STC RoadmapActivity 1a: Work Plan Review

Douglas Cripe – GEO Secretariat ST-09-01 Kick-offBrussels 27-30 July 2009

STC Objective

• Ensure evolving GEO Work Plan scientifically and technologically sound and contributes to answering relevant questions in the SBAs.

• To be achieved through a revolving scientific review of each Work Plan, starting with the current work plan for 2009-2011.

Outcome: Work Plan Assessment Report

• WP AR to examine the outstanding questions and challenges in each of the SBAs.

• AR may recommend changes to objectives and scope of existing Tasks or propose new Tasks to respond to any identified deficits or overlaps.

• AR may also identify:– opportunities for cooperation between Tasks– suggest inclusion of specific activities from outside GEOSS– motivate the definition of new ones.

• AR scope also includes reviewing the completeness of 9 SBAs.

Experts

• AR needs to retain sufficient independence from the authors of WP.

• AR to involve scientists and institutions of significant standing in the community.

• Team of experts (one from each SBA) should coordinate review.

• Experts involved in compiling the IGOS-P Theme Reports especially desired.

Timeline

• AR should be completed in time for GEO Ministerial Summit in 2010.

• STC to advise on the review effort and seek ways to support the work with dedicated funding from science foundations of member countries.

• Action: Initiate Review Process for GEO Work Plan 2009-11.– Sub-Action [STC; now]: Identify Responsible team of

experts or Task [possibly a new ST-Task].– Sub-Action [team of experts; by 2009]: Identify main

challenges/open questions within the SBAs that should be addressed by the S&T component of GEOSS.

– Sub-Action [team of experts; by 2010]: Conduct Review.– Sub-Action [ST-09-01; now]: Seek ways to raise

dedicated funding from science foundations of member countries for review work.

• Action [STC; 2011]: Initiate Review Processes for future GEO Work Plan(s).

Thus far…

Telecon 18 June 20091. WP review should analyze what S&T elements are lacking

in the Tasks of the GEO WP which could prevent these Tasks from accomplishing their objectives. – mapping of the objectives of the Tasks of WP against

current Task contributions. The result of this type of review would be a list of missing S&T elements necessary for each Task to succeed.

2. The WP review should assess whether the Tasks in the current WP sufficiently address major scientific questions in those areas where EO able to make contributions. – independent examination of the WP wrt

• quality of the work included• relevance for major scientific challenges• effectiveness of the Tasks in this context.

– AR of the expected impact of the WP on science and technology.

But…

• Distinct from Monitoring & Evaluation process

• Distinct from periodic Technical Review of WP– open to all GEO, managed by WP Coordinator

• Distinct from work of ST-09-01 and ST-09-02

• Key consideration: STC adds value through improved coordination between and within Tasks while ensuring they are as comprehensive as possible.

Next steps until 11th STC meeting

• Iteration of draft ToR

• Candidate experts to be identified

Thank you!

dcripe@geosec.orgearthobservations.org