Better prepared for emergencies with PWS and CEM
Modern Public Warning Systems (PWS) and Critical Event Management (CEM) ensure that members of the public are alerted and informed more quickly and effectively in the event of an emergency. Public authorities and emergency services can coordinate their efforts more effectively and waste less time.
Since the end of the Cold War, civil protection and disaster management in Germany were long neglected. However, events in recent years have brought about a change in thinking, particularly the 2021 flood disaster in the Ahr Valley and the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine the following year. Since then, large-scale investment has resumed, including in warning systems. For example, sirens – which have gradually disappeared from rooftops since the 1990s – are being repaired or even newly installed. However, this so-called ‘loud’ alert system can only be one part of a comprehensive system. In addition to sirens, digital warning channels are already available in Germany as part of a national warning system. Today, we can and must utilise technical means that enable a much more granular alert system and the transmission of messages. Nor should we stop at the alert system alone: in the event of a disaster, coordination between various agencies and swift action are crucial. Critical Event Management is often used for this purpose today. Both systems must work together to avert as much damage as possible in times of crisis.
Why we need improved warning systems
The Ahr Valley floods demonstrated in a devastating way what happens when a natural disaster strikes amid inadequate preparation. Problems arose in many areas at the time, and improved warning systems alone would not have been enough. Nevertheless, issuing warnings to the public as early as possible and across the board in such cases is a crucial step towards protecting life and limb as effectively as possible. Investigations following the disaster show that 35 per cent of residents in North Rhine-Westphalia and 29 per cent of residents in Rhineland-Palatinate had not received any warning at all. Of those who were warned, 85 per cent had not anticipated the severity of the flooding and 46 per cent lacked situational knowledge regarding protective measures.
The key issue with warnings is whether they reach the right people via the correct channels with clear instructions during those crucial seconds or minutes. Given the increasing frequency of extreme weather events in recent years, this must be a top priority. In 2024, for instance, Europe was once again hit by severe storms. Storm Boris brought record rainfall and severe flooding to parts of Eastern and Central Europe. Climate change is making such extreme weather events more frequent. But this is not the only reason. The global security situation is currently more tense than it has been for decades – with several open conflicts and international terrorism on the rise. At the same time, we are increasingly witnessing so-called hybrid warfare, in which, alongside combat operations against regular combatants, targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure, disinformation and other subversive activities play a major role. In short, we are currently living in an age of diffuse threats, which is also reflected in people’s subjective sense of security.
A first step towards building greater trust is a functioning warning system. However, this must be accompanied by reliable systems with clear processes to coordinate measures in the event of a crisis.
The basis: Public Warning System (PWS)
A PWS is an emergency communications infrastructure operated by government agencies that sends official, location-specific, real-time warning messages to people within a defined risk area. Germany already has a national warning system in place in the form of the Modular Warning System (MoWaS), whose warning channels have also included cell broadcast since February 2023. Regional, local authority and organisation-specific warning and crisis management solutions – for example at airports or among operators of critical infrastructure – complement and reinforce this national warning architecture.
The aim is not only to inform people about a (disaster) event, but also to provide them with specific instructions quickly enough so that they can protect themselves as effectively as possible. To this end, modern systems generally combine several channels: cell broadcast, location-based SMS, mobile apps, sirens, radio, television, public display boards, email and social media.
Cell broadcast is a particularly important element in this regard. This technology enables all mobile subscribers within a radio cell to be notified. It makes no difference which operator’s network they are connected to, whether they are using a local or a foreign SIM card, or how their phone is configured. The warning message automatically triggers a loud tone and vibration. As most people nowadays carry a mobile phone with them almost all the time, this is an ideal way to disseminate information quickly.
According to the Federal Network Agency, there were around 106 million active SIM profiles in Germany at the end of 2025. Statistically speaking, therefore, every German citizen has more than one mobile connection. In practice, of course, this is not the case, and there are still people without a mobile phone. However, this number is steadily decreasing, and it is highly likely that there is a mobile phone user nearby. That said, by no means are all mobile phones in use ‘smart’. According to a Bitkom study, 82 per cent of people over the age of sixteen in Germany use a smartphone at least occasionally, meaning 18 per cent do not. It would therefore be the wrong approach to rely solely on a smartphone-based concept for disaster warnings.
Another point in favour of cell broadcast is that mobile communications infrastructure is now available in the vast majority of inhabited areas around the world. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimates that 96 per cent of the world’s population is covered by at least 3G connectivity. This means that a PWS based on cell broadcast can be implemented within a relatively short time and without any significant infrastructure adjustments.
Utimaco was able to deploy such a system in Ukraine within six weeks, with the aim of better protecting civilians from Russian attacks. The system is centrally connected to the local mobile network operators Kyivstar, Vodafone and Lifecell and supports 2G, 3G and 4G regardless of the provider. This example demonstrates how a warning system can still be set up rapidly even in an emergency situation by utilising existing infrastructure.
Cell Broadcast is not affected by network utilisation, as it involves prioritised point-to-multipoint messages. This is more comparable to a traditional FM broadcast than to one-to-one mobile connections. Transmission is not affected by the number of devices receiving it. Thanks to this principle, no telephone numbers or other information about mobile subscribers within a cell is required.
More than just messages: Critical Event Management (CEM)
Critical Event Management (CEM) is a structured approach to the detection, assessment, management and documentation of events ranging from natural disasters, severe weather, industrial accidents and evacuations to cyber-attacks. Unlike pure alerting solutions, CEM supports the entire crisis cycle: preparation, early detection, targeted alerting, escalation, coordination, recovery and post-incident documentation. These systems provide a central platform for clear lines of responsibility, structured workflows, real-time situational awareness and transparent decision-making. CEM helps public authorities, organisations and businesses to prepare for critical scenarios, link relevant data sources and IoT elements, coordinate internal and external stakeholders, and minimise the impact of incidents on people as much as possible.
However, such systems are still far from being in widespread use, and in many cases, crisis response continues to rely on disjointed communication channels, ad hoc coordination and manual handover procedures. Whilst this may still be manageable in straightforward situations, it becomes difficult as soon as an incident affects multiple locations, teams or emergency services. Typical weaknesses include unclear roles and responsibilities, fragmented communication channels, technical silos, slow manual processes, limited real-time situational awareness and incomplete post-incident documentation. This makes it difficult to gain an overview of events, decide who needs to take action, escalate matters quickly and, afterwards, demonstrate which decisions were made and why.
CEM bridges this gap by going beyond mere communication. It combines incident detection, targeted alerting, escalation, coordination, task management, documentation and follow-up within a structured workflow.
Conclusion: Alerting alone is not enough
Effective civil protection can only be achieved when rapid, targeted alerts and reliable coordination work in tandem. Modern civil protection systems ensure that people are reached in good time in the event of an emergency; CEM ensures that authorities, emergency services and organisations can then act in a structured manner. In the face of increasing natural hazards, hybrid threats and complex crisis situations, these two approaches together form the basis for greater resilience, faster responses and a stronger sense of security amongst the public.
