TSP India GTS Messages
For the Java scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP India were received by 80% of
the Makran scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP India were received by 82% of
Thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one GTS message from TSP India, with Madagascar not receiving any
messages. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the Makran scenario
reported receiving at least one GTS message from TSP India, with Iran, Madagascar and
Yemen being the exceptions.
TSP Indonesia GTS Messages
For the Java scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 73% of
the Makran scenario, GTS messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 82% of
Twelve (12) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one GTS message from TSP Indonesia, with Madagascar and Thailand not
receiving any messages. Fifteen (15) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the
Makran scenario reported receiving at least one GTS message from TSP Indonesia, with
Iran, Madagascar and Yemen being the exceptions.
Singapore commented that the GTS header time was incorrect for all messages from TSP
Indonesia.
 SMS
SMS was the third-most effective method of communication. For the Java scenario, the
average number of messages successfully received was 61% (corrected to 60% if only
received within 15 minutes are counted). Refer to ANNEX III (Java scenario) and ANNEX IV
(Makran scenario) for the details of SMS message receipt. Note that France (La Reunion)
has requested not to received SMS, and consequently, is not included in this analysis.
Seychelles reported that SMS messages are only received by the Director of Meteorological
Services who was not in the country on the date of the exercise. Yemen is not able to receive
SMS messages from TSP India or TSP Indonesia.
TSP Australia SMS Messages
For the Java scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 62%
(corrected to 61% if only messages received within 15 minutes are counted). For the Makran
scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 64% of recipients (with
this figure remaining unchanged if late messages are not counted).
Page 8
Ten (10) of the thirteen (13) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving at
least one SMS message from TSP Australia, with Comoros, Myanmar, and Timor-Leste not
receiving any messages. Thirteen (13) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the
Makran scenario reported receiving at least one SMS message from TSP Australia, with
Comoros, Mauritius, Pakistan, South Africa and Tanzania being the exceptions.
TSP India SMS Messages
For the Java scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP India were received by 69% of
recipients (with this figure remaining unchanged if late messages 15 minutes or more are not
counted). For the Makran scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP India were received by
65% of recipients (corrected to 64% if late messages are not counted).
Twelve (12) of the thirteen (13) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving
at least one SMS message from TSP India with Comoros not receiving any messages.
Twelve (12) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the Makran scenario reported
receiving at least one email message from TSP India with Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles,
South Africa, Tanzania and Yemen being the exceptions.
TSP Indonesia SMS Messages
For the Java scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 44% of
the Makran scenario, SMS messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 47% of
recipients (with this figure remaining unchanged if late messages are not counted).
Eight (8) of the thirteen (13) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving at
least one SMS message from TSP Indonesia, with Comoros, Madagascar, Myanmar,
Seychelles and Thailand not receiving any messages. Nine (9) of the eighteen (18) countries
participating in the Makran scenario reported receiving at least one SMS message from TSP
Indonesia, with Comoros, Iran, Madagascar, Mozambique, Pakistan, Seychelles, South
Africa, Tanzania and Yemen being the exceptions.
 Fax
Fax was the least effective method of communication. For the Java scenario, the average
received within 15 minutes are counted). For the Makran scenario, the average number of
messages successfully received was 39% (corrected to 36% if only messages received
within 15 minutes are counted). Refer to ANNEX III (Java scenario) and ANNEX IV (Makran
scenario) for the details of fax message receipt.
France (La Reunion) indicated that there was a problem with their fax machine and only the
first message from TSP Australia was received during the Java scenario. The Maldives did
not receive any fax messages because the machine at their end is faulty. South Africa
indicated that their fax unit was faulty and waiting for repair during the exercise.
TSP Australia Fax Messages
For the Java scenario, fax messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 51% of
the Makran scenario, fax messages issued by TSP Australia were received by 58% of
Page 9
Eleven (11) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported
receiving at least one fax message from TSP Australia, with Comoros, Madagascar, and
Timor-Leste not receiving any messages. Fourteen (14) of the eighteen (18) countries
participating in the Makran scenario reported receiving at least one fax message from TSP
Australia, with Comoros, Madagascar, Pakistan, and South Africa being the exceptions.
TSP India Fax Messages
For the Java scenario, fax messages issued by TSP India were received by 39% of
the Makran scenario, fax messages issued by TSP India were received by 38% of recipients
(corrected to 37% if late messages are not counted).
Nine (9) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving at
least one fax message from TSP India, with Comoros, France (La Reunion), Madagascar,
Seychelles, and Timor-Leste not receiving any messages. Eleven (11) of the eighteen (18)
countries participating in the Makran scenario reported receiving at least one fax message
from TSP India with Comoros, Iran, Madagascar, Mozambique, Pakistan, Seychelles and
South Africa being the exceptions.
TSP Indonesia Fax Messages
For the Java scenario, fax messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 17% of
the Makran scenario, fax messages issued by TSP Indonesia were received by 21% of
Five (5) of the fourteen (14) countries participating in the Java scenario reported receiving at
least one fax message from TSP Indonesia with Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France (La
Reunion), Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Thailand and Timor-Leste not receiving any
messages. Six (6) of the eighteen (18) countries participating in the Makran scenario
reported receiving at least one fax message from TSP Indonesia with Australia, Comoros,
Iran, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Pakistan, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri
Lanka and Tanzania being the exceptions.
2.2.1.1 Comparison with Previous Exercise and Tests

– Message Delivery
Figure–2 below shows the TSP to NTWC message delivery success rates in this exercise
compared with IOWave11 and the regular IOTWS communications tests.
Page 10
Figure 2. TSP to NTWC message delivery success rates

in this exercise compared with IOWave11 and regular IOTWS communication tests.
2.2.2 Access to TSP Websites
This section contains an analysis of access to the tsunami threat information on the TSP
websites by the NTWCs, based on the responses from NTWCs in the exercise evaluation
survey. ANNEX V details which NTWCs were able to access the TSP threat information
during each exercise scenario.
In the Java scenario all but one of the NTWCs were able to access the threat information on
all TSP websites, with Bangladesh being unable to access any of the websites. The overall
success rate of access to TSP websites was 93% in this scenario.
In the Makran scenario, all NTWCs except Oman were able to access the threat information
on all three TSP websites. Oman was unable to access the TSP India website. The overall
success rate of access to TSP websites was 98% in this scenario.
Figure–3 in Section 2.3.1 below shows the NTWC web access and reporting rates in this
exercise compared with IOWave11 and IOTWS Communications Tests.
 Email Delivery:
o Australia: Investigate why Comoros did not receive TSP Australia emails.
o India: Investigate why Comoros and Malaysia did not receive TSP India emails.
o Indonesia: Investigate why Thailand, Timor-Leste, Comoros and Pakistan did

not receive TSP Indonesia emails.
 GTS Delivery:
o Australia: Investigate why Madagascar, Timor-Leste, Iran and Yemen did not
receive TSP Australia GTS messages.
Page 11
o India: Investigate why Madagascar, Iran and Yemen did not receive TSP India
GTS messages.
o Indonesia: Investigate why Madagascar, Thailand, Iran and Yemen did not
receive TSP Indonesia GTS messages.
o Indonesia: Check header time on TSP Indonesia messages. They were all
about 32-33 minutes behind the issue time.
 SMS Delivery:
o Australia: Investigate why Comoros, Myanmar, Timor-Leste, Iran, Yemen,

Mauritius, Pakistan, South Africa and Tanzania did not receive TSP Australia
SMS messages.
o India: Investigate why Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania

and Yemen did not receive TSP India SMS messages.
o Indonesia: Investigate why Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Myanmar,

Madagascar, Thailand, Iran, Mozambique, Pakistan, South Africa, Tanzania
and Yemen did not receive TSP Indonesia SMS messages.
 Fax Delivery:
o Australia: Investigate why Comoros, Madagascar, Pakistan, and South Africa

did not receive TSP Australia fax messages.
o India: Investigate why Comoros, France (La Reunion), Mauritius, Seychelles,

South Africa, Tanzania and Yemen did not receive TSP India fax messages.
o Indonesia: Investigate why Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France (La

Reunion), Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Thailand, Timor-Leste and
several other countries did not receive TSP Indonesia fax messages.
 Access to TSP Websites
o Australia, India, and Indonesia: Investigate why Bangladesh was unable to

access any of the TSP websites in the Java scenario.
o India: Investigate why Oman was unable to access the TSP India website in the
Makran scenario.
2.3 OBJECTIVE 3 –
NTWC REPORTING OF NATIONAL WARNING STATUS
Objective 3: Validate the reporting by NTWCs to the TSPs of their National Tsunami Warning
Status.
2.3.1 Reporting of National Warning Status
This objective was assessed by asking NTWCs which TSP website they reported their status
on, the time of their first status report, the number of status reports sent and the key
information provided in each report (e.g. National Tsunami Warning issued, Cancellation
issued).
Page 12
In the Java scenario, eleven (11) of the fourteen (14) NTWCs reported that they lodged
status reports i.e. 79% of all participating NTWCs. Of these, eight (8) reported their status on
the TSP Australia website, five (5) reported their status on the TSP India website and five (5)
reported their status on the TSP Indonesia website (Table–6). Note that four (4) NTWCs
reported their status on more than one TSP website.
Percent
Number of
Java Scenario (11 of 14 NTWCs reported) TSP of NTWCs
NTWCs
reporting
3(a) What TSP website did the NTWC report its Australia 73% 8
status on? India 45% 5
Indonesia 45% 5
Table–6. NTWC reporting of national warning status during the Java scenario
In the Makran scenario, thirteen (13) of the eighteen (18) NTWCs reported that they lodged
status reports i.e. 72% of all participating NTWCs. Of these, twelve (12) NTWCS reported
their status on the TSP Australia website, one reported their status on the TSP India website,
and none reported their status on the TSP Indonesia website (Table–7).
Percent
Number of
Makran Scenario (13 of 18 NTWCs reported) TSP of NTWCs
NTWCs
reporting
3(a) What TSP website did the NTWC report its Australia 92% 12
status on? India 8% 1
Indonesia 0% 0
Table–7.NTWC reporting of national warning status during the Makran scenario
Details of NTWC reporting of their national warning status for both scenarios are contained in
ANNEX VI (report times and numbers) and ANNEX VII (report contents).
2.3.1.1 Comparison with Previous Exercise and Tests

– Web Access and Reporting
The 79% and 72% rates of NTWC status reporting across the scenarios (i.e. an average of
75.5% reporting) were significantly higher than in recent IOTWS communication tests.
Figure–3 below shows the NTWC web access and reporting rates in this exercise compared
with those in IOWave11 and the IOTWS Communications Tests.
Page 13
Figure 3. NTWC web access and reporting rates in this exercise

compared with IOWave11 and regular IOTWS communication tests.
Another important point to note is that although 11 NTWCs and 13 NTWCs indicated they
reported their warning status in the IOWave14 Java and Makran scenarios respectively, the
TSPs only received status reports from 8 NTWCs (total of 94 reports) and 7 NTWCs (total of
85 reports) in those scenarios. This could indicate a potential technical or procedural problem
with the reporting mechanism (webpage form/email). In the Java scenario status reports
were not received at the TSPs from Bangladesh, Seychelles or Timor-Leste. In the Makran
scenario status reports were not received at the TSPs from Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman,
Seychelles, Tanzania, or Yemen.
 NTWCs need to continue to be encouraged to report their status on a TSP website.

NTWCs also need to be aware that they only need to report their status on a single
TSP website – their status report will then be replicated on the other websites.
NTWCs should report their warning status when their first warning is issued, or if their
warning status is “no threat”, and then after each subsequent warning is issued,
including cancellations.
 TSPs should check the correct operation of the status reporting webpage with each
NTWC who reported that they lodged reports, but whose reports were not received by
the TSPs. These NTWCs are: Bangladesh, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman,
Seychelles, Tanzania, Timor-Leste and Yemen.
Page 14
2.4 OBJECTIVE 4 –
PROCEDURES FOR TSUNAMI WARNING DISSEMINATION
Objective 4: Validate the Standard Operating Procedures within countries for disseminating
tsunami warnings and other threat information to their relevant disaster response agencies.
2.4.1 Standard Operating Procedures

for dissemination of tsunami warnings
This objective was assessed by asking Member States to identify the agency/authority
responsible for dissemination of warning messages to a) the emergency services, b) other
national governmental agencies, c) science agencies/universities, d) the provincial/regional
level of local government, and e) the city/district level of local government. Table–8 and
Figure–4 indicate the relative proportions of responsibility amongst DMOs, NTWCs and other
agencies/authorities for dissemination of warning messages to these five authority levels.
Total
Both Scenarios Percent
Responses
4.1(a) Who is responsible for the dissemination of DMO 55% 21
warning messages to the emergency NTWC 40% 21
services? Other 5% 21
warning messages to other national NTWC 39% 20
governmental agencies? Other 12% 20
warning messages to universities for NTWC 34% 20
assessment? Other 32% 20
warning messages to the provincial / regional NTWC 28% 20
level of local government? Other 28% 20
warning messages to the city / district level of NTWC 13% 20
local government Other 33% 20
Table–8. Relative proportions of responsibility amongst the DMOs, NTWCs and other
agencies/authorities for dissemination of warning messages to response agencies and government.
Page 15
Figure–4. Relative proportions of responsibility amongst the DMO, NTWC and other
agencies/authorities for dissemination of warning messages to response agencies and government.
The results indicate that, on average, the DMO is responsible for the majority (47.5%) of
message dissemination to response agencies and government, the NTWC is responsible for
31% and other agencies/authorities are responsible for 21.5%. When assessing the
responsibility of these organisations against the five types of message recipients, the DMO is
primarily responsible for dissemination to the emergency services (55%), other national
governmental agencies (49%), the provincial/regional level of local government (45%), and
the city/district level of local government (55%). The DMO and the NTWC are equally
responsible for dissemination to science agencies/universities for assessment (34%).
The names of the agencies/authorities responsible for dissemination of warning messages to

response agencies and government in each Member State are listed in ANNEX VIII.
Objective 4 was further assessed by asking NTWCs and/or DMOs if warning messages were
sent to the response agencies and government during the exercise. Table 9 gives the
percentages of Member States that sent messages to the five (5) levels of
agencies/authorities for both the Java and Makran scenarios.
The message delivery details including the number of messages sent/received, timing,
delivery methods, failed deliveries or non-confirmations, and alternative actions, are
contained in ANNEX IX and ANNEX X.
Objective 4 was additionally assessed by asking Member States about the timeliness and
delivery methods of the information issued by their national decision-making and
dissemination point for each scenario (Table–10). The individual Member State responses to
these questions are contained in ANNEX XI.
Page 16
Warning Message Dissemination - % of Member States

that sent messages
Agency/Authority that warning messages
Java Makran
were sent to
Scenario Scenario
4.1(b) Emergency Services 71% 56%
4.2(b) Other National Governmental Agencies 71% 33%
4.3(b) Science Agencies / Universities 21% 17%
4.4(b) Provinicial / Regional Level of Government 64% 33%
4.5(b) City / District Level of Government 57% 22%
Table–9.The percentage of Member States who sent warning messages to response agencies and
government for the Java and Makran scenarios. These percentages are out of a total of 14 countries
for the Java scenario and a total of 18 countries for the Makran scenario.
Percent Total
Both Scenarios Agree Responses
4.6(a) Judged against the nature of this event,
information issued by our national decision-
making and dissemination point was 100% 15
timely.
4.6(b) The methods of communication from our
national decision-making and
disseminationpoint to us were appropriate 100% 15
to support decision-making.
Table–10.Timeliness and delivery methods

of national decision-making and dissemination points.
 Follow-up is needed to establish the status and identify the agencies/authorities

responsible for the dissemination of warning messages in Iran, Mauritius, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka as these counties did not provide this information in the IOWave14
survey.
2.5 OBJECTIVE 5 –
PROCESSES FOR PUBLIC WARNINGS AND EVACUATIONS
Objective 5: Validate the organisational decision-making processes within countries for the
issuing of public warnings and ordering evacuations.
2.5.1 Decision making on warnings and evacuations
This objective was assessed by asking NTWCs and/or DMOs to indicate if public warnings
and ordering evacuations are the responsibility of the NTWC, the national DMO, the
provincial/district DMO, or the local authorities. In total, twenty (20) Member States provided
input. Almost half (46%) of these Member States indicated that their national DMO is
responsible for public warnings and ordering evacuations with the NTWCs (22%),
provincial/district DMOs (19%), and local authorities (13%) assuming lesser proportions of
responsibility (Figure–5). The individual country responses are tabled in ANNEX XII.
Page 17
Figure–5. The relative proportions of responsibility for issuing public warnings and ordering
evacuations among the NTWCs (blue), National DMOs (red), Provincial/District DMO (green), and
local authorities (purple).
Member States were also asked a series of questions to assess their organisational
decision-making processes for the issuing of public warnings and ordering evacuations. The
responses are summarised in the Table–11 and the individual country responses are given in
ANNEX XIII.
Page 18
Percent Total
Both Scenarios
Agree Responses
5(b) Our agency(ies) / authority(ies) responsible for making
decisions on public warnings and evacuations participated 70% 20
in the exercise.
5(c ) National level Standard Operating Procedures are in place.
95% 20
National level Standard Operating Procedures were used
74% 19
for this exercise.
5(d) Local level Standard Operating Procedures are in place. 75% 20
Local level Standard Operating Procedures were used for
53% 15
this exercise.
5(e ) Arrangements to assemble our management group relevant
to decision-making on tsunami warning and response were 89% 19
in place before the exercise.
5(f) Our management group relevant to decision-making on
tsunami warning and response assembled during the 69% 13
exercise.
Time taken to assemble in minutes: variable 6
This was timely to facilitate good decision-making. 100% 9
5(g) The quality of the event information issued by our national
decision-making and dissemination point (e.g. tsunami
93% 14
threat levels and arrival times, evacuation advice) was
sufficient to support local level decision-making.
5(h) The quality of the pre-existing local information available
(e.g. local hazard assessments, inundation maps,
64% 14
evacuation plans etc.) was sufficient to support local level
decision-making.
5(i) The quality of the information received back from our
response agencies and local level government (e.g.
86% 14
situation reports) was sufficient to support national level
decision-making.
5(j) The exercise contributed to the improvement or the
development of planning related to public warnings and
93% 14
other response activities required for an event of this
nature.
Table–10.Organizational decision-making processes for the issuing of public warnings and ordering
evacuations. Note the results of question 5(a) on decision making on warning and evacuations are
presented in Figure–5.
 SOPs are not fully in place for all Member States. Specifically, Kenya should develop
both national level and local level SOPs, and Madagascar, Myanmar, Singapore, and
Timor-Leste should develop local level SOPs.
 A number of countries do not have adequate pre-existing threat information. In

particular local level information such as local hazard assessments, inundation maps,
evacuation plans etc. are lacking or of insufficient quality in Comoros, Kenya,
Tanzania and Yemen. Action should be taken to support and encourage the
preparation of this information.
 Member States should be encouraged to exercise for tsunami threats down to local
level to assess and improve their end-to-end tsunami warning chain. As well as taking
part in the biennial Indian Ocean-wide exercises organised by IOC, countries should
be encouraged to carry out national exercises as appropriate.
Page 19
2.6 OBJECTIVE 6 –
METHODS FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
AND INSTRUCTION
Objective 6: Identify the methods used to notify and instruct the public.
2.6.1 Methods of notifying and instructing the public
This objective was assessed by asking NTWCs and/or DMOs to indicate if public
notifications are the responsibility of the NTWC, the national DMO, the provincial/district
DMO, or local authorities. In total, twenty (20) Member States provided input. Almost half
(46%) of these Member States indicated that their national DMO is responsible for public
notifications with the NTWCs (28%), local authorities (14%), and provincial/district DMOs
(12%) assuming lesser proportions of responsibility (Figure–6). The individual country
responses are tabled in ANNEX XIV.
Figure 6. The relative proportions of responsibility

for issuing public notifications among the Member States.
Objective 6 was further assessed by asking NTWCs and/or DMOs to provide information on
fourteen (14) potential means of notifying and instructing the public. The assessed means of
notification include cell/mobile phone broadcast, SMS/text, landline telephone, email,
facebook, twitter, websites, RSS feeds, police, public announcement system, door-to-door
announcements, public call centre, public radio and public television.
Page 20
Member States were asked if each notification method was used in the exercise, would be
used in a real event, and if procedures exist to use each medium. Figure–7 presents a
summary of the twenty (20) responses received. The individual Member State responses are
contained in ANNEX XV.
Figure–7. Methods of communication. The relative proportions of communications methods that were
used in the exercise (blue), would be used in a real event (red), and have existing procedures for
(green). The percentages are out of a total of twenty (20) Member State responses.
Country comments:
 Australia: The reported communication methods are for the Western Australian local
DMO only.
 Comoros: They informed the local authorities, not the public.
 India: VHF radio was connected to a public address system in coastal villages.
 Oman: They will use all available communication technology.
 Seychelles: Their only siren needs maintenance. Sirens need to be established in

key locations on the first main island as well as the other two main islands of the
country. They are not familiar with the terminology ‘public call centre’.
 Yemen: The television, radio, and police were contacted, but they did not make a
public announcement about the exercise. However, if the event was real, they would
inform the public of the danger and what to do.
Page 21
 Encourage all Member States to further develop procedures for communication

methods that would be used in a real event. In particular:
o Kenya should be encouraged to develop procedures for cell/mobile phone

broadcast;
o Comoros should be encouraged to develop procedures for email and websites;
o Seychelles should be encouraged to develop procedures for cell/mobile phone

broadcast, email and websites;
o Mozambique should be encouraged to develop procedures for email and

websites; and Yemen should be encouraged to develop procedures for public
radio.
2.7 OBJECTIVE 7 –
ELAPSED TIME FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
AND INSTRUCTION
Objective 7: Assess the elapsed time for public notification and instruction.
2.7.1 Elapsed time for public notification and instruction
This objective was assessed by asking all countries that issued a public notification to
provide the elapsed times for making a decision to notify the public (from time of receipt of
tsunami threat advice), formulating/compilating public notification (from time of decision), and
issuing public notification (from time notification formulated).
In the Java scenario, five (5) of the twelve (12) Member States, or 42% that replied, indicated
that a public notification was issued. The elapsed times for notification activities in these
countries (Australia, India, Indonesia, Madagascar and Thailand) are displayed in Table–11.
Java Scenario AUS IN IND MAD THA
7(a) Making a decision to notify the public (from time of

10 12.5 2 15 2
receipt of tsunami threat advice)
Formulating/compiling public notification (from time of
2 10 30 10 2
decision)
Issuing public notification(from time notification
2 12.5 1 5 1
formulated
Total time 14 35 33 30 5
Table–11. Elapsed time in minutes for notification activities during the Java scenario
Country Comments:
 Australia commented that the question of whether a public notification was issued
was not in the exercise manual. The feedback collected was based on the best
estimate for each jurisdiction. The answers provided are for the Western Australian
DMO only.
 Yemen commented that they did not notify the public because they were concerned
about trust and the public not believing the authorities during real events in the future.
Page 22
In the Makran scenario, two (2) of the eleven (11) Member States that replied, or 18%,
indicated that a public notification was issued. Oman commented that its evacuation was
only conducted as a table top exercise. The elapsed times for notification activities in
Seychelles are displayed in Table–12.
Makran Scenario OM SY
7(a) Making a decision to notify the public (from time of

5 20
receipt of tsunami threat advice)
Formulating/compiling public notification (from time of
- 15
decision)
Issuing public notification(from time notification
- 15
formulated
Total time - 50
Table–12. Elapsed time in minutes for notification activities during the Makran scenario
This objective was further assessed by asking all countries that evacuated to provide the
names of the town or community, the time of the evacuation, and the estimated number of
people that evacuated.
In the Java scenario one (1) of the thirteen (13) countries that replied indicated that
evacuations were exercised (India – refer to Table–13). In the Makran scenario one (1) of the
eleven (11) countries that replied indicated that evacuations were exercised (Seychelles –
refer to Table–14).
Java Scenario India - Puducherry India - Odisha
7(c ) Gopalpur (Ganjam District), Singhatala

(Puri District), Tarasahi (Jagatsinghpur
What areas evacuated (name of the town M. Pudukuppam Village of Manapat
District), Nuagaon, Sankhapur, Tarapada
or community)? Revenue Puducherry (UT)
(Kendrapada District), Biras (Bhadrak
District), Kasapala (Balasore District)
7(d) What time did the evacuations occur in
01:00 UTC (06:30 IST) 00:30 UTC (06:00 IST)
each area (specify UTC or local time)?
7(e ) What is the estimated number of people
200 No information from report
that evacuated in each area?
Table–13. Evacuation details during the Java scenario
Makran Scenario Seychelles
7(c) What areas evacuated (name of the town

Anse Boileau district on Mahe island
or community)?
7(d) What time did the evacuations occur in
0752UTC (1152LT)
each area (specify UTC or local time)?
7(e) What is the estimated number of people
50
that evacuated in each area?
Table–14. Evacuation details during the Makran scenario
Country Comments:
 Seychelles commented that the some agencies started to evacuate before the
evacuation order was given as they had prior knowledge that an evacuation would be
exercised. During a real event, agencies will move only when an order is given.
Page 23
 Public education and evacuation drills should be conducted in areas of potential

threat.
3. OVERALL SUCCESS OF THE EXERCISE
The performance indicators were:
(i). The core objectives were exercised, performance evaluated and reported upon.
(ii). The communication between the National Tsunami Warning Centres, Tsunami
Warning Focal Points and information dissemination points within countries at the
onset of a tsunami event were tested and understood.
(iii). Areas where aspects of warnings for a tsunami event can be improved were
identified, both for IOTWS-TSPs and individual countries.
(iv). The exercise supported the establishment, or review of, planning for response to
tsunamis at national and regional/local levels.
The participation rate for the exercise was 100%, with all of the 24 countries with designated
Tsunami Warning Focal Points submitting formal evaluations.
In order to assess the overall success of the exercise, countries were asked their level of
agreement with the following statement, “The exercise planning, conduct, format and style
were satisfactory.” All 24 countries replied, of which 7 (or 29%) strongly agreed, 16 (or 67%)
agreed, and 1 (or 4%) was neutral. The individual country responses are given in ANNEX
XVI.
In addition, countries were asked to comment on the benefits of the exercise as well as
suggest improvements for future exercises.
Reported benefits of the exercise included:
 Testing and validating internal and inter-agency SOPs;
 Strengthening operational collaboration between NTWCs, DMOs and the media;
 Testing the robustness of communication systems;
 Testing in-country model simulations by comparison with TSP results;
 Enhancing NTWC capacity to use the TSP products; and
 Raising overall levels of tsunami awareness.
Suggested improvements for future exercises included:
 Creating/updating Member State tsunami SOPs;
 More training to Member State staff members performing tsunami operations;
 Better inter-agency communication within countries;

Page 24
 Making the TSP products more consistent in format to allow easier comparisons;
 Continued improvement in communication technologies; and
 Having in-country independent IOC observers during exercises
Individual country comments on the benefits of this exercise and suggested improvements
for future exercises are contained in ANNEX XVII and ANNEX XVIII, respectively.
4. REFERENCES
World Bank. 2012. The Great East Japan Earthquake, Knowledge Notes from the
Learning from Megadisasters Project: Executive Summary, 22 p., Washington DC.
Annex I
ANNEX I
MEMBER STATE PARTICIPATION LEVELS
ACTIVITY %Y No. Total AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
IOTWS-TSP messages were received

in a timely manner.
100% 24 24 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Disaster management and emergency
response organisations were involved.
74% 17 23 • • • • • ᵒ ᵒ • • • ᵒ • • • • ᵒ • ᵒ • ᵒ • - • •
Table top or functional exercises were
carried out.
65% 15 23 • • • • • • ᵒ ᵒ • • ᵒ • ᵒ • • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - • •
The provincial or local level participated. 43% 10 23 ᵒ • • • • • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ
Public evacuation drills were conducted. 8% 2 24 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ

Table I–1. Member State Participation Levels*
AUS=Australia, BAN=Bangladesh, COM=Comoros, FR=France (La Reunion), IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar,
MAL=Malaysia, MD=Maldives, MAU=Mauritius, MZ=Mozambique, MM=Myanmar, OM=Oman, PK=Pakistan, SY=Seychelles, SIN=Singapore, SA=South
Africa, SLK=Sri Lanka, TAN=Tanzania, THA=Thailand, TL=Timor-Leste, YEM=Yemen
%Y= percentage answering yes, No. = number of countries answering yes, Total = total responses, ●= yes, ○= no, - = no response
NOTE:
Thailand did not provide full information on their level of participation.
Annex II
ANNEX II
TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

OF TSP NOTIFICATION MESSAGES SENT TO NTWCS
Percent No. Total

Java Scenario TSP AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL
1(a) Judged against the nature of this event, Australia 100% 14 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
information issued by the Tsunami Service India 100% 14 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Provider(s) was timely. Indonesia 93% 13 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • ᵒ •
1(b) The method(s) used by the Tsunami Service Australia 100% 14 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Providers to send bulletins to us were India 100% 14 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
appropriate. Indonesia 100% 14 14 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Table II–1 Timeliness and Delivery Methods
a
of TSP bulletin notification messages sent to NTWCs for the Java scenario* .
Percent No. Total

Makran Scenario TSP AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM
1(a) Judged against the nature of this event, Australia 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
information issued by the Tsunami Service India 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Providers was timely. Indonesia 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1(b) The method(s) used by the Tsunami Service Australia 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Providers to send bulletins to us were India 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
appropriate. Indonesia 94% 17 18 • • • • • • • • • • • ᵒ • • • • • •
Table II–2 Timeliness and Delivery Methods
a
of TSP bulletin notification messages sent to NTWCs for the Makran scenario** .
MM=Myanmar, SY=Seychelles, SIN=Singapore, THA=Thailand, TL=Timor-Leste

**AUS=Australia, COM=Comoros, IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar, MAU=Mauritius, MZ=Mozambique, OM=Oman,
PK=Pakistan, SY=Seychelles, SIN=Singapore, SA=South Africa, SLK=Sri Lanka, TAN=Tanzania, YEM=Yemen
a. %Y= percentage answering yes, No. = number of countries answering yes, Total = total responses, ●= yes, ○= no
Annex III
ANNEX III
MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

FOR THE JAVA SCENARIO
Email
Java Scenario Email Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
2359 Test Start 2359 0000 yes 2358 0000 0003 2359 0000 2358 0000 0004 2359 0000 - 13 93% 13 93%
IOTWS-TSP 0003 Message 1 0004 0003 yes 0003 0004 0008 0010 0003 0003 0040 0010 0004 0004 0019 14 100% 14 100%
AUSTRALIA 0010 Message 2 0010 0010 yes 0010 0010 0015 0033 0010 0010 0011 0036 0011 0011 - 13 93% 12 86%
0124 Message 4 0125 0124 yes 0124 - 0129 0124 0124 0124 0125 0125 0125 0125 - 12 86% 12 86%
0151 Message 5 0151 0151 yes 0151 0151 0156 0151 0151 0151 0151 0151 0152 0152 - 13 93% 13 93%
0250 Message 6 0250 0250 yes 0250 0250 0250 0250 0250 0250 0250 0250 0251 0250 - 13 93% 13 93%
0339 Message 7 0340 0339 yes 0339 0340 0339 0340 0339 0339 0339 0340 0340 0339 - 13 93% 13 93%
0442 Message 8 0443 0450 yes 0442 0442 0442 0443 0442 0442 0441 0443 0443 0443 - 13 93% 13 93%
0544 Message 9 0545 0550 yes 0544 0544 0600 0544 0544 0544 0544 - 0545 0544 - 12 86% 11 79%
0642 Message 10 0642 0645 yes 0642 0642 0642 0642 0642 0642 0642 0642 0643 0642 - 13 93% 13 93%
0750 Message 11 0751 - yes 0750 0750 0750 0751 0750 0750 0750 0751 0751 0751 - 12 86% 12 86%
0851 Message 12 0852 - yes 0852 0851 0851 0852 0852 0851 0852 0852 0852 0852 - 12 86% 12 86%
0950 Message 13 0951 - yes 0951 0950 0950 0951 0951 0950 0951 0951 0951 0952 - 12 86% 12 86%
1050 Message 14 1051 - yes 1050 1050 1050 1051 1050 1050 1050 1051 1051 1050 - 12 86% 12 86%
1150 Message 15 1151 - yes 1150 1150 1150 1151 1150 1150 1150 1151 1151 1151 - 12 86% 90% 12 86% 89%
0000 Test Start 0001 0000 yes 0000 0000 0005 0000 - 0000 0000 - 0001 0000 - 11 79% 11 79%
IOTWS-TSP 0005 Message 1 0008 0006 yes 0006 0006 0011 0006 - 0006 0006 0006 0007 0007 - 12 86% 12 86%
INDIA 0010 Message 2 0012 0011 yes 0010 0010 0015 0011 - 0010 0019 0011 0011 0012 - 12 86% 12 86%
0045 Message 3 0047 0046 yes 0045 0045 0051 0046 - 0045 0045 0045 0046 0045 - 12 86% 12 86%
0100 Message 4 0104 0102 yes 0102 0101 0107 0102 - 0102 0103 0102 0103 0102 - 12 86% 12 86%
0200 Message 5 0202 0200 yes 0200 0159 0205 0200 - 0200 0200 0200 0201 0200 0230 13 93% 12 86%
0300 Message 6 0302 0301 yes 0300 0300 0300 0301 - 0300 0300 0301 0301 0301 0330 13 93% 12 86%
0400 Message 7 0402 0400 yes 0400 0400 0400 0401 - 0400 0400 0400 0401 0401 - 12 86% 12 86%
0500 Message 8 0502 0501 yes 0500 0500 0500 0501 - 0500 0500 0501 0501 0501 - 12 86% 12 86%
0600 Message 9 0602 0602 yes 0600 0600 0544 0601 - 0600 0600 0606 0602 0601 - 12 86% 12 86%
0700 Message 10 0702 - yes 0700 0700 0700 0701 - 0700 0700 0700 0701 0700 - 11 79% 11 79%
0800 Message 11 0802 - yes 0800 0800 0800 0800 - 0800 0800 0800 0801 0800 - 11 79% 11 79%
0900 Message 12 0902 - yes 0900 0900 0900 0901 - 0900 0900 0901 0901 0900 - 11 79% 11 79%
1000 Message 13 1001 - yes 1000 1000 1000 1001 - 1000 1000 1000 1001 1000 - 11 79% 11 79%
1100 Message 14 1101 - yes 1100 1100 1100 1101 - 1100 1100 1101 1101 1100 - 11 79% 11 79%
1200 Message 15 1201 - yes 1200 1200 1200 1201 - 1200 1200 1201 1201 1200 - 11 79% 83% 11 79% 83%
Annex III – Page 2
Java Scenario Email Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0000 Test Start 0000 0000 yes 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 2359 0000 - 0002 - - 11 79% 11 79%
IOTWS-TSP 0006 Message 1 0006 0006 yes 0006 0006 0006 0006 0006 0005 0006 0006 0006 - - 12 86% 12 86%
INDONESIA 0012 Message 2 0012 0012 yes 0012 0011 0013 0012 0012 0012 0012 0012 0013 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0040 Message 3 0040 0040 yes 0040 0039 0042 0040 0040 0039 0040 0040 0040 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0120 Message 4 0120 0120 yes 0120 0120 0120 0120 0120 0119 0120 0120 0120 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0220 Message 5 0220 0220 yes 0220 0220 0220 0220 0220 0219 0220 0220 0221 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0420 Message 6 0421 0420 yes 0421 0420 0420 0421 0421 0420 0421 0421 0422 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0520 Message 7 0521 0521 yes 0521 0520 0520 0520 0520 0519 0520 0520 0520 - - 12 86% 12 86%
0620 Message 8 0621 0620 yes 0620 0620 0620 0621 0620 0619 0620 0620 0621 - - 12 86% 12 86%
1020 Message 9 1021 - yes 1020 1022 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1021 - - 11 79% 11 79%
1150 Message 10 1151 - yes 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1149 1120 1150 1150 - - 11 79% 11 79%
1400 Message 11 1401 - yes 1400 - 1400 1401 1400 1359 1400 1400 1401 - - 10 71% 83% 10 71% 83%
Table III–1 Summary of Email messages received by each NTWC for the Java scenario*
*AUS=Australia, BAN=Bangladesh, COM=Comoros, FR=France (La Reunion), IN=India, IND=Indonesia, AD=Madagascar, MAL=Malaysia, MD=Maldives,
Tot = number of NTWCs who received the message, % = percentage of NTWCs who received the message, Ave = average percentage of NTWCs who
received the messages, * = corrected figure (Tot, %, Ave) that only includes the messages received within 15 minutes of the issue time, - = message not
received or not reported, times highlighted in blue indicate that the message was received more than 15 minutes after being issued.
NOTES:
1. TSP Australia did not send message 3.
2. Comoros did not log the time
GTS
Java Scenario GTS Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
2359 Test Start 2359 0000 yes 0009 2359 2358 - 0000 - 0003 0004 2358 - - 10 71% 10 71%
IOTWS-TSP 0003 Message 1 0004 0008 yes 0032 0004 0003 - 0040 0249 0010 0010 0003 0040 - 12 86% 9 64%
AUSTRALIA 0010 Message 2 0010 0010 yes - 0020 0010 - 0010 - 0033 0036 0010 0010 - 10 71% 8 57%
0124 Message 4 0124 0124 yes 0124 0124 0124 - 0124 - 0124 0125 0124 0125 - 11 79% 11 79%
0151 Message 5 0151 - yes 0150 0151 0151 - 0151 - 0151 0151 0151 0152 - 10 71% 10 71%
0250 Message 6 0250 0250 yes 0250 0250 0250 - 0250 - 0250 0250 0250 0250 - 11 79% 11 79%
0339 Message 7 0339 0339 yes 0339 0340 0339 - 0340 - 0339 0340 0339 0340 - 11 79% 11 79%
0442 Message 8 0442 0448 yes 0442 0443 0442 - 0443 - 0442 0443 0442 0444 - 11 79% 11 79%
0544 Message 9 0544 0544 yes 0544 0545 0544 - 0545 0538 0544 - 0544 0544 - 11 79% 11 79%
0642 Message 10 0642 0645 yes 0642 0643 0642 - 0642 0635 0642 0642 0642 0644 - 12 86% 12 86%
0750 Message 11 0750 - yes 0750 0751 0750 - 0751 0743 0750 0751 0750 0759 - 11 79% 11 79%
0851 Message 12 0851 - yes 0851 0851 0852 - 0852 0844 0852 0852 0852 0853 - 11 79% 11 79%
0950 Message 13 0950 - yes 0950 0951 0951 - 0951 0943 0951 0951 0951 0952 - 11 79% 11 79%
1050 Message 14 1050 - yes 1052 1051 1050 - 1051 1043 1050 1051 1050 1051 - 11 79% 11 79%
1150 Message 15 1150 - yes 1150 1151 1150 - 1151 1143 1150 1151 1150 1152 - 11 79% 78% 11 79% 76%
0000 Test Start 0001 0000 yes 0000 0001 0001 - 0001 - 0001 - 0001 - - 9 64% 9 64%
IOTWS-TSP 0005 Message 1 0007 0005 yes 0007 0007 0008 - 0008 - 0007 0006 0007 0008 0006 12 86% 12 86%
INDIA 0010 Message 2 0011 0012 yes 0010 0011 0011 - 0012 - 0011 0011 0011 0012 0008 12 86% 12 86%
0045 Message 3 0046 0045 yes 0046 0046 0046 - 0047 - 0046 0045 0046 0047 0055 12 86% 12 86%
0100 Message 4 0103 0101 yes 0103 0103 0103 - 0104 - 0103 0102 0103 0104 - 11 79% 11 79%
0200 Message 5 0201 - yes 0200 0201 0201 - 0202 - 0201 0200 0201 0201 0230 11 79% 11 79%
0300 Message 6 0301 0302 yes 0301 0301 0301 - 0302 - 0301 0301 0301 0303 0330 12 86% 12 86%
0400 Message 7 0402 0401 yes 0401 0401 0402 - 0402 - 0402 0400 0402 0403 - 11 79% 11 79%
0500 Message 8 0502 0500 yes 0501 0502 0502 - 0502 - 0502 0501 0502 0505 - 11 79% 11 79%
0600 Message 9 0602 0601 yes 0601 0602 0602 - 0602 0555 0602 0606 0602 0603 - 12 86% 12 86%
0700 Message 10 0701 - yes 0701 0701 0701 - 0702 0654 0701 0700 0701 0701 - 11 79% 11 79%
0800 Message 11 0800 - yes 0800 0801 0801 - 0802 0754 0801 0800 0801 0804 - 11 79% 11 79%
0900 Message 12 0901 - yes 0901 0901 0902 - 0902 0854 0901 0901 0901 0908 - 11 79% 11 79%
1000 Message 13 1001 - yes 1000 1001 1001 - 1001 0954 1001 1000 1001 1002 - 11 79% 11 79%
1100 Message 14 1101 - yes 1101 1101 1101 - 1101 1054 1101 1101 1101 0125 - 11 79% 10 71%
1200 Message 15 1201 - yes 1200 1201 1201 - 1201 1154 1201 1201 1201 0152 - 11 79% 80% 10 71% 79%
Java Scenario GTS Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0000 Test Start 0000 0000 0002 0000 0000 0000 - 0000 - 0000 - 0000 - - 9 64% 9 64%
IOTWS-TSP 0006 Message 1 0006 0006 0009 0005 0003 0006 - 0006 - 0006 0006 0006 - - 10 71% 10 71%
INDONESIA 0012 Message 2 0012 0012 0017 0011 0006 0012 - 0012 - 0012 0012 0012 - 0021 11 79% 11 79%
0040 Message 3 0040 0040 0043 0039 0040 0040 - 0040 - 0040 0040 0040 - 0041 11 79% 11 79%
0120 Message 4 0120 0120 0122 0119 0120 0120 - 0120 0044 0124 0120 0120 - - 11 79% 10 71%
0220 Message 5 0220 0221 0220 0219 0220 0220 - 0220 - 0220 0220 0220 - - 10 71% 10 71%
0420 Message 6 0421 0420 0423 0420 0420 0421 - 0421 - 0421 0421 0421 - - 10 71% 10 71%
0520 Message 7 0520 0525 0522 0520 0520 0520 - 0520 - 0520 0520 0520 - - 10 71% 10 71%
0620 Message 8 0620 0622 0621 0619 0620 0620 - 0620 0613 0620 0620 0620 - - 11 79% 11 79%
1020 Message 9 1020 - 1022 1020 1021 1020 - 1021 1013 1020 1020 1020 - - 10 71% 10 71%
1150 Message 10 1150 - 1122 1149 1151 1150 - 1150 1142 1150 1150 1150 - - 10 71% 10 71%
1400 Message 11 1400 - 1403 1359 - 1400 - 1400 1353 1400 1400 1400 - - 9 64% 73% 9 64% 72%
Table III–2 Summary of GTS messages received by each NTWC for the Java scenario*
*AUS=Australia, BAN=Bangladesh, COM=Comoros, FR=France (La Reunion), IN=India, IND=Indonesia, MAD=Madagascar, MAL=Malaysia, MD=Maldives,
received or not reported, times highlighted in blue indicate that the message was received more than 15 minutes after being issued, empty cells highlighted in
grey indicate that the NTWC did not participate in the exercise at this time and are not included in calculations of % and Ave
NOTES:
1. TSP Australia did not send message 3.
2. Madagascar did not receive any GTS messages.
3. Comoros did not log the time of message arrivals from TSP Australia or TSP India.
SMS
Java Scenario SMS Message No AUS BAN COM IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
2359 Test Start 2359 0000 - 0001 0003 2359 0000 2359 - 0035 2359 - - 9 69% 9 75%
IOTWS-TSP 0003 Message 1 0003 0005 - - 0005 0004 0003 0004 - 0035 0010 0033 - 9 69% 7 58%
AUSTRALIA 0010 Message 2 0010 0012 - - 0010 0010 0035 0010 - 0035 0015 - - 8 62% 7 58%
0124 Message 4 0124 0127 - - 0124 0124 0124 0124 - 0051 0124 - - 8 62% 7 58%
0151 Message 5 0151 0150 - - 0151 0151 0151 0151 - 0151 0151 - - 8 62% 8 67%
0250 Message 6 0250 0252 - - 0250 0250 0250 0251 - 0250 0250 0250 - 9 69% 9 69%
0339 Message 7 0339 0341 - - 0339 0339 0339 0339 - 0340 0339 0340 - 9 69% 9 69%
0442 Message 8 0442 0448 - - 0443 0443 0442 0443 - 0443 0443 0443 - 9 69% 9 69%
0544 Message 9 0544 0551 - - 0545 0544 0549 0544 - 0545 0544 - - 8 62% 8 62%
0642 Message 10 0642 0650 - - 0642 0642 0642 0642 - 0642 0642 - - 8 62% 8 62%
0750 Message 11 0750 - - - 0750 0751 0750 0751 - 0751 0751 - - 7 54% 7 54%
0851 Message 12 0852 - - - 0852 0852 0852 0852 - 0852 0852 - - 7 54% 7 54%
0950 Message 13 0951 - - - 0951 0951 0951 0951 - 0951 0951 - - 7 54% 7 54%
1050 Message 14 1050 - - - 1050 1050 1050 1051 - 1051 1050 - - 7 54% 7 54%
1150 Message 15 1150 - - - 1150 1150 1150 1151 - 1151 1151 - - 7 54% 62% 7 54% 61%
0000 Test Start 0001 0001 - - 0004 0001 0001 0002 0000 - 0001 - 0006 9 69% 9 69%
IOTWS-TSP 0005 Message 1 0008 0007 - 0008 0008 0008 0008 0008 0005 0006 0006 - 0008 11 85% 11 85%
INDIA 0010 Message 2 0011 0016 - 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0010 0011 0012 - - 10 77% 10 77%
0045 Message 3 0046 0045 - 0046 0046 - 0046 0046 0045 0045 0046 - 0055 10 77% 10 77%
0100 Message 4 0102 0101 - 0102 0108 - 0102 0101 0100 0102 0102 0102 - 10 77% 10 77%
0200 Message 5 0200 0200 - 0201 0201 0205 0200 0201 0200 0200 0201 0200 - 11 85% 11 85%
0300 Message 6 0301 0300 - 0301 0301 0301 0301 0302 0300 0301 0301 - - 10 77% 10 77%
0400 Message 7 0402 0401 - 0401 0402 0401 - 0401 0400 0400 0401 0401 - 10 77% 10 77%
0500 Message 8 0501 0501 - 0501 0501 - 0510 0501 0500 0501 0506 - - 9 69% 9 69%
0600 Message 9 0601 0601 - 0601 0602 0631 0610 0602 0600 0606 0601 - - 10 77% 10 77%
0700 Message 10 0701 - - 0701 0701 0701 0701 0701 0700 0700 0701 - - 9 69% 9 69%
0800 Message 11 0812 - - 0813 0813 0813 0813 0813 0800 0800 0813 - - 9 69% 9 69%
0900 Message 12 0905 - - 0903 0905 0905 0905 0905 0900 0901 0922 - - 9 69% 9 69%
1000 Message 13 1004 - - 1008 1005 1004 1004 1004 1000 1000 1004 - - 9 69% 9 69%
1100 Message 14 1103 - - 1103 1103 1103 1103 1103 1100 1101 1103 - - 9 69% 9 69%
1200 Message 15 1204 - - 1204 1204 1201 1204 1203 1200 1201 1205 - - 9 69% 74% 9 69% 74%
Java Scenario SMS Message No AUS BAN COM IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0000 Test Start 0001 0001 - - 0001 - 0002 0001 - - 0002 - - 6 46% 6 46%
IOTWS-TSP 0006 Message 1 0007 0007 - - 0007 - 0008 0007 - - 0008 - 0021 7 54% 6 46%
INDONESIA 0012 Message 2 0013 0015 - - 0014 - 0014 0013 - - 0014 - 0041 7 54% 6 46%
0040 Message 3 0041 0043 - - 0041 - 0042 0041 - - 0042 - - 6 46% 6 46%
0120 Message 4 0121 0120 - - 0121 - 0122 0121 - - 0122 - - 6 46% 6 46%
0220 Message 5 0221 0223 - - 0221 - 0223 0221 - - 0222 - - 6 46% 6 46%
0420 Message 6 0422 0420 - - 0422 - 0422 0422 - - 0423 - - 6 46% 6 46%
0520 Message 7 0521 0524 - - 0521 - 0522 0521 - - 0522 - - 6 46% 6 46%
0620 Message 8 0621 0623 - - 0621 - 0622 0621 - - 0622 - - 6 46% 6 46%
1020 Message 9 1021 - - 1021 1021 - 1022 1021 - - 1022 - - 6 46% 6 46%
1150 Message 10 1151 - - 1151 1151 - 1152 1151 - - 1152 - - 6 46% 6 46%
1400 Message 11 1401 - - 1401 1402 - 1402 1401 - - 1402 - - 6 46% 47% 6 46% 46%
Table III–3 Summary of SMS messages received by each NTWC for the Java scenario*
received or not reported, times highlighted in blue indicate that the message was received more than 15 minutes after being issued
NOTES:
1. TSP Australia did not send message
2. Comoros and France (La Reunion) did not receive any SMS messages.
Fax
Java Scenario Fax Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
2359 Test Start 0005 - - - 0000 0001 - 0010 - - 0004 0010 - - 6 43% 6 46%
IOTWS-TSP 0003 Message 1 0031 0044 - 0035 0013 0013 - 0024 0227 - 0010 0010 0025 - 10 71% 4 31%
AUSTRALIA 0010 Message 2 0032 0046 - - 0014 0014 - 0052 0228 0040 0036 0010 - - 9 64% 3 23%
0124 Message 4 0136 0142 - - 0134 - - 0134 0134 - 0125 0147 0144 - 8 57% 5 38%
0151 Message 5 0201 0210 - - 0156 - - 0202 0204 - 0151 0203 - - 7 50% 6 46%
0250 Message 6 0300 - - - 0257 - - 0257 0303 - 0250 0302 0302 - 7 50% 6 43%
0339 Message 7 0348 0355 - - 0343 0346 - 0348 0355 0353 0340 0348 0346 - 10 71% 8 57%
0442 Message 8 0451 0451 - - 0448 0453 - 0448 0450 0516 0443 0457 0446 - 10 71% 9 64%
0544 Message 9 0553 0550 - - 0550 - - 0555 0552 - - 0557 - - 6 43% 6 43%
0642 Message 10 0650 0651 - - 0647 - - - 0651 0652 0642 0649 - - 7 50% 7 50%
0750 Message 11 0759 - - - 0755 0802 - - 0756 0759 0751 0801 - - 7 50% 7 50%
0851 Message 12 0900 - - - 0851 0900 - - - - 0852 0905 - - 5 36% 5 36%
0950 Message 13 0959 - - - 0955 - - - 0954 - 0951 1002 - - 5 36% 5 36%
1050 Message 14 1058 - - - 1055 - - - - 1105 1051 1059 - - 5 36% 5 36%
1150 Message 15 1201 - - - 1154 1156 - - - - 1151 1202 - - 5 36% 51% 5 36% 42%
0000 Test Start 0002 - - - 0005 0002 - - 0128 - - 0005 - - 5 36% 4 29%
IOTWS-TSP 0005 Message 1 - - - - 0010 0019 - 0005 0043 - - 0012 0015 - 6 43% 5 36%
INDIA 0010 Message 2 0011 - - - 0015 0020 - 0010 0045 - - 0014 0016 - 7 50% 6 43%
0045 Message 3 - 0045 - - 0051 0048 - - 0142 - - - - - 4 29% 3 21%
0100 Message 4 0112 0101 - - 0108 0100 - 0101 - 0121 - 0106 - - 7 50% 6 43%
0200 Message 5 0211 - - - 0159 0310 - 0200 0228 0213 - 0159 0201 - 8 57% 6 43%
0300 Message 6 0310 - - - 0305 - - 0300 0340 - - 0305 0307 - 6 43% 5 36%
0400 Message 7 0410 0400 - - 0446 - - 0400 0517 - - 0404 0447 - 7 50% 4 29%
0500 Message 8 0512 - - - 0507 0555 - - - - - 0505 0504 - 5 36% 4 29%
0600 Message 9 0610 - - - 0607 0656 - - - - - 0604 - - 4 29% 3 21%
0700 Message 10 0711 - - - 0706 - - - 0733 0714 - 0704 - - 5 36% 4 29%
0800 Message 11 0811 - - - 0806 0811 - - - 0807 - 0804 - - 5 36% 5 36%
0900 Message 12 0909 - - - 0906 0956 - - - 0920 - 0904 - - 5 36% 4 29%
1000 Message 13 1010 - - - 1006 1022 - - - 1007 - 1004 - - 5 36% 5 36%
1100 Message 14 1108 - - - 1105 1103 - - - 1107 - - - - 4 29% 4 29%
1200 Message 15 1210 - - - 1207 1215 - - - 1206 - 1205 - - 5 36% 39% 5 36% 33%
Java Scenario Fax Message No AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0000 Test Start - - - - - 0001 - - - - - - - - 1 7% 1 7%
IOTWS-TSP 0006 Message 1 - - - - - 0007 - 0023 - 0039 - 0034 - - 4 29% 1 7%
INDONESIA 0012 Message 2 - - - - - 0013 - 0127 - 0240 - 0047 - - 4 29% 2 14%
0040 Message 3 - - - - - 0041 - - - - - 0155 - - 2 14% 1 7%
0120 Message 4 - - - - - 0122 - - - - - 0155 - - 2 14% 1 7%
0220 Message 5 - - - - - 0221 - - - - - 0256 - - 2 14% 1 7%
0420 Message 6 - - - - 0423 0421 - 0424 - - - 0426 - - 4 29% 4 29%
0520 Message 7 - - - - 0525 0521 - 0527 - - - 0521 - - 4 29% 4 29%
0620 Message 8 - - - - - 0621 - - - - - 0621 - - 2 14% 2 14%
1020 Message 9 - - - - - 1021 - - - - - - - - 1 7% 1 7%
1150 Message 10 - - - - - 1151 - - - - - - - - 1 7% 1 7%
1400 Message 11 - - - - - 1401 - - - - - - - - 1 7% 17% 1 7% 12%
Table III–4. Summary of fax messages received by each NTWC for the Java scenario*
received the messages, * = corrected figure (Tot, %, Ave), only including the messages received within 15 minutes of the issue time, - = message not received
or not reported, times highlighted in blue indicate that the message was received more than 15 minutes after being issued
NOTES:
1. TSP Australia did not send message
2. Comoros and Timor-Leste did not receive any fax messages.
Annex IV
ANNEX IV
MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

FOR THE MAKRAN SCENARIO
Email
Makran Scenario Email Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0559 - 0558 0606 0559 0558 0559 0600 0600 - 0558 0558 - 0559 0601 - 0600 0558 14 78% 14 78%
IOTWS-TSP 0608 Message 1 0608 - 0608 0609 0608 0608 0608 0608 0609 0608 0608 0608 0608 0609 0609 0608 0608 0608 17 94% 17 94%
AUSTRALIA 0610 Message 2 0610 - 0610 0615 0610 0610 0610 0610 0613 0610 0610 0610 0610 0611 0610 - 0610 0610 16 89% 16 89%
0615 Message 3 0615 - 0615 0620 0615 0615 0615 0615 0617 0615 0615 0615 0615 0616 0615 - 0615 0615 16 89% 16 89%
0650 Message 4 0651 - 0651 0655 0650 0650 0615 0650 0651 0650 0650 0650 0651 0651 0651 0650 0650 0650 17 94% 17 94%
0750 Message 5 0750 - 0751 0755 0750 0750 0750 0750 - 0750 0750 0750 0750 0751 0751 0750 0750 0750 16 89% 16 89%
0850 Message 6 0850 - 0912 0855 0850 0850 0850 0850 0851 0850 0850 0850 0851 0851 0851 0850 0850 0850 17 94% 16 89%
0950 Message 7 0951 - 0950 0955 0950 0950 0950 0950 0951 0950 0950 0950 0951 0951 0951 0951 0951 0950 17 94% 17 94%
1050 Message 8 1051 - 1050 1055 1050 1050 1050 1050 1051 1050 1050 1050 1051 1051 1051 1050 1050 1050 17 94% 17 94%
1150 Message 9 1151 - 1151 1155 1150 1150 1151 1151 1151 1150 1150 1150 1150 1151 1151 1151 1150 1150 17 94% 17 94%
1250 Message 10 1251 - 1251 1255 1250 1250 1250 1250 1251 1250 1250 1250 1250 1251 1251 1250 1250 16 94% 16 94%
1350 Message 11 1351 - 1351 1355 1350 1350 1350 1350 1351 1350 1350 1350 1351 1351 1351 1350 1350 16 94% 16 94%
1450 Message 12 1451 - 1451 1456 1450 1450 1451 1451 1451 1450 1450 1450 1451 1451 1451 1450 1450 16 94% 16 94%
1550 Message 13 1551 - 1554 1555 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1550 1551 1551 1550 1550 16 94% 16 94%
1650 Message 14 1651 - 1652 1655 1650 1650 1650 1650 1651 1650 1650 1650 1651 1651 1651 1620 1650 16 94% 16 94%
1750 Message 15 1751 - 1752 1755 1750 1750 1750 1750 1751 1750 1750 1750 1751 1751 1751 1750 1750 16 94% 92% 16 94% 92%
0600 Test Start 0603 - 0600 0608 0601 0600 0601 - 0603 - 0600 0601 - 0601 0603 - 0600 0600 13 72% 13 72%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 0608 - 0605 0609 0606 0606 0606 - 0609 0606 0606 0606 0606 0606 0608 - 0606 0606 15 83% 15 83%
INDIA 0610 Message 2 0613 - 0610 0616 0610 0610 0611 - 0613 0610 0610 0611 0611 0611 0613 0611 0610 0610 16 89% 16 89%
0645 Message 3 0646 - 0645 0651 0645 0645 0646 - 0647 0645 0645 0646 0645 0646 0646 0645 0645 0645 16 89% 16 89%
0700 Message 4 0703 - 0702 0702 0701 0701 0702 - 0704 0701 0701 0701 0701 0702 0703 0701 0701 701 16 89% 16 89%
0800 Message 5 0802 - 0800 0807 0801 0801 0802 - 0803 0801 0801 0801 0801 0801 0802 0801 0801 0801 16 89% 16 89%
0900 Message 6 0902 - 0900 0906 0900 0900 0901 - 0903 0900 0900 0900 0900 0901 0916 0900 0901 0900 16 89% 16 89%
1000 Message 7 1003 - 1000 1006 1000 1000 1001 - 1003 1000 1000 1000 1000 1001 1002 1000 1001 1000 16 89% 16 89%
1100 Message 8 1102 - 1101 1106 1100 1100 1100 - 1102 1100 1100 1100 1100 1101 1102 1100 1100 1100 16 89% 16 89%
1200 Message 9 1202 - 1201 1206 1200 1200 1201 - 1202 1200 1200 1200 1201 1201 1202 1201 1200 1200 16 89% 16 89%
1300 Message 10 1303 - 1301 1308 1300 1300 1301 - 1301 1300 1300 1300 1301 1301 1303 1301 1300 15 88% 15 88%
1400 Message 11 1402 - 1401 1406 1400 1400 1401 - 1403 1400 1400 1400 1401 1401 1402 1400 1400 15 88% 15 88%
1500 Message 12 1502 - 1502 1507 1500 1501 1501 - 1501 1500 1500 1501 1501 1501 1502 1500 1500 15 88% 15 88%
1600 Message 13 1602 - 1602 1606 1600 1601 1601 - 1601 1600 1600 1600 1601 1601 1602 1600 1600 15 88% 15 88%
1700 Message 14 1703 - 1702 1704 1700 1702 1701 - 1701 1700 1700 1700 1701 1702 1703 1700 1700 15 88% 15 88%
1800 Message 15 1804 - 1803 1808 1801 1802 1802 - 1802 1801 1801 1800 1802 1802 1804 1801 1800 15 88% 87% 15 88% 87%
Annex IV – Page 2
Makran Scenario Email Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0600 - 0600 0602 0600 0600 0600 0600 0601 - 0600 - - 0600 0601 0600 0600 0600 14 78% 14 78%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 0607 - 0607 0606 0606 0606 0606 0606 - 0606 0606 - 0606 0607 0607 0606 0606 0606 15 83% 15 83%
INDONESIA 0610 Message 2 0611 - 0610 0613 0610 0610 0610 0610 0613 0610 0610 - 0610 0611 - 0610 0610 0610 15 83% 15 83%
0640 Message 3 0641 - 0640 0640 0640 0640 0640 0640 0641 0640 0640 - 0640 0640 0641 0640 0640 0640 16 89% 16 89%
0715 Message 4 0716 - 0912 0720 0715 0715 0715 0715 0716 0715 0715 - 0715 0716 0716 0715 0715 0715 16 89% 15 83%
0815 Message 5 0816 - 0827 0819 0815 0815 0815 0815 0816 0815 0815 - 0815 0815 0816 0815 0815 0815 16 89% 16 89%
0915 Message 6 0916 - 0917 0915 0915 0915 0915 0915 0915 0915 0915 - 0915 0916 0902 0915 0915 0915 16 89% 16 89%
1115 Message 7 1116 - 1116 1118 1115 1115 1115 1115 1116 1115 1115 - 1115 1116 1116 1115 1115 1115 16 89% 16 89%
1315 Message 8 1316 - 1316 1319 1315 1315 1315 1315 1316 1315 1315 - 1315 1316 1316 1315 1315 15 88% 15 88%
1615 Message 9 1616 - 1615 1615 1615 1615 1615 1615 1615 1615 1615 - 1615 1615 1616 1615 1615 15 88% 15 88%
1815 Message 10 1816 - 1815 1817 1815 1815 1815 1815 1815 1815 1815 - 1815 1816 1816 1815 1815 15 88% 15 88%
2000 Message 11 2001 - 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2000 2000 2000 2000 - 2000 2001 2001 2100 2000 15 88% 87% 15 88% 86%
Table IV–1. Summary of email messages received by each NTWC for the Makran scenario*
AUS=Australia, COM=Comoros, IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar, MAL=Malaysia, MAU=Mauritius, MZ=Mozambique,
OM=Oman, PK=Pakistan, SY=Seychelles, SIN=Singapore, SA=South Africa, SLK=Sri Lanka, TAN=Tanzania, YEM=Yemen
NOTES:
1. Comoros did not receive any email messages.
2. Sri Lanka stopped participating in the exercise around 1230 UTC.
Annex IV – Page 3
GTS
Makran Scenario GTS Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0559 0618 0559 0559 - 0558 - 0600 0600 - 0558 0559 - 0558 0559 0600 0600 - 13 72% 12 67%
IOTWS-TSP 0608 Message 1 0608 0618 0608 0608 - 0608 - 0608 0609 0608 0608 0608 0608 0608 0608 0610 0609 - 15 83% 15 83%
AUSTRALIA 0610 Message 2 0610 0627 0610 0610 - 0610 - 0610 0611 0610 0613 0611 0610 0610 0610 0612 0610 - 15 83% 14 78%
0615 Message 3 0615 0632 0615 0615 - 0615 - 0615 0616 0615 0615 0616 0615 0615 0615 0617 0615 - 15 83% 15 83%
0650 Message 4 0650 0707 0650 0650 - 0650 - 0652 0651 0650 0650 0651 0651 0650 0650 0651 0651 - 15 83% 14 78%
0750 Message 5 0750 0806 0751 0750 - 0750 - 0751 0754 0750 0750 0751 0750 0750 0750 0752 0751 - 15 83% 14 78%
0850 Message 6 0850 0908 0850 0850 - 0850 - 0850 0851 0850 0850 0851 0851 0850 0851 0852 0851 - 15 83% 14 78%
0950 Message 7 0950 1008 0951 0950 - 0950 - 0950 0951 0950 0950 0951 0951 0950 0950 0952 0951 - 15 83% 14 78%
1050 Message 8 1050 1108 1050 1050 - 1050 - 1050 1051 1050 1050 1053 1051 1050 1050 1052 1051 - 15 83% 14 78%
1150 Message 9 1150 1207 1151 1150 - 1150 - 1150 1151 1150 1150 1151 1150 1150 1150 1152 1152 - 15 83% 14 78%
1250 Message 10 1250 1308 1251 1250 - 1250 - 1250 1251 1250 1250 1251 1250 1250 1250 1251 - 14 82% 13 76%
1350 Message 11 1350 1406 1351 1350 - 1350 - 1350 1351 1350 1350 1351 1351 1350 1350 1351 - 14 82% 13 76%
1450 Message 12 1450 1507 1451 1450 - 1450 - 1450 1451 1450 1450 1451 1451 1450 1450 1451 - 14 82% 13 76%
1550 Message 13 1550 1607 1551 1550 - 1550 - 1550 1551 1550 1550 1551 1550 1550 1550 1551 - 14 82% 13 76%
1650 Message 14 1650 1707 1651 1650 - 1650 - 1650 1651 1650 1650 1651 1651 1650 1650 1651 - 14 82% 13 76%
1750 Message 15 1750 1806 1751 1750 - 1750 - 1750 1754 1750 1750 1751 1751 1750 1750 1751 - 14 82% 82% 13 76% 77%
0600 Test Start 0602 - 0602 0603 - 0604 - 0600 0603 - 0602 0603 0602 0604 0605 0600 - 12 71% 12 71%
INDIA 0610 Message 2 0612 0628 0642 0612 - 0612 - 0612 0613 0614 0613 0613 0611 0612 0612 0614 0614 - 15 83% 13 72%
0645 Message 3 0646 0702 0646 0646 - 0646 - 0648 0647 0650 0646 0646 0645 0646 0646 0648 0647 - 15 83% 14 78%
0700 Message 4 0702 0717 0702 0702 - 0702 - 0702 0704 0707 0702 0703 0701 0702 0702 0704 0704 - 15 83% 14 78%
0800 Message 5 0802 0818 0800 0802 - 0802 - 0802 0803 0806 0802 0806 0801 0802 0802 0804 0803 - 15 83% 14 78%
0900 Message 6 0902 0918 0900 0902 - 0902 - 0901 0903 0906 0902 0903 0900 0902 0902 0904 0903 - 15 83% 14 78%
1000 Message 7 1002 1018 1002 1002 - 1002 - 1002 1003 1000 1002 1009 1000 1002 1002 1004 1003 - 15 83% 14 78%
1100 Message 8 1101 1117 1101 1101 - 1101 - 1102 1102 1106 1101 1102 1100 1101 1102 1103 1102 - 15 83% 14 78%
1200 Message 9 1201 1217 1201 1201 - 1201 - 1202 1202 1206 1201 1203 1201 1201 1201 1203 1202 - 15 83% 14 78%
1300 Message 10 1302 1317 1301 1302 - 1302 - 1302 1304 1307 1302 1303 1301 1302 1302 1304 - 14 82% 13 76%
1400 Message 11 1401 1416 1401 1402 - 1402 - 1402 1402 1407 1402 1402 1401 1401 1402 1403 - 14 82% 13 76%
1500 Message 12 1502 1517 1502 1502 - 1502 - 1503 1503 1507 1502 1502 1501 1502 1503 1503 - 14 82% 13 76%
1600 Message 13 1602 1618 1602 1602 - 1602 - 1602 1602 1603 1602 1602 1601 1602 1602 1603 - 14 82% 13 76%
1700 Message 14 1702 1718 1702 1702 - 1702 - 1702 1703 1707 1702 1703 1701 1702 1702 1703 - 14 82% 13 76%
1800 Message 15 1802 1816 1833 1803 - 1803 - 1802 1804 - 1803 1804 1802 1803 1803 1805 - 13 76% 82% 11 65% 76%
Annex IV – Page 4
Makran Scenario GTS Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0600 - 0600 0600 - 0600 - 0600 0601 - 0600 0604 - 0600 0600 0602 0600 - 12 67% 12 67%
INDONESIA 0610 Message 2 0610 0626 0611 0610 - 0610 - 0611 0611 0610 0613 0611 0610 0610 0610 0612 0612 - 15 83% 14 78%
0640 Message 3 0640 0655 0640 0640 - 0640 - 0640 0641 0640 0640 0641 0640 0640 0640 0642 0641 - 15 83% 15 83%
0715 Message 4 0715 0730 0715 0715 - 0715 - 0715 0716 0715 0715 0716 0715 0715 0715 0717 0717 - 15 83% 15 83%
0815 Message 5 0815 0830 0815 0815 - 0815 - 0816 0816 0815 0815 0820 0815 0815 0815 0817 0816 - 15 83% 15 83%
0915 Message 6 0915 0931 0915 0915 - 0915 - 0915 0915 0915 0915 0918 0915 0915 0915 0917 0915 - 15 83% 14 78%
1115 Message 7 1115 1132 1115 1115 - 1115 - 1115 1116 1115 1115 1117 1115 1116 1115 1117 1118 - 15 83% 14 78%
1315 Message 8 1315 1330 1316 1315 - 1315 - 1315 1316 1315 1315 1316 1315 1315 1315 1316 - 14 82% 14 82%
1615 Message 9 1615 1630 1615 1615 - 1615 - 1615 1616 1615 1615 1616 1615 1615 1615 1616 - 14 82% 14 82%
1815 Message 10 1815 1831 1815 1815 - 1815 - 1815 1816 1815 1815 1816 1815 1815 1815 1816 - 14 82% 13 76%
2000 Message 11 2000 2031 2000 2000 - 2000 - 2000 2001 2000 2000 2001 2000 2000 2000 2001 - 14 82% 82% 13 76% 79%
Table IV–2. Summary of GTS messages received by each NTWC for the Makran scenario*
*AUS=Australia, COM=Comoros, IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar, MAL=Malaysia, MAU=Mauritius, MZ=Mozambique,
NOTES:
1. Iran, Madagascar and Yemen did not receive any GTS messages.
Annex IV – Page 5

SMS
Makran Scenario SMS Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0559 - 0559 0559 - 0558 0559 0600 - - 0559 - - 0559 - 0559 - 0600 10 56% 10 56%
IOTWS-TSP 0608 Message 1 0608 - - 0608 0609 0608 0608 0608 - 0609 0608 - 0608 0610 - 0608 - 0608 12 67% 12 67%
AUSTRALIA 0610 Message 2 0610 - - 0610 0611 0610 0610 0610 - 0611 0610 - 0610 0612 - 0610 - 0610 12 67% 12 67%
0615 Message 3 0615 - - 0615 0616 0615 0615 0615 - 0616 0615 - 0615 0615 - 0615 - 0616 12 67% 12 67%
0650 Message 4 0650 - - 0650 0651 0650 0650 0650 - 0651 0650 - 0651 0650 - 0651 - 0645 12 67% 12 67%
0750 Message 5 0750 - - 0750 0751 0750 0750 0750 - 0751 0750 - 0750 0750 - 0750 - 0750 12 67% 12 67%
0850 Message 6 0850 - - 0850 0851 0850 0850 0850 - 0852 0850 - 0850 0850 - 0850 - 0850 12 67% 12 67%
0950 Message 7 0950 - 0950 0950 0952 0950 0950 0950 - 0952 0950 - 0951 0950 - 0951 - - 12 67% 12 67%
1050 Message 8 1050 - - 1050 1051 1050 1050 1050 - 1052 1050 - 1051 1050 - 1051 - - 11 61% 11 61%
1150 Message 9 1150 - 1150 1151 1151 1150 1150 1151 - 1152 1151 - 1150 1151 - 1151 - - 12 67% 12 67%
1250 Message 10 1250 - - 1251 1251 1250 1250 1250 - 1251 1250 - 1250 1250 - - - 10 59% 10 59%
1350 Message 11 1350 - 1350 1350 1351 1350 1350 1350 - 1352 1350 - 1351 1350 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1450 Message 12 1450 - 1451 1450 1451 1450 1451 1451 - 1452 1450 - 1451 1451 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1550 Message 13 1550 - - 1550 1551 1550 1550 1550 - 1552 1550 - 1550 1550 - - - 10 59% 10 59%
1650 Message 14 1650 - 1650 1650 1648 1650 1650 1650 - 1651 1650 - 1651 1650 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1750 Message 15 1750 - 1750 1750 1749 1750 1750 1750 - 1752 1705 - 1751 1750 - - - 11 65% 64% 11 65% 64%
0600 Test Start 0602 - 0602 0602 - 0600 0602 0602 - - 0602 0602 - 0602 - 0602 - - 10 56% 10 56%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 0607 - 0606 0608 0608 0635 0607 0607 - 0606 0607 0606 - 0607 - 0609 - - 12 67% 12 67%
INDIA 0610 Message 2 0612 - 0611 0612 0613 0610 - 0611 - 0610 0611 0611 - 0613 - 0611 - - 11 61% 11 61%
0645 Message 3 0646 - 0646 0646 0647 0645 0646 0646 - 0647 0646 0646 - 0646 - 0646 - - 12 67% 12 67%
0700 Message 4 0702 - 0702 0702 0702 0700 0702 0702 - 0703 0702 0701 - 0702 - 0707 - - 12 67% 12 67%
0800 Message 5 0801 - 0801 0801 0802 0800 0801 0801 - 0803 0801 0801 - 0801 - 0801 - - 12 67% 12 67%
0900 Message 6 0900 - 0901 0901 0902 0900 0901 0901 - 0902 0901 0901 - 0901 - 0901 - - 12 67% 12 67%
1000 Message 7 1001 - 1001 1001 1002 1000 1001 1001 - 1003 1001 1002 - 1001 - 1001 - - 12 67% 12 67%
1100 Message 8 1100 - 1101 1101 1102 1100 1100 1101 - 1102 1101 1101 - 1101 - 1101 - - 12 67% 12 67%
1200 Message 9 1201 - 1201 1201 1202 1200 1201 1216 - 1203 1201 1201 - 1201 - 1201 - - 12 67% 11 61%
1300 Message 10 1301 - 1301 1301 1302 1300 1301 1316 - 1302 1301 1302 - 1301 - - - 11 65% 10 59%
1400 Message 11 1401 - 1401 1401 1402 1400 1401 1415 - 1402 1401 1401 - 1402 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1500 Message 12 1501 - 1507 1501 1502 1500 1501 1501 - 1503 1501 1502 - 1501 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1600 Message 13 1601 - 1601 1601 1602 1600 1601 1601 - 1603 1601 1601 - 1601 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1700 Message 14 1702 - 1701 1820 1700 1701 1701 1701 - 1702 1701 1702 - 1701 - - - 11 65% 11 65%
1800 Message 15 1802 - 1804 1802 1800 1801 1802 1802 - 1803 1802 1801 - 1802 - - - 11 65% 65% 11 65% 64%
Annex IV – Page 6
Makran Scenario SMS Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0601 - 0601 0601 - 0600 - 0602 0602 - 0602 - - 0602 - 0603 - - 9 50% 9 50%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 0607 - - 0608 - 0606 - 0608 0608 - 0608 - - 0607 - 0609 - - 8 44% 8 44%
INDONESIA 0610 Message 2 0611 - - 0611 - 0610 - 0612 0613 - 0613 - - 0612 - 0614 - - 8 44% 8 44%
0640 Message 3 0641 - - 0641 - 0640 - 0642 0642 - 0642 - - 0642 - 0642 - - 8 44% 8 44%
0715 Message 4 0716 - - 0716 - 0715 - 0717 0717 - 0717 - - 0717 - 0718 - - 8 44% 8 44%
0815 Message 5 0816 - 0816 0816 - 0815 - 0818 0817 - 0817 - - 0817 - 0818 - - 9 50% 9 50%
0915 Message 6 0916 - 0916 0919 - 0915 - 0917 0917 - 0917 - - 0917 - 0918 - - 9 50% 9 50%
1115 Message 7 1116 - 1116 1119 - 1115 - 1117 1117 - 1117 - - 1117 - 1118 - - 9 50% 9 50%
1315 Message 8 1316 - 1316 1316 - 1315 - 1317 1317 - 1317 - - 1317 - - - 8 47% 8 47%
1615 Message 9 1616 - 1616 1616 - 1615 - 1617 1617 - 1617 - - 1617 - - - 8 47% 8 47%
1815 Message 10 1816 - 1816 1816 - 1815 - 1817 1817 - 1817 - - 1817 - - - 8 47% 8 47%
2000 Message 11 2001 - 2001 2001 - 2000 - 2002 2002 - 2002 - - 2002 - - - 8 47% 47% 8 47% 47%
Table IV–3. Summary of fax messages received by each NTWC for the Makran scenario*
NOTES:
1. Comoros, South Africa and Tanzania did not receive any GTS messages.
Annex IV – Page 7
Fax
Makran Scenario Fax Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start 0605 - 0612 - - 0600 - 0603 0605 0605 0610 - - 0615 - 0600 0600 600 11 61% 11 61%
IOTWS-TSP 0608 Message 1 0624 - 0629 - - 0609 - 0622 0613 0628 0611 - 0608 0621 - 0616 0609 610 12 67% 9 50%
AUSTRALIA 0610 Message 2 0625 - 0629 0645 - 0611 - 0623 0614 0629 0612 - 0610 0621 - 0617 0633 - 12 67% 8 44%
0615 Message 3 0626 - 0629 0646 0726 0616 - 0623 - 0630 0615 - 0615 0621 - 0618 0635 - 12 67% 9 50%
0650 Message 4 0705 - 0703 - - 0651 - 0702 0646 0706 0656 - 0651 0708 - 0703 0700 - 11 61% 9 50%
0750 Message 5 0805 - 0822 - - 0751 - 0801 0756 0803 0753 - 0750 0811 - 0753 0800 0750 12 67% 12 67%
0850 Message 6 0859 - 0855 0904 - 0851 - 0855 0855 0904 0853 - 0851 0903 - 0853 0851 - 12 67% 12 67%
0950 Message 7 0958 - 0956 - - 0951 - - 0951 0959 1009 - 0951 1005 - 0953 0951 - 10 56% 9 50%
1050 Message 8 1058 - 1055 - 1103 1051 - - - 1102 1050 - 1051 1101 - 1056 1051 - 10 56% 10 56%
1150 Message 9 1158 - 1155 - 1217 1151 - - - 1158 1210 - 1150 1202 - 1152 1152 - 10 56% 9 50%
1250 Message 10 1253 - 1255 - - 1251 - - - 1301 1258 - 1250 1300 - 1251 - 8 47% 8 47%
1350 Message 11 1355 - 1355 1458 - 1351 - - - 1357 1403 - 1351 1359 - 1351 - 9 53% 8 47%
1450 Message 12 1501 - 1452 - - 1451 - - - 1500 1451 - 1451 1505 - 1452 - 8 47% 8 47%
1550 Message 13 1557 - 1552 - 1613 1551 - - 1554 1603 1550 - 1550 - - 1551 - 9 53% 9 53%
1650 Message 14 1654 - 1656 1705 - 1651 - - - 1658 1658 - 1651 1710 - 1651 - 9 53% 8 47%
1750 Message 15 1754 - 1755 1817 - 1751 - - 1758 1802 1750 - 1751 1800 - 1756 - 10 59% 58% 10 59% 53%
0600 Test Start 0612 - 0611 0602 - 0605 - 0600 - - 0608 - - 0607 - - - 0600 8 44% 8 44%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 0617 - 0613 0608 - 0608 - 0605 0611 - 0614 - - 0612 - 0614 - - 9 50% 9 50%
INDIA 0610 Message 2 0623 - 0619 0614 - 0612 - 0645 - - 0620 - - - - 0619 - 0610 8 44% 7 39%
0645 Message 3 0654 - 0651 - - 0645 - - - - 0651 - - 0650 - 0651 0645 - 7 39% 7 39%
0700 Message 4 0711 - 0707 0703 - 0702 - - - - 0708 - - - - - - 0700 6 33% 6 33%
0800 Message 5 0809 - 0806 - - 0803 - - - - 0806 - - 0805 - 0806 0800 0800 8 44% 8 44%
0900 Message 6 0910 - - 0906 - 0903 - - 0906 - - - - 0905 - 0906 - - 6 33% 6 33%
1000 Message 7 - - 1003 - - 1003 - - 1005 - 1006 - - - - 1006 1001 - 6 33% 6 33%
1100 Message 8 1110 - 1106 1107 - 1102 - - 1106 - 1106 - - 1105 - 1106 - - 8 44% 8 44%
1200 Message 9 1211 - 1207 - - 1201 - - 1207 - 1208 - - - - 1206 - - 6 33% 6 33%
1300 Message 10 - - 1308 1303 - 1303 - - 1307 - 1308 - - 1306 - - - 6 35% 6 35%
1400 Message 11 1405 - - - - 1403 - - - - 1406 - - 1404 - - - 4 24% 4 24%
1500 Message 12 1506 - - - - 1502 - - 1503 - 1507 - - - - - - 4 24% 4 24%
1600 Message 13 1606 - 1606 1607 - 1602 - - 1607 - 1607 - - 1606 - - - 7 41% 7 41%
1700 Message 14 1707 - 1708 - - 1703 - - 1704 - 1708 - - 1706 - - - 6 35% 6 35%
1800 Message 15 1808 - 1808 1807 - 1803 - - 1808 - 1809 - - 1807 - - - 7 41% 38% 7 41% 37%
Annex IV – Page 8
Makran Scenario Fax Message No AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM Tot % Ave Tot* %* Ave*
0600 Test Start - - - 0601 - 0601 - 0606 - - - - - - - - - 0600 4 22% 4 22%
IOTWS-TSP 0605 Message 1 - - 0620 0605 - 0607 - 0606 - - - - - 0605 - - - 0605 6 33% 6 33%
INDONESIA 0610 Message 2 - - 0648 0611 - 0611 - 0648 - - - - - 0616 - - - 0610 6 33% 4 22%
0640 Message 3 - - 0716 0641 - 0640 - - - - - - - 0642 - - - 0640 5 28% 4 22%
0715 Message 4 - - 0740 0716 - 0715 - - - - - - - 0719 - - - 0715 5 28% 4 22%
0815 Message 5 - - 0810 0816 - 0815 - - - - - - - 0815 - - - 0815 5 28% 4 22%
0915 Message 6 - - - 0916 - 0915 - - - - - - - - - - - 0915 3 17% 3 17%
1115 Message 7 - - - 1116 - 1115 - - - - - - - - - - - 1115 3 17% 3 17%
1315 Message 8 - - - 1316 - 1316 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 12% 2 12%
1615 Message 9 - - - 1616 - 1615 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 12% 2 12%
1815 Message 10 - - - 1816 - 1815 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 12% 2 12%
2000 Message 11 - - - 2001 - 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 12% 21% 2 12% 19%
Table IV–4. Summary of fax messages received by each NTWC for the Makran scenario*
NOTES:
1. Comoros, Madagascar, Pakistan and South Africa did not receive any fax messages.
2. Sri Lanka stopped participating in the exercise around 1230 UTC
Annex V
ANNEX V
NTWC ACCESS TO TSUNAMI THREAT

INFORMATION ON TSP WEBSITES
Java Scenario IOTWS-TSP %Y No. Total AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL
2(d) Was the tsunami threat information Australia 93% 13 14 • ᵒ • • • • • • • • • • • •

available on the IOTWS-TSPs websites? India 92% 12 13 • ᵒ • • • • • • • • • • - •
Indonesia 93% 13 14 • ᵒ • • • • • • • • • • • •
Table V–1 NTWC access to TSP websites for the Java scenario*
Makran Scenario IOTWS-TSP %Y No. Total AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM
2(d) Was the tsunami threat information Australia 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

available on the IOTWS-TSPs websites? India 94% 17 18 • • • • • • • • • • ᵒ • • • • • • •
Indonesia 100% 18 18 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Table V–2 NTWC access to TSP websites for the Makran scenario*
* %Y= percentage answering yes, No. = number of countries answering yes, Total = total responses, ●= yes, ○= no, - = no response
Annex VI
ANNEX VI
NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING STATUS REPORTS :

REPORT TIMES AND NUMBERS
Number of
Java Scenario (11 of 14 NTWCs reported) TSP Percent AUS BAN COM FR IN IND MAD MAL MD MM SY SIN THA TL
NTWCs
3(a) What TSP website did the NTWC report its Australia 73% 8 • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ • • ᵒ • • • • ᵒ ᵒ
status on? India 45% 5 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ • • ᵒ ᵒ •
Indonesia 45% 5 ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ • • ᵒ ᵒ •
3(b) At what time (UTC) did the NTWC first report its status? n/a 14 0150 1410 n/a 0105 0019 0133 0012 n/a 0011 0009 0010 0110 n/a 0006
3(c) How many status reports did the NTWC send to the TSPs? n/a 14 9 1 n/a 3 14 6 30 n/a 5 16 7 13 n/a 4
Table VI–1 NTWC lodgement of national tsunami warning status reports for the Java scenario*
Number of
Makran Scenario (13 of 18 NTWCs reported) TSP Percent AUS COM IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MAU MZ OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN YEM
NTWCs
3(a) What TSP website did the NTWC report its Australia 92% 12 • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ • • • • • • • ᵒ • •
status on? India 8% 1 ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Indonesia 0% 0 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
3(b) At what time (UTC) did the NTWC first report its status? n/a 15 0632 n/a 0616 0717 - n/a 602 n/a 0614 0910 - 0605 0620 0620 0626 n/a - 0615
3(c) How many status reports did the NTWC send to the TSPs? n/a 17 3 n/a 12 4 - n/a 44 n/a 7 3 1 5 7 12 1 n/a 2 5
Table VI–2 NTWC lodgement of national tsunami warning status reports for the Makran scenario*
*%Y= percentage answering yes, No. = number of countries answering yes, Total = total responses, ●= yes, ○= no, n/a = not applicable
Annex VII
ANNEX VII
NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING

STATUS REPORTS: CONTENT
Australia
 Java:
 0150: 4 Land Warnings and 4 Marine Warnings have been issued for Australia.
 0210: All Australian warnings have been re-issued.
 0522: All Australian warnings have been re-issued. Damage reported at 1 WA

location.

locations.

locations.

locations.
 0820: All Australian warnings have been cancelled.
 Makran:
 0632: No Threat Bulletin issued for Australia.
 0702: Marine Warning issued for WA.
 0807: WA Marine Warning has been cancelled.
Bangladesh
 Java: After analysis of RTSP Bulletin-2, BMD issued Tsunami watch bulletin. This
Bulletin contains potential Tsunami may generate in Indian Ocean. Situation is being
monitored. After RTSP Bulletin 3, 4, 5 and 6 BMD cancelled Tsunami watch Bulletin
and informs all responders organization (who involved in the exercise) that
Bangladesh coast is in no threat. All clear. No further bulletin issued in this series.
Comoros
 Java: We have no more information for notifications.
 Makran: The person who prepares us for the exercise was on mission. He certainly
failed to do us these details.
Annex VII – Page 2
France (La Réunion)
 Java:
 Alert Level orange, number 2
 Alert Level red, number 3
 Cancellation - More Alert
India
 Java: Watch for Tamil nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala up to Bulletin 4. From
Bulletin 5 – 14 Alert to Tamil nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. Coastal Marine areas
are alerted for evacuation
 Makran: Watch for West coast of India and Lakshadweep Islands (Bulletin 2) Warning
to West coast of India and Lakshadweep Islands High waves observed in Gujarat,
Maharastra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala and Lakshadweep Provinces (Bulletin 3 – 14)
Indonesia
 Java: Information about the areas that have been attacked by tsunami, tsunami
observation height that have been recorded by tide gauge, damage of the homes and
buildings, many boat stranded into the land, local people was evacuated into higher
place, tsunami is causing widespread destruction.
 Makran: Based on all available data, no tsunami threat to the Indonesia region. Our
country (Indonesia) is safe from tsunami attack.
Iran: Information not provided
Kenya: skipped this question
Madagascar
 Java: Potential threat; First arrival estimated time: MANAKARA 09:44z 09Sep2014
0.93m ; Max ampl: AMBAHY 10:48z 09Sep2014 1.39m ; Cancellation
 Makran: Tsunami threat, first arrival time 0944z, max ampl:093m, cancellation
Malaysia – Information not provided
Maldives
 Java: Information (WHITE), Advisory (YELLOW), Warning (RED), Maintaining

Warning (RED), Cancellation (GREEN)
Mauritius
 Makran:
 1. Tsunami Watch at 06:17
 2. Tsunami Warning at 06:50 UTC

 3. Tsunami Warning at 07:30
 7. Cancellation Bulletin at 14:00 UTC
Mozambique
 Makran: NTW issued a warning about the threat of tsunami wave of low magnitude
for northern coastal of Mozambique Channel. The second warning was update of the
first. The NTW issued the warning just to inform the DMO and due to the magnitude
and tsunami travel time no threat the tsunami waves represented for the considered
area.
Myanmar
 Java: Earthquake Bulletin, Tsunami Alert, Tsunami Information and Tsunami

Cancellation.
Oman
 Makran:
 > Inundation area
 > Evacuated area
 > Wave height (actual)
Pakistan
 Makran:
 Report-1: Potential Tsunami Threat Warning issued.
 Report-2: Potential Tsunami Threat Warning and revised earthquake

parameters issued.
 Report-3: Confirmed tsunami threat issued.
 Report-4: Confirmed tsunami threat reissued.
 Report-5: Final Bulletin and cancellation/All clear issued
Seychelles
 Java:
Time of origin, co-ordinates, location magnitude and depth of the earthquake. Additional
information included time and height of first wave as well as the time of the high tide
expected and validity of the advisory/warning. Cancellation was only after two hours of the
last bulletin to Disaster Management only.
 Makran:
Basic Earthquake information for Disaster Management and the media like Time of origin,
Location, magnitude. Tsunami information was given to Disaster Management only like time
of arrival of first wave to the furthest island, wave height and version as per RTSP
information and the high tide as well as the cancellation 2 hours after the last tsunami
information.
Singapore
 Java:
 Message number XX was received via GTS.
 No impact expected based on current assessment.
 Makran:
 Message number xx received via GTS.
 No impact expected based on current assessment.
South Africa
 Makran: No alert for South Africa
Sri Lanka :Information not provided
Tanzania
 Makran:
 Level of NTWC confidence for the warning Report issued.
 Area(s) expected to be impacted and time of wave arrival
 Advisory note from the NTWC
Thailand: Information not provided
Timor-Leste
 Java: Alert then warning, evacuation advice, stand down.
Yemen
 Makran: Zones threat, arrival time of waves, high of waves and the source of the
information.
Annex VIII
ANNEX VIII
AGENCIES/AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE
FOR DISSEMINATION OF WARNING MESSAGES
The agencies/authorities responsible for dissemination of warning messages to a)

emergency services, b) other national governmental agencies, c) science
agencies/universities, d) provincial/regional level of local government and e) city/district level
of local government are listed for the ICG/IOTWS Member States that provided input.
Australia
a) Emergency services: Joint Australian Tsunami Warning Centre (JATWC)
b) Other national governmental agencies: JATWC
c) Science Agencies/Universities: JATWC via website to all public
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: JATWC
e) City/district level of local government: JATWC is responsible to disseminate tsunami

warnings. However DMO is responsible to issue safety advices.
Bangladesh
a) Emergency services: Bangladesh Meteorological Department, Cyclone Preparedness

Programe (CPP), Department of Disaster Management.
b) Other national governmental agencies: Cyclone Preparedness Programe,

Depatement of Disaster Management, Bangladesh Meteorological Department
c) Agencies/Universities: Bangladesh Meteorological Department
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Cyclone Preparedness Programe,

Department of Disaster Management, National Disaster Response Co-ordination
Center (NDRCC)
e) City/district level of local government: DDM, CPP, NDRCC etc.
Comoros
a) Emergency services: General Directorate of Civil Security (GDCS)
b) Other national governmental agencies: GDCS
c) Agencies/Universities: no Agency
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: GDCS
e) City/district level of local government: GDCS

Annex VIII – Page 2
France (Réunion Island)
a) Emergency services: Prefecture La Réunion – Préfecture Mayotte – Préfecture TAAF
b) Other national governmental agencies: Préfecture Réunion – Préfecture Mayotte –

Préfecture TAAF
c) Agencies/Universities: Préfecture de La Réunion – Préfecture de Mayotte –

Préfecture des TAAF
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Météo-France
e) City/district level of local government: Préfecture La Réunion – Préfecture Mayotte –

Préfecture des TAAF
India
a) Emergency services: Indian Tsunami Early Warning Centre (ITEWC), National

Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
b) Other national governmental agencies: ITEWC, NDMA, MHA
c) Agencies/Universities: ITEWC
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: ITEWC, NDMA and MHA
e) City/district level of local government: ITEWC, NDMA and MHA
Indonesia
a) Emergency services: Indonesian National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB)
b) Other national governmental agencies: Agency for Meteorology Climatology and

Geophysics (BMKG)
c) Agencies/Universities: Agency for Meteorology Climatology and Geophysics (BMKG)
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Agency for Meteorology Climatology

and Geophysics (BMKG)
e) City/district level of local government: BMKG and Pusdalop Bali
Iran: Information not provided
Kenya
a) Emergency services: National Disaster Operations Centre(NDOC) and Disaster

Management Unit (NDMU)
b) Other national governmental agencies: National Disaster Operation Center (NDOC)
c) Agencies/Universities: National Disaster Operation Center
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: National Disaster Operation Center
e) City/district level of local government: National Disaster Operation Center (NDOC)

Madagascar
a) Emergency services: Institute and Observatory of Geophysics of Antananarivo

(IOGA)
b) Other national governmental agencies: Bureau National de Gestion de Risques et de

Catastrophes (BNGRC)
c) Agencies/Universities: BNGRC
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: BNGRC
e) City/district level of local government: BNGRC
Malaysia
a) Emergency services: National Security Council
b) Other national governmental agencies: National Security Council
c) Agencies/Universities: National Security Council
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: National Security Council (State Office)
e) City/district level of local government: National Security Council (State Office)
Maldives: Information not provided
Mauritius
a) Emergency services: Mauritius Meteorological Services
b) Other national governmental agencies: Mauritius Meteorological Services
c) Agencies/Universities: Not provided
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Mauritius Meteorological Services
e) City/district level of local government: DMO
Mozambique
a) Emergency services: National Institute Disaster Management by National Center

Emergency Operation
b) Other national governmental agencies: there are no other institutions responsible for
dissemination of warning message, only DMO
c) Agencies/Universities: National Institute Disaster Management by National Center

Emergency Operations
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: DMO by National Center Emergency

Operations
e) City/district level of local government: DMO Provincial and provincial Government

Myanmar
a) Emergency services: Relief and Resettlement Department, Department of

Meteorology and Hydrology
b) Other national governmental agencies: Department of Meteorology and Hydrology
c) Agencies/Universities: Relief and Resettlement Department, Department of

Meteorology and Hydrology
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Regional Department of Meteorology

and Hydrology
e) City/district level of local government: Regional Department of Meteorology and

Hydrology, Regional Relief and Resettlement Department and General Administrative
Department
Oman
a) Emergency services: DGMET send bulletin to NCCD, PACDA and PART
b) Other national governmental agencies: DGMET (AS NTWC) and NCCD (AS DMO)
c) Agencies/Universities: NCCD (AS DMO) 7& DGMET (AS NTWC)
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Public Authority for Civil Defense and
Ambulance (PACDA) and NCCD
e) City/district level of local government: NCCD
Pakistan: Information not provided
Seychelles
a) Emergency services: Division of Risk and Disaster Management
b) Other national governmental agencies: Division of Risk and Disaster Management
c) Agencies/Universities: National Meteorological office and Division for Risk and

Disaster Management liaises with all government agencies which will have any
science related department
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Division of Risk and Disaster

Management
e) City/district level of local government: Division of Risk and Disaster Management
Singapore
a) Emergency services: Meteorological Service Singapore
b) Other national governmental agencies: Meteorological Service Singapore
c) Agencies/Universities: Meteorological Service Singapore does not disseminate to

universities
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Not applicable as Singapore does not

have city/district level of local government
e) City/district level of local government: Not applicable as Singapore does not have
city/district level of local government
South Africa
a) Emergency services: National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC)
b) Other national governmental agencies: National Disaster Management Centre

(NDMC)
c) Agencies/Universities: SA Weather Service
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: National DMC passes info to Provincial

DMC's
e) City/district level of local government: Provincial Disaster Management Centre (one

per 9 provinces)
Sri Lanka: Information not provided
Tanzania
a) Emergency services: Prime Minister Office (PMO-DMD)
b) Other national governmental agencies: Prime Minister Office (PMO-DMD) and to

some extent NTWC
c) Agencies/Universities: N/A
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: PMO-DMD
e) City/district level of local government: PMO-DMD
Thailand
a) Emergency services: Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM)
b) Other national governmental agencies: Not provided
c) Agencies/Universities: Not provided
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Not provided
e) City/district level of local government: Not provided
Timor-Leste
a) Emergency services: National Disaster Management Directorate (NDMD)
b) Other national governmental agencies: NDMD
c) Agencies/Universities: NDMD
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: NDMD
e) City/district level of local government: NDMD
Yemen
a) Emergency services: General Directorate of Emergency and Environmental Disasters
b) Other national governmental agencies: Meteorological Authority + Seismological

Center
c) Agencies/Universities: General Directorate of Emergency and Environmental

Disasters
d) Provincial/regional level of local government: Media + telecommunication
e) City/district level of local government: Media + Telecommunication

Annex IX
ANNEX IX
MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

AND GOVERNMENT FOR THE JAVA SCENARIO
Emergency Services
Java scenario:
4.1(c ) Dissemination of warning AUS BAN FR IN MAL SY TL

messages to emergency services
>10 (repeated on
Number of messages sent 3 1 15 4 29 4
hourly cycle)
0014 National Watch
0039 Christmas Is
0006, 0008, 0021, 0041,
Time warnings sent (UTC) 0108-0124 WA, Cocos 0040 0100 0010 0301 0036
0230
Is, SA, Tas, Antarctic,
Vic, NT
Time cancellation sent (UTC) 0646-0652 0230 1035 1200 0709 0625 0330
email, phone, sms,
automatic transmission Email, Fax, SMS,
Method of delivery password protected fax, email, phone Fax, phone SMS, phone SMS, radio
SMS Website
webpage
Number of failed deliveries a few 1 30% n/a 0 0 0
outdated email
Reasons for failed delieveres Fax No. was not correct problems of network n/a n/a n/a n/a
addresses
manually onforward Contact by phone and
transmission by fax and
Alternative action Taken warning messages via recollect Fax No. and n/a n/a n/a n/a
mail
email send again.
Java scenario:
4.1(d) Confirmation of warning AUS BAN FR IN MAL SY TL

messges from emergency services
Method of confirming receipt phone but more on the
first message, not on Phone SMS email Telephone SMS, phone Radio, SMS
every issue
Time confirmation received (UTC) 0021 for WA in response 0007, 0010, 0023, 0042,
0026, 0057, 0256 around 20 min 0033 0303 0038
to national watch 0233
Number of non-confirmations 0 0 40% n/a 0 0 0
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a n/a Network n/a n/a n/a n/a
Alternative action taken n/a n/a Second Trial n/a n/a n/a n/a
Annex IX – Page 2
Other National Governmental Agencies
Java scenario:
4.2(c ) Dissemination of warning AUS BAN FR IN MAL MM SY

messages to other national
governmental agencies
>10 (repeated on
Number of messages sent 3 2 15 4 4 33
hourly cycle)
0014 National Watch
0039 Christmas Is
Time warnings sent (UTC) 0108-0124 WA, Cocos 0045 0037 00:50 03:07 09:30 00:36
Is, SA, Tas, Antarctic,
Vic, NT
Time cancellation sent (UTC) 0646-0652 0250 1300 1230 0713 - 0625
Email, Fax, SMS,
Method of delivery Email, Webpage Electronic Email, Fax Fax, Telephone Fax SMS
Phone
Number of failed deliveries 0 0 0 n/a 0 - 0
Reasons for failed delieveres n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a - n/a
Dissemination of
Alternative action Taken n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a warning messages to n/a
regional agencies
4.2(c ) continued TL
Number of messages sent 4

Time warnings sent (UTC) 00:06
Time cancellation sent (UTC) 0330
Method of delivery SMS, Radio
Number of failed deliveries 0
Reasons for failed delieveres n/a
Alternative action Taken n/a
Annex IX– Page 3
Java scenario:
4.2(d) Confirmation of warning AUS BAN FR IN MAL MM SY

messges from other national
Method of confirming receipt phone with AGCCC only Phone, Email - - Telephone Phone SMS
Time confirmation received (UTC) n/a 0255 - - 0310 0932 0040
Number of non-confirmations n/a 0 - - 0 - 13
Some stated it is just an
exercise, some just didn't
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a n/a - - n/a -
see the need to reply, not
concerned really
Called to explain and get
Alternative action taken n/a n/a - - n/a -
their participation
4.2(d) continued TL
Method of confirming receipt SMS, Radio
Time confirmation received (UTC) 0008
Number of non-confirmations 0
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a
Alternative action taken n/a
Annex IX – Page 4
Science Agencies and Universities
Java scenario:
4.3(c ) Dissemination of warning SY TL

messages to science agencies /
universities
Number of messages sent - 4
Time warnings sent (UTC) - 0006
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - 0330
Method of delivery - SMS, Radio
Number of failed deliveries - 0
Reasons for failed delieveres - n/a
Alternative action Taken - n/a
Java scenario:
4.3(d) Confirmation of warning SY TL

messges from science agencies /
universities
Method of confirming receipt - Radio, SMS
Time confirmation received (UTC) - 0008
Number of non-confirmations - 0
Reasons for non-confirmations - n/a
Alternative action taken - n/a
Annex IX– Page 5
Provincial and Regional Level of Local Government
Java scenario:
Java scenario:
4.4(c ) Dissemination of warning BAN FR IN IND MM SY TL

4.4(d) Confirmation of warning BAN FR IN IND MM SY TL
messages to the provincial / regional
messges from the provinicial / regional
level of local government
Number of messages sent 3 10 15 8 4 4 4
Method of confirming receipt Phone, Email phone - - Fax SMS and call Radio, SMS
0008, 0010, 0033, 0051,
warnings sent
Time confirmation (UTC) (UTC)
received 0057
0110 0020
0014 0033
- - -
0940 0036
0037 0006
0008
0106, 0214, 0217, 0220
Number of non-confirmations
Time cancellation sent (UTC) 0
0256 0
1212 -
1230 -- -
0935 0
0625 0
0330
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a Email,
SMS, Fax, n/a - SMS,
Email, Fax, - - n/a n/a
Method of delivery
Alternative action taken n/a Email,
n/a Fax - SMS, Email,
- Fax Fax
- SMS,n/a
Phone Radio,
n/aSMS
Phone Website
Number of failed deliveries 0 0 - - - 0 0
Reasons for failed delieveres n/a n/a - - - n/a n/a
Dissemination of
Alternative action Taken n/a n/a - - warning to Township n/a n/a
level
Annex IX – Page 6
City and District Level of Local Government
Java scenario:
4.5(c ) Dissemination of warning BAN IN IND MM SY TL

messages to the city / district level of
local government
Number of messages sent 3 15 6 4 - 4
0010, 0016, 0038, 0100,
Time warnings sent (UTC) 0115 0033 - 0006
0110, 0922
Time cancellation sent (UTC) 0315 1230 - 09:40 - 0330
Email, Fax, SMS and SMS, Email, Fax,
Method of delivery Fax, Phone, SMS etc. Fax - Radio, SMS
Website Radio
Number of failed deliveries 0 - - - - 0
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a - - - - n/a
Alternative action taken n/a - - - - n/a
Java scenario:
4.5(d) Confirmation of warning BAN IN IND MM SY TL

messges from the city / district level of
local government
Method of confirming receipt Phone, VHF Radio - - Fax - Radio, SMS
Time confirmation received (UTC) 0330 - - 0945 - 0008
Number of non-confirmations 0 - - - - 0
Reasons for non-confirmations n/a - - - - n/a
Alternative action taken n/a - - - - n/a
Annex IX – Page 7
Country Comments
 Australia
o 4.1(c) A national watch was issued first with a Mag 8.1. Following tsunami
observations and Geoscience Australia magnitude upgrade to 8.8 at 0030 UTC,
then again 9.1 at 0046 UTC, a succession of warnings to regions were issued
with either ‘Marine Threat’ or ‘Land Threat’. The warnings were issued
sequentially for the Christmas Island, Western Australia, Cocos Island, South
Australia, Tasmania, the Antarctic Stations of Casey, Mawson and Davis,
Victoria, and the Northern Territory from 0039 to 0124, and then repeated on an
hourly cycle. The public webpage is blocked and only accessible by the
participating agencies with special login and password. The Bureau regional
office provided the critical liaison role and acted as the bridge between the Joint
Australia Tsunami Warning Centre and local emergency services, resulting in
the emergency services receiving warning heads-up before messages being
issued.
o 4.1(d) Confirmation is done verbally between the Bureau's regional offices and
local emergency services, and is probably only required for the first couple
warnings, not the repeated hourly ones.
 Bangladesh
o 4.1(c) All messages from the NTWC to emergency response organisation were
sent property and the necessary actions were taken.
o 4.1(d) We confirmed that emergency response organization received our three

Bulletins properly.
o 4.2(c) Messages sent to CPP, Bangladesh Red Crescent Society, Media, Coast
Guard, and NDRCC within short time after issued the bulletins.
o 4.2(d) All responsible organizations that are linked with this exercise have
functioning communication lines and they received bulletins properly.
o 4.4(c) Three messages were sent to 32 coastal points (Upazilla/Union) which

were involved in this exercise at the proper times.
o 4.4(d) Confirmations from these 32 coastal points were taken by mobile phone.
 Indonesia
o 4.4(c ) Due to the limited exercise times, for NTWC and DMO exercise in
provincial (in this case Bali Province) the message 1 and 2 were delivered
directly from NTWC in Jakarta, but for next message (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and
4) were delivered from Regional Centre of Tsunami Warning in Bali. In this
case, we are only able to analyse whether the message 1 and 2 were sent
timely. According to the sending time of message 1 and 2, we concluded that
the messages were sent timely by NTWC Indonesia.
o 4.4(d) At the moment we do not have method/tools for warning message

confirmation from provincial / regional level.
Annex IX – Page 8
o 4.5(c ) Due to the limited exercise times, for NTWC and DMO exercise in district
level (in this case BPBD Badung, Bali District) the message 1 and 2 were
delivered directly from NTWC in Jakarta, but for the rest messages were
delivered from Regional Centre of Tsunami Warning in Bali. In this case, we are
only able to analyse whether the message 1 and 2 were sent timely. According
to the sending time of message 1 and 2 we concluded that the messages were
sent timely.
o 4.5(d) At the moment, we do not have the methods/tools for warning message
confirmation from city / district level
 Seychelles
o 4.2(c) Even if messages went, we will still be requesting for a new list of contact
to just make sure the numbers are updated.
o 4.2(d) We still have a lot to do in regards to getting all sectors to feel part of
disaster prevention and preparation programmes.
o 4.4(c) We have 3 liaison officers that we liaise directly with apart from the
principle secretary of the respective ministry which all local government offices
falls under, in turn they contact all their officers.
o 4.5(c ) We have 3 liaison officers that we liaise directly with apart from the
principle secretary of the respective ministry which all local government offices
falls under, in turn they contact all their officers
Annex X
ANNEX X
MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

AND GOVERNMENT FOR THE MAKRAN SCENARIO
Emergency Services
Makran scenario:
4.1(c ) Dissemination of warning COM KN MAD MAL MAU OM SY

messages to emergency services
Number of messages sent 1 3 21 4 7 30 96
0615, 0645, 0730, 0845,
Time warnings sent (UTC) - 1006 0105 0210 0606, 0612 0617
1030, 1215
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - 1305 1220 0414 1400 0800 1420
Fax, SMS, Email (table
Method of delivery - Email, SMS Email, Phone (SMS) Fax, Phone Fax, Email, Radio SSB SMS
top simulation)
Number of failed deliveries - n/a 0 0 nil - 2
Reasons for failed deliveries - n/a n/a - n/a - -
Alternative action taken - n/a n/a - n/a Breaking news -
4.1(c ) continued SA TAN YEM
Number of messages sent - 9 41
Time warnings sent (UTC) - 0915 0650
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - 1615 2015
Email, Phone, Written
Method of delivery - Fax, Phone
Messages
Number of failed deliveries - 2 9
Problems in emergency
Reasons for failed deliveries - Electricity cut off
services
Hard copies were We tried to call them by
Alternative action taken -
mostly used phone
Annex X – Page 2
Makran scenario:
4.1(d) Confirmation of warning COM KN MAD MAL MAU OM SY

messages from emergency services
Acknowldged receipt of
Method of confirming receipt - Email, SMS Email, SMS Phone Phone Fax
SMS's
0617, 0648, 0732, 0847,
Time confirmation received (UTC) - 1006 0120 0213 0610 0617
1032, 1217, 1401
Number of non-confirmations - 0 0 0 0 - 28
1 out of the country, the
Reasons for non-confirmations - n/a n/a - n/a -
others just didn't reply
called through their
Alternative action taken - n/a Email, SMS, Call - n/a -
liaison officers
4.1(d) continued SA TAN YEM

Method of confirming receipt - Email Phone, Fax
Time confirmation received (UTC) - 0920 0700
Number of non-confirmations - 2 11
Fax could not received
Reasons for non-confirmations - Power cut and send messages
silmutaneously
Alternative action taken - Hard copies sent Contact by phone
Annex X – Page 3
Other National Governmental Agencies
Makran scenario:
4.2(c ) Dissemination of warning COM MAD MAU OM SY TAN

messages to other national
Number of messages sent 1 - 7 4 29 4
0615, 0645, 0730, 0845,
Time warnings sent (UTC) - - 0606 0617 0640,0800,0930,1300
1030, 1215
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - - 1400 0800 1420 1300
Method of delivery - - Fax, Email Fax, Phone SMS Email, Media Interview
Number of failed deliveries - - 0 - - 0
Reasons for failed deliveries - - n/a - - n/a
Alternative action taken - - n/a - - n/a
Makran scenario:
4.2(d) Confirmation of warning COM MAD MAU OM SY TAN

messges from other national
Acknowlegdement of
Method of confirming receipt - - Phone - Email, Phone
SMS receipt
0619, 0653, 0734, 0849,
Time confirmation received (UTC) - - - 0617 0853
1035, 1224, 1404
Number of non-confirmations - - 0 - - 0
Reasons for non-confirmations - - n/a - - n/a
Alternative action taken - n/a - - n/a
Annex X – Page 4
Science Agencies and Universities
Makran scenario:
4.3(c ) Dissemination of warning MAD SY SA

messages to science agencies /
universities
Number of messages sent - 3 1
Time warnings sent (UTC) - 0617 0605
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - 1420 0620
Method of delivery - SMS Email, Mobile Phone
Number of failed deliveries - - 0
Reasons for failed deliveries - - n/a
Alternative action taken - - n/a
Makran scenario:
4.3(d) Confirmation of warning MAD SY SA

messages from science agencies /
universities
SMS Acknowledgement
Method of confirming receipt - Mobile Phone, Email
Receipt
Time confirmation received (UTC) - 0620 0605
Number of non-confirmations - 2 0
Reasons for non-confirmations - They just didn't. n/a
Alternative action taken - Called. n/a
Annex X – Page 5
Provincial and Regional Level of Local Government
Makran scenario:
4.4(c ) Dissemination of warning COM MAD MAU MZ SY OM

messages to the provincial / regional
Number of messages sent - - 7 3 3 -
0622, 0649, 0736, 1036,
Time warnings sent (UTC) - - 0800 0617 0623, 0640, 0650
1223
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - - 1405 1900 1420 -
Method of delivery - - Fax, Email Fax, Email, SMS SMS and called Fax, Phone
Number of failed deliveries - - 0 0 - -
Reasons for failed deliveries - - n/a n/a - -
Alternative action taken - - n/a n/a - -
Makran scenario:
4.4(d) Confirmation of warning COM MAD MAU MZ SY OM

messages from the provincial /
regional level of local government
Replied to SMS and
Method of confirming receipt - - Phone, SSB Radio Phone, SMS, Email -
called.
0623, 0650, 0743, 0847,
Time confirmation received (UTC) - - 0810 0617 -
1037, 1224
Number of non-confirmations - - 0 - - -
Reasons for non-confirmations - - n/a - - -
Alternative action taken - - n/a - - -
Annex X – Page 6
City and District Level of Local Government
Makran scenario:
4.5(c ) Dissemination of warning COM MAD MAU SY

messages to the city / district level of
local government
Same as with regional -
Number of messages sent 2
the 3 focal persons
Time warnings sent (UTC) 1000 - - 0617
Time cancellation sent (UTC) - - - 1420
Phone, Email, Face-to-
Method of delivery - - SMS and call
face (by car)
Number of failed deliveries - - - -
Reasons for failed deliveries - - - -
Alternative action taken - - - -
Makran scenario:
4.5(d) Confirmation of warning COM MAD MAU SY

messages from the city / district level
of local government
Method of confirming receipt - - - Replied to SMS and call
Time confirmation received (UTC) - - - 0617
Number of non-confirmations - - - -
Reasons for non-confirmations - - - -
Alternative action taken - - - -
Annex X–Page 7
Country Comments
 Comoros
o 4.1(c) One messages for 4 emergency departments. No (other) information was

transmitted to us.
o 4.1(d) No information was transmitted to us.
o 4.2(c) One message for 8 departments.
o 4.4(d) Dissemination of warning messages to the Regional Directorate of Civil

Security (RDCS).
 Kenya
o 4.1(c) National Disaster Operation Center did not carry out real IOWave 14
simulation exercise, they were developing their SOPs.
 Mauritius
o 4.1(c) Warning messages to Agalega and St Brandon were sent by SSB Radio.
o 4.4(c) Bulletin sent to Agalega and St Brandon by SSB Radio.
o 4.4(d) Confirmation of bulletins sent to Agalega by SSB Radio.
 Mozambique
o 4.4(d) The DMO received warning from NTWC. The DMO sent message to
provincial and regional level without alerting the public.
 South Africa
o 4.3(c ) As per pre-arranged SOP, upon receipt of tsunami warnings, SA

Weather Service immediately contacts BOTH Council for Geoscience (CGS) for
technical assessment of threat, as well as alerting Disaster Management who
stand by, ready to disseminate warnings to Provincial (PDMC) and Municipal
level, based on assessment feedback from CGS.
o 4.3(d) Prompt confirmation by CGS. CGS assessed threat and responded in

writing (email) with completed assessment by 06:20UTC, email sent at
06:26UTC.
 Oman
o 4.2(c) Table top simulation.
o 4.4(c) PACDA sent the message to Ports management at 10:24 NCCD and
sent the message to hospitals.
 Tanzania
o 4.1(c) Responding agencies were hesitating to take action quickly.

Annex X – Page 8
 Yemen
o 4.1(c) We sent messages to the threat local area governorates and our
stakeholders such as media, health, and civil defence.
o 4.1(d) Stakeholders could not analyse the tsunami data and we clear it to them.
Annex XI
ANNEX XI
TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

OF NATIONAL DECISION-MAKING AND DISSEMINATION POINT
Percent Total
Both Scenarios Agree Responses AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
4.6(a) Judged against the nature of this event,

information issued by our national decision-
making and dissemination point was 100% 15 • • • • • • - n/a • • - • • • n/a - • • • - n/a - • n/a
timely.
4.6(b) The methods of communication from our
national decision-making and
disseminationpoint to us were appropriate 100% 15 • • • • • • - n/a • • - • • • n/a - • • • - n/a - • n/a
to support decision-making.
Table XI–1.. Timeliness and delivery methods of information issued by the national decision-making
a
and dissemination point for both the Java and Makran scenarios.*
*AUS=Australia, BAN=Bangladesh, COM=Comoros, FR=France (La Reunion), IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar,
a
● = yes, ○ = no , n/a = not applicable, - = no response
Annex XII
ANNEX XII
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC WARNING

AND EVACUATION DECISION MAKING
Both Scenarios Percent Total AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
5(a) Decision making for the issuing of NTWC 22% 20 ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ • • - • • ᵒ •
public warnings and ordering National DMO 46% 20 ᵒ • • ᵒ • ᵒ - • • • - • • ᵒ • - • • • - • ᵒ • ᵒ
evacuations is the responsibility of Provincial/District DMO 19% 20 • ᵒ • • • ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ • • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Local Authorities 13% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • • • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
a
Table XII–1. Responsibility for decision making on public warnings and ordering evacuations*
a
● = yes, ○ = no , - = no response
Annex XIII
ANNEX XIII
ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

FOR ISSUING PUBLIC WARNINGS AND ORDERING EVACUATION
Percent Total
Both Scenarios AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
Agree Responses
5(b) Our agency(ies) / authority(ies) responsible for making
decisions on public warnings and evacuations participated 70% 20 • ᵒ • • • ᵒ - ᵒ • • - • ᵒ ᵒ • - • • • - • ᵒ • •
in the exercise.
5(c ) National level Standard Operating Procedures are in place.
95% 20 • • • • • • - ᵒ • • - • • • • - • • • - • • • •
National level Standard Operating Procedures were used
for this exercise. 74% 19 • • ᵒ ᵒ • • - n/a • • - • ᵒ • • - • ᵒ • - • ᵒ • •
5(d) Local level Standard Operating Procedures are in place.
75% 20 • • • • • • - ᵒ ᵒ • - • • ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - • • ᵒ •
Local level Standard Operating Procedures were used for
this exercise. 53% 15 • • ᵒ ᵒ • • - n/a n/a • - • ᵒ n/a • - • n/a ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ n/a ᵒ
5(e ) Arrangements to assemble our management group relevant
to decision-making on tsunami warning and response were 89% 19 • • • • • • - ᵒ ᵒ • - • • • • - • • • - n/a • • •
in place before the exercise.
5(f) Our management group relevant to decision-making on
tsunami warning and response assembled during the 69% 13 • n/a • ᵒ • n/a - n/a ᵒ ᵒ - • n/a n/a • - • ᵒ • - n/a n/a • •
exercise.
Time taken to assemble in minutes: 15- 10-
- 6 n/a 60 n/a 20 n/a - n/a n/a n/a - 5 n/a n/a 5 - 25 n/a 5 - n/a n/a 10
120 15
This was timely to facilitate good decision-making. 100% 9 • n/a • n/a • n/a - n/a n/a n/a - • n/a n/a • - • n/a • - n/a n/a • •
5(g) The quality of the event information issued by our national
decision-making and dissemination point (e.g. tsunami
threat levels and arrival times, evacuation advice) was 93% 14 • n/a • • • n/a - n/a • • - • n/a n/a • - • ᵒ • - • n/a • •
sufficient to support local level decision-making.
5(h) The quality of the pre-existing local information available

(e.g. local hazard assessments, inundation maps,
evacuation plans etc.) was sufficient to support local level
64% 14 ᵒ n/a ᵒ • • n/a - n/a ᵒ • - • n/a n/a • - • • • - ᵒ n/a • ᵒ
decision-making.
5(i) The quality of the information received back from our
response agencies and local level government (e.g.
situation reports) was sufficient to support national level
86% 14 • n/a ᵒ • • n/a - n/a • • - • n/a n/a • - • ᵒ • - • n/a • •
decision-making.
5(j) The exercise contributed to the improvement or the
development of planning related to public warnings and
other response activities required for an event of this
93% 14 • n/a • • • n/a - n/a • • - • n/a n/a • - • ᵒ • - • n/a • •
nature.
*a
Table XIII–1. Assessment of organizational decision-making processes for the issuing of public warnings and ordering evacuations
Annex XIII – Page 2
a
● = yes, ○ = no , n/a = not applicable, - = no response
NOTES:
5(f) Australia: The time taken for the management group to assemble is the range of times reported for four state level response groups including Western
Australia (36 min), Christmas Island (15 min), Cocos Island (20 min), and Tasmania (120 min).
Annex XIV
ANNEX XIV
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS
Table XIV–1. Responsibility for issuing public notifications*
Annex XV
ANNEX XV
MEANS OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THAT WERE USED

IN THE EXERCISE OR WOULD BE USED IN A REAL EVENT
Both Scenarios:
6(b) The following means of public notification were Percent Total AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
used in this exercise or would have been used during
a real event of this kind.
Cell / mobile phone Used in the Exercise 55% 20 • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ • •

broadcast Would be used in a Real Event 80% 20 • • • ᵒ ᵒ • - • • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - • • • - • • • •
Procedures Exist 75% 20 • • • ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - • • • •
SMS / Text Used in the Exercise 50% 20 • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ • • ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 85% 20 • • • • ᵒ • - • • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - • • • - • • • •
Procedures Exist 90% 20 • • • • • • - • • • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - • • • - • • • •
Landline Telephone Used in the Exercise 40% 20 • ᵒ • ᵒ • • - ᵒ ᵒ • - • • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ •
Would be used in a Real Event 85% 20 • • • ᵒ • • - • • • - • • • • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • •
Procedures Exist 85% 20 • • • ᵒ • • - • • • - • • • • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • •
Email Used in the Exercise 50% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • • - ᵒ • ᵒ - • • ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • • •
Would be used in a Real Event 80% 20 • • ᵒ • • • - • • • - • • ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • •
Procedures Exist 75% 20 • • ᵒ • • • - • • • - • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • •
Facebook Used in the Exercise 5% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ •
Would be used in a Real Event 45% 20 • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ • ᵒ - • • ᵒ •
Procedures Exist 45% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ • ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ •
Twitter Used in the Exercise 0% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 50% 20 • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - • • ᵒ ᵒ
Procedures Exist 50% 20 • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ • - • ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ • - ᵒ • • - • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Websites Used in the Exercise 15% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ •
Would be used in a Real Event 85% 20 • • ᵒ • ᵒ • - • • • - • • • • - • • • - • • ᵒ •
Procedures Exist 75% 20 • • ᵒ • ᵒ • - • • • - • ᵒ • • - ᵒ • • - • • ᵒ •
RSS Used in the Exercise 0% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 30% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ - • • ᵒ ᵒ
Procedures Exist 30% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ • ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Police Used in the Exercise 20% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 65% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - • • • • - • • • - • ᵒ ᵒ •
Procedures Exist 70% 20 • • ᵒ • • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - • • • • - • • • - • ᵒ ᵒ •
Public announcement Used in the Exercise 10% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
system Would be used in a Real Event 70% 20 • • ᵒ • • • - • ᵒ • - • • ᵒ ᵒ - • • • - ᵒ • ᵒ •
Procedures Exist 65% 20 • • ᵒ • • • - • ᵒ • - • • ᵒ ᵒ - • • • - ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ
Door-to-door Used in the Exercise 10% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ
announcements Would be used in a Real Event 45% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • • • - • ᵒ ᵒ •
Procedures Exist 50% 20 • • ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • • • - • ᵒ ᵒ •
Public call centre Used in the Exercise 5% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 45% 20 • • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ • • ᵒ
Procedures Exist 40% 20 • • ᵒ • ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ
Public radio Used in the Exercise 20% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 100% 20 • • • • • • - • • • - • • • • - • • • - • • • •
Procedures Exist 95% 20 • • • • • • - • • • - • • • • - • • • - • • • ᵒ
Public TV Used in the Exercise 25% 20 ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • - ᵒ ᵒ ᵒ • - • ᵒ ᵒ - ᵒ ᵒ • ᵒ
Would be used in a Real Event 100% 20 • • • • • • - • • • - • • • • - • • • - • • • •
Procedures Exist 100% 20 • • • • • • - • • • - • • • • - • • • - • • • •
Table XV–1. Means of public notification used*
Annex XV – Page 2
Annex XVI
ANNEX XVI
EXERCISE PLANNING, CONDUCT, FORMAT, AND STYLE
Both Scenarios Total AUS BAN COM FR IN IND IR KN MAD MAL MD MAU MZ MM OM PK SY SIN SA SLK TAN THA TL YEM
8(a) The exercise planning, conduct,
format, and style were satisfactory. 24 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 1
Table XVI–1. Assessment of Exercise Planning, Conduct, Format and Style*
AUS=Australia, BAN=Bangladesh, COM=Comoros, FR=France (La Reunion), IN=India, IND=Indonesia, IR=Iran, KN=Kenya, MAD=Madagascar,
1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 =strongly disagree
Annex XVII
ANNEX XVII
BENEFITS OF THE EXERCISE
Australia
1. Enabling many agencies (6 local jurisdictions, 3 national agencies, 1 media) to test

their SOPs as either functional or desktop discussion exercises, first time to some
agencies in any tsunami exercises
2. Having ABC practice the broadcast protocol with JATWC for the first time and
producing an online story about IOWAVE14
3. Having gained better understanding of tsunami warning products and identified

shortfalls in plans and procedures relating to tsunami
Bangladesh
1. This exercise improves efficiency of the staffs of the responsible agencies like NTWC,
DDM, CPP etc.
2. Communication links were tested during the exercise.
3. Improve awareness what to do in case of real events.
Comoros
1. SOP verification level
2. Mobilizing the management group
3. Verification of communication means
France (La Reunion)
1. Test of local procedures and dissemination
India – No comments provided
Indonesia
1. Examine the warning chain from RTSP to NTWC, and from NTWC to DMO
2. Validate the SOP of DMO for the issuing of public warning and ordering evacuations,
and integrate its SOP to the relevant.
Iran
1. Checking the NTWC's SOP
2. Comparison between RTSP's results (estimated wave heights) and NTWC results
(pre-calculated scenarios)
Annex XVII – Page 2
Kenya
1. Testing the efficiency of our modes of reception and dissemination of bulletins from
RTSPs to DMO
2. Assessing our preparedness and identifying weaknesses
Madagascar
1. Experience to the tsunami
2. Knowledge of the tsunami propagation time
3. Many experiences
Malaysia
1. We can learn on how the alert were executed to relevant agencies.
2. We can understand the regional procedures of warning alert dissemination.
Maldives
1. Testing the communication lines between RTSPs
2. Noticed the short-coming of GTS reception
3. Got assurance of alerting to public well in advance
Mauritius
1. Testing the readiness of our institution in the event of a tsunami and validate timely
dissemination of bulletin
2. Validate the decision process in issuing warnings
3. Test the robustness of the communication system
Mozambique
1. Checking the communication means between RTSP, NTWC and DMO
Myanmar
1. Practice
2. Communication
3. Using our Standard Operating Procedure-SOP
Oman
1. Testing the SOP
2. National cooperation
Pakistan
1. The information provided by RTSPs.
2. The awareness produced in general public by the media coverage of this event.
3. Having a chance to test NTWC's SOPs
Seychelles
1. Seeing our weak points in communication
2. Improving collaboration with all partners
3. Seeing the need to update plans, SOPs and for more education awareness on the
subject with all
Singapore
1. A good opportunity to validate internal standard operation procedures and to test our
model simulations
2. Communication links between RTSP and NTWC were also tested
South Africa
1. Good practice for SAWS forecasters
2. Strengthened liaison with Council for Geoscience (CGS) and National DM (NDMC)
3. Raised overall levels of situational awareness
Sri Lanka
1. Evaluating efficiency of issuing tsunami warnings
2. Check the efficiency and readiness of our tsunami warning process
3. Check the readiness of means of warning receiving
Tanzania
1. Identifying Gaps in the SOPs of NTWC and DMO
2. Strengthen operational collaboration between NTWC, DMO and National Media
3. Enhanced NTWC Capacity on using the RTSPs products with the developed timeline
SOPs
Thailand
1. NDWC
2. DDPP
3. Other (Government Agencies & Authorities)

Timor-Leste
1. Via the exercise Timor-Leste increased its knowledge regarding Tsunami preparation
2. We were able to check the sufficiency of our communication systems and devices.
3. The opportunity to practice and coordinate/collaborate across agencies.
Yemen
1. Training about contact between main stakeholders, and Identify stakeholders.
2. Training on how to distribute work between the agencies involved.
3. Knowledge some of the problems that occur, and how to get solutions for it.
Annex XVIII
ANNEX XVIII
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE EXERCISES
Australia
1. Running the exercise in a more realistic timeline starting with the issuing of
earthquake solutions
2. Conducting training to staff members performing tsunami operations
3. Deploying additional staff members for the exercise and creating/updating the
tsunami SOPs
Bangladesh
1. Better communication and understanding among RTSP, NTWC and other emergency
responders.
2. Improve the communication methods.
3. Good monitoring and active participation.
Comoros
1. Conduct the exercise until evacuation
France (La Reunion) – No comments provided
India – No comments provided
Indonesia
1. Providing tools for uploading exercise report of NTWC
2. Sharing every exercise evaluation among RTSPs
3. Involving others agency rather than NTWC and DMO such as Media
Iran – No comments provided
Kenya
1. Ensuring that tsunami SOPs are in place and communication modes are efficient
2. Training of personnel on analysing and dissemination of the bulletins in real time
3. Acquisition of resources by the NTWCs to conduct the exercise at the community

levels
Madagascar
1. Transmission mode of tsunami alerts / add phone call
Malaysia – No comments provided

Annex XVIII – Page 2
Maldives
1. On coordinating with NTWCs and DMOs
2. Engaging public
3. Whole event recognized at high levels of Governments
Mauritius
1. Get more stakeholders involved in evacuation exercise
2. Evolve from a tabletop to a functional exercise
3. Continued improvement in communication technologies
Mozambique
1. By involving public for evacuation simulation since we did not take it due to the
election campaign
Myanmar
1. Receiving the messages from RTSPs
2. Receiving the exercise manual from UNESCO-IOC
Oman
1. Improving the SOP
2. Strengthen the national cooperation.
Pakistan
1. Directly engaging DMOs of the country for which a separate contact should be
appointed
2. Giving responsibility to those officers/officials who participate in the event specific

workshops organized by IOTWS/UNESCO
Seychelles
1. Having observers in the country to have an outside picture on how we can best
improve
Singapore
1. It will be beneficial if all 3 RTSP provide similar products for the ease of comparison
purpose
South Africa
1. SMS to nodal contact person/s in South Africa (needs to be set up / activated). Nil as
yet.
Annex XVIII – Page 3
Sri Lanka
1. Confirm the availability of appropriate NMHS fax numbers
2. Update the fax, email..etc
3. Provide better training
Tanzania – Skipped this question
Thailand
1. NTWCs
2. DMOs
3. RTSPs
Timor-Leste
1. We suggest that for a future exercise an expert from IOC could observe the Timor
Leste component and advise on ways to improve.
Yemen
1. Distribution forms for the actions that have been taken in every warning message in
every country, and it will be as assessment of each country work.
2. Put action form in the survey monkey.

Annex XIX
ANNEX XIX
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAO Japan's Cabinet Office
DMO Disaster Management Organization
IAS Interim Advisory Service
ICG/IOTWS Intergovernmental Coordination Group for the Indian Ocean Tsunami

Warning and Mitigation System
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IOTWS Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System
IOWave Exercise Indian Ocean Wave
JMA Japan Meteorological Agency
NTWC National Tsunami Warning Centre
PTWC Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TSP Tsunami Service Providers
TWFP Tsunami Warning Focal Point
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization

Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

9–10 September 2014

Volume 2 Exercise Report

9–10 September 2014

Volume 2 Exercise Report

The designations employed and the presentation of the

For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows:

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. 2014. Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14:

2. EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS ............................................................... 3

3. OVERALL SUCCESS OF THE EXERCISE ............................................................. 23

I. MEMBER STATE PARTICIPATION LEVELS

II. TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

III. MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

IV. MESSAGES RECEIVED BY NTWCS

V. NTWC ACCESS TO TSUNAMI THREAT

VI. NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING STATUS REPORTS :

VII. NTWC NATIONAL TSUNAMI WARNING

VIII. AGENCIES/AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE

IX. MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

X. MESSAGE DELIVERY TO RESPONSE AGENCIES

XI. TIMELINESS AND DELIVERY METHODS

XII. RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC WARNING

XIII. ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

XIV. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ISSUING PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS

XV. MEANS OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THAT WERE USED

XVI. EXERCISE PLANNING, CONDUCT, FORMAT, AND STYLE

XVII. BENEFITS OF THE EXERCISE

XVIII. IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE EXERCISES

XIX. LIST OF ACRONYMS

The Exercise Indian Ocean Wave 14 (IOWave14, IOC/2014/TS/113Vol.1) was conducted on

1. Validate the dissemination by TSPs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages to

2. Validate the reception by NTWCs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages and

6. Identify the methods used to notify and instruct the public.

7. Assess the elapsed time for public notification and instruction.

Exercise Conduct, Participation

Objectives 1–3: Communications, Access to Information, Status Reporting

Objectives 4–7: Procedures, Decision-Making, Public Notification

Dissemination of tsunami warning messages to response agencies and government is in

Reported Benefits and Suggested Enhancements for Future Exercises

1.2 EXERCISE CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATION

Exercise IOWave14 was conducted on 9 and 10 September 2014 (IOC/2014/TS/113Vol.1).

 NTWCs: Bangladesh, Comoros, France (La Réunion), Iran, Kenya, Madagascar,

SCENARIO 1 – JAVA SCENARIO 2 – MAKRAN TRENCH

 Java scenario participants: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France (Reunion), India,

 Makran scenario participants: Australia, Comoros, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya,

ACTIVITY %Y No. Total

IOTWS-TSP messages were received in a

The provincial or local level participated. 43% 10 23

Public evacuation drills were conducted. 8% 2 24

Table–2. Summary of Member State participation levels.

2. EXERCISE OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS

Objective 1: Validate the dissemination by TSPs of Tsunami Bulletin Notification Messages

2.1.1 Message Dissemination

Percent No. Total

Table–3. NTWC assessment of the timeliness

Percent No. Total

2.1.2 Issues to be followed up for Objective 1

 Indonesia: Check on delivery of TSP Indonesia notification messages to Thailand and

2.2.1 Reception of TSP Notification Messages

Java Scenario Makran Scenario

TSP Australia Email Messages

TSP India Email Messages

TSP Indonesia Email Messages