sit-27 meeting la jolla, ca, usa march 26-28, 2012 report on the geo post-2015 working group timothy...

SIT-27 MeetingLa Jolla, CA, USAMarch 26-28, 2012

Report on the GEO Post-2015 Working Group

Timothy Stryker, CEO and Brent Smith, NOAACEOS SIT-27

La Jolla, CaliforniaMarch 27-28


GEO Post-2015 WG Background

WG Established by GEO-VIII Plenary, Istanbulr

• “…assess options and scenarios for the next phase of GEOSS implementation, including the scope of activities, institutional arrangements, internal governance, and resourcing of GEO.”

• Open to all GEO Members and Participating Organizations

• Interim reporting to GEO ExCom and 2012 GEO-IX Plenary

• Final Report to 2013 GEO-X Plenary/Ministerial Summit with detailed recommendations for the post-2015 future of GEO and GEOSS (“GEOSS 2.0”)

• Interim Reporting to GEO ExCom and Plenary


Framework for Post-2015 Discussion

Starting Materials

• “Vision” papers provided by GEO Members• Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan

• “Sustaining GEOSS Beyond 2015: A GEO ExCom Discussion Paper on the Future of GEOSS and GEO”• Issues and options for GEOSS (scope, updating the

framework and guiding documents)• Issues and options for GEO (institutional,

governance, resourcing, new priorities)• Four Possible Post-2015 Scenarios Outlined

• Notional and evolving• Range from “Business as Usual Plus” to Radical

Change


CEOS Participants in Post-2015 WG

• CEOS Involved in WG as a Participating Organization• CEOS interest in GEO as an organizing framework for space-based

and in-situ EO to meet societal needs• Desire for strong and effective GEO leadership and Secretariat as

partners to CEOS

• CEOS-wide Representation in WG• Brent Smith, NOAA, and Tim Stryker, CEO

• CEOS Agency Representation in National/Other PO Delegations• Luc Brûlé (Canada), Stefano Bruzzi (Italy), Gilberto Câmara (Brazil),

Per-Erik Skrøvseth (Norway), Laura Frulla (Argentina), Robert Husband (EUMETSAT), Barbara Ryan (WMO), Helmut Staudenrausch (Germany), Wenjian Zhang (WMO)


Topics Addressed in First Meeting

• Administrative

• Co-Chairs P. Collohan, USA; M. Muofhe, S. Africa; and G. Ollier, EC• Review/Approve modified Terms of Reference• Opening Statements

• Future of GEOSS• Future operational GEOSS• Strengthening observing networks; space and in situ• Architecture• Data sharing• Information products and key initiatives• Review Discussion Paper scenarios

• Future of GEO• Resourcing• Institutional issues• Governance within GEO

• Role of PO’s and private sector• Plenary, ExCom, Boards, Work Plan, Working Groups, what needs improvement

• Future actions and schedule• Develop new improved scenarios to examine• May 25 telecon; provide report to July 12-13 ExCom; post-ExCom telcon• 2nd WG meeting likely in September 2012 to finalize report to GEO Plenary-IX


Initial Observations on Potentially Emerging Viewpoints within WG

(cont’d)

• GEO should not claim to be operational• GEO should not claim to organize everything else, but rather work

productively/proactively with existing mechanisms to fill gaps in observations and provision of needed information

• It will be important to determine to what degree GEO should be responsible for (a) observations (definitely), (b) information provision (possibly), and (c) service provision (very unlikely)

• Should GEO be “deeper” or “wider”?• More rapid progress on a smaller number of end-to-end initiatives,

or a broader enabling environment for many projects, often with a slower rate of progress?

• There have been some notable successes in data sharing and this activity should remain a high priority of GEO

• Complaints about GEO Work Plan and Management Structure• Discontinuity between the old and new GEO Work Plan• Work Plan is no more than a “Wish List” in many areas• Implementation Board structure seems cumbersome and opaque



• Differing opinions on the initial success of GEO; most participants cautiously optimistic

• Space community (CEOS and individual agencies) well-organized and well-funded as significant contributor to the GEOSS

• Unrealized goals with the in-situ community figured prominently- Further development and maintenance of, and coordination with, the

in-situ community is needed - (no in-situ representatives were present for first meeting)

• GEO as an “incubator” for large-scale initiatives that may become (proto-) operational and separate from GEO with their own dedicated organization and funding

• Question of whether “visibility” translates into utility and success



(cont’d)

• No major programmatic/organizational changes envisioned- Founding vision and scope were not seriously contested- Much discussion on whether GEO is living up to its claims and

“holding its own” vis-a-vis UN organizations or programs- GEO likely to remain within WMO administrative structure

• Voluntary nature of GEO is strongly supported

• GEO Secretariat needs to be stabilized and strengthened

• Amount in Trust Fund is insufficient for resources that are needed- Possibly emerging idea (broached in side discussions, not at large)

is the need for all members to be vested in GEO, and pay some level of dues on a sliding scale

- Interest in the possibility of endowments from external donors

• Need to augment role of private sector in GEOSS implementation


-- Floor Open for CEOS Discussion --

Further CEOS Input to Working Group?

Do you have any CEOS-specific comments relating to the issues

discussed at last week’s first meeting of GEO Post-2015 WG?

sit-27 meeting la jolla, ca, usa march 26-28, 2012 report on the geo post-2015 working group timothy...

Documents