 |
|
| Report of the ad hoc CEOS Meeting on the
Space Component of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy Seattle, Washington, USA 27-29 March 1996
Foreword
An Integrated Global Observing Strategy will demand new heights of mutual responsiveness between communities whose members measure phenomena on the Earth's surface and atmosphere; and communities whose members make use of this information. Such a step will also demand greater cohesiveness within the respective communities - for example, between those who provide space-based measurements, and those who provide local or in situ measurements; and also between users in the private sector; international research programs; space agencies; and national research institutions. Both the provider and the user communities will need to interact effectively with funding agencies, if we are to realise collectively the social, economic and scientific benefits of operational and research applications made possible by modern measurement technology. Of course, some organisations span many of these communities, in which case they may face the difficult challenge of achieving greater internal co-ordination! Within the field of applications of space technology, there are many models for delivering services, reflecting different experiences and levels of maturity in the respective industrial segments and clients addressed by each. For example the three application areas of communications, meteorology, and remote sensing, have evolved at different rates, at different times and with different sets of customers. The level of involvement between the public and private sectors also varies considerably between areas of application. In many cases, the delivery models have changed markedly over time, in response to evolving conditions. A conspicuous condition of the environment facing current public-funded scientific activity is that of economic constraint. As managers we are all attempting to do more with less; to get greater productivity from our core capabilities; and to adapt our practices and organisations to changing circumstances. Economic considerations, as well as the need to better understand the condition and trend of the Earth's biosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere, have been keys to the suggestion of a global observing strategy. Technical issues - such as integration of in situ and global measurements, and methods to promote interuse by several user groups, of data from a variety of sensors and platforms - have also been important, and have already had an impact on research and development activities carried out by CEOS participating agencies. The idea of conducting, within the framework of CEOS, a meeting on the space component of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy was first proposed during the CEOS Plenary held in Montreal during October 1995. At that Plenary it was agreed that an informal discussion would assist in clarifying views on such a strategy. The invitation to participate was issued by NOAA and NASA, the local hosts, and the meeting was planned and completed through an active Organising Committee with a broad and representative membership. A discussion paper, questionnaire and explanatory notes, prepared by the Organising Committee, were sent by CSIRO to about 80 potential attendees representing all Members, Affiliates and Observers of CEOS. Consolidated responses were analysed by ESA and EUMETSAT, and are included in this report. The fact that so many agencies contributed surely demonstrates the timeliness of IGOS debate which has now commenced in earnest. The outcomes of the Seattle meeting will be considered at the CEOS 10th Plenary in Canberra where the results of the Task Force and Planning analysis will provide valuable inputs for future discussion on an IGOS. In September, a meeting to consider the in situ component of Global Observing Systems will be hosted by GCOS. It is anticipated that feedback from this event will also be available to the 10th Plenary. Participants at the Seattle meeting explored whether a consensus exists that an IGOS is sensible, achievable, and if so, should be pursued. I believe that the answers were affirmative, at least to the extent that further elaboration and discussion would be supported. It is recognised that a long term observing strategy which is to be genuinely integrated as well as global, must take into account the values and needs of parties beyond the scope of CEOS. In particular, ways must be found to accommodate inputs from the suppliers and users of local measurements; from users of space-based data who are not connected with CEOS Affiliates; and from the private sector providers of space-based observations. CSIRO takes this opportunity to acknowledge CEOS colleagues, particularly the delegates from the Members, Affiliates and Observers who participated enthusiastically in making the Seattle meeting a significant step on the road to an Integrated Global Observing Strategy. I thank the other members of the Organising Committee for their dedicated efforts, and the hosts, NOAA and NASA, for their local arrangements, not excluding the views and weather! Brian J J Embleton, Chair of CEOS.
On 27-29 March 1996, in response to Action 9-19 arising from the 1995 CEOS Plenary, CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers, met in Seattle, Washington to discuss the desirability, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of an integrated global observing strategy (IGOS). The ad hoc meeting was hosted by NOAA and NASA. An Organizing Committee, comprised of NOAA, NASA, STA, NASDA, ESA, EUMETSAT, GCOS, and CSIRO planned the meeting, which was chaired by the current CEOS Chairman, Dr. Brian Embleton of CSIRO. All CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers were invited to attend and provide input to the discussion. All CEOS agencies - regardless of whether they were able to attend the Seattle meeting - were invited to respond to a Discussion Paper and Questionnaire on an IGOS, distributed by the Organizing Committee prior to the ad hoc meeting. The meeting focused on the space component of a possible IGOS. The interest in exploring the elements of a long-term, integrated strategy was sparked by the general realization that many research and operational endeavors can make effective use of Earth observations from space and non-space sources, but there exists no strategic framework within which observational requirements can be presented and addressed by potential data providers. Over the next decade new space-based Earth observing instruments will be built and orbited by many countries. The data from these instruments will constitute a rich source of basis information regarding the Earth system. Many international organizations and countries are also planning extensive research and operational Earth observing campaigns using non space-based instrumentation. To make the most effective use of these important data, close coordination and integration of the observing and analysis programs, both horizontally (i.e., within the space-based or non space-based components) and vertically (i.e., between the space-based and non space-based components) is required. This is the basis for the concept of an integrated global observing strategy. The term "strategy" implies that CEOS and other organizations could make more effective use of existing and future instrumentation by developing and evolving an international strategy to avoid unnecessary redundancies, fill data gaps, and integrate research results. It also implies the integrated use of both operational and research systems for studying Earth and managing its resources. Observational capabilities will evolve over time and must be able to accommodate changing technology, scientific understanding, and user needs, as well as changes in the capabilities of potential data providers. Most of the currently identified programs will be implemented early next century. An integrated global observing strategy could assist with long-term co-ordination and planning. The meeting considered several major topics pertaining to a viable integrated global observing strategy, including: Global observation systems, including the components of data acquisition, management and analysis, will greatly assist in addressing many social, economic and environmental issues, such as sustainable development and environmental security. Participants agreed that existing and planned space-based systems could fulfil user needs in a more cost-effective manner if they were better coordinated, both in respect to needs for data from space and in respect to local (in situ, non-space-based) measurement programs. Defining Characteristics of an IGOS The discussion of the defining characteristics of an IGOS emphasized that its agenda should be guided principally by user requirements and open to all CEOS data providers and data user organizations willing to contribute to defining and meeting its goals and objectives. Participants agreed that each user community should define its own set of requirements and data priorities clearly, based on detailed information about societal needs. Participants felt that an IGOS should be structured to meet the following minimum objectives in order to satisfy a formal set of users' data requirements: - continuity of data provision (coverage and characteristics); Participants agreed that an IGOS could well provide a framework for continuing dialogue between users and providers of data. It could further set out the relationships and roles among the participating communities, and strengthen mechanisms for consultation and exchange of information. As the discussion emphasized, contributors to an IGOS must expect differences of opinion and be prepared to deal with them constructively. The strategy should accommodate a variety of data policies, reflecting differences in the circumstances, responsibilities, and policies of the contributors. An IGOS framework might also set intermediate goals or benchmarks, to allow for periodic assessment and rectification of deficiencies. The meeting gave considerable attention to the issue of the commitments of data providers to make observations and provide data within the context of national or regional priorities and funding. Participants agreed that these data commitments must necessarily be voluntary. If for some reason the data provider has to change or abrogate a previous commitment, the provider should give timely advanced notice. Implementation Mechanisms/Role of CEOS The critical first step is an analysis of how well existing and planned space-based observation systems meet user requirements. The report of the CEOS Task Force on Planning and Analysis will be instrumental in this process. Participants generally agreed that in the implementation of an IGOS one should not attempt to rank Affiliates' requirements in priority order across the user fields. Rather, it should present users' data requirements and the need each meets (economic, political, social, benefits) as opportunities for action. This procedure would allow each agency, country, region, or groups of agencies to choose from among them as interest and resources allow. IGOS could attempt to meet as many of the user requirements as possible, as well as possible, taking into account user priorities. Participants concurred that CEOS is a key place in which to address the space component of an IGOS and suggested that an IGOS would facilitate the move from a collection of contributions to a collective contribution. Such a commitment would imply a willingness to accept mutual interdependence in providing required data. Participants also recognized the potential contribution from private sector data providers. The meeting debated the appropriateness of identifying pilot projects or targets to begin the implementation of an IGOS, but reached no consensus on this point. Several participants argued that this could pre-empt the definition by users of their requirements. Others suggested that it was an opportune moment, from their own budgetary and political circumstances, to focus on specific short and medium term goals in the context of a prototype or pilot study for an integrated global observation approach to Earth system science. The meeting generally viewed the IGOS concept favorably, but recognized that this potentially major development required further thinking and refinement. To assist, the meeting recommended the following steps: Recommendation 1: The outcomes of the Seattle Ad Hoc CEOS Meeting on the Space Component of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy, should be fully discussed at the 1996 CEOS Plenary in Canberra. Recommendation 2: In order to address the many issues concerning the development of an IGOS, the 1996 Plenary should consider creating a CEOS study team, made up of those Members, Affiliates, and Observers ready to contribute to an IGOS. Recommendation 3: That the CEOS Chairman and Secretariat undertake a review of CEOS Terms of Reference with regard to: 1) the status of Affiliates within CEOS; and 2) any changes necessary to accommodate an IGOS, and report as appropriate at the Plenary. Recommendation 4: The Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) should be invited to become a CEOS Affiliate. Recommendation 5: GCOS should be invited to present, to the 1996 Plenary, the results of the September meeting on in situ observations for Global Observing Systems. Report of the Ad Hoc CEOS Meeting on the Space Component of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy On 27-29 March 1996 in response to Action 9-19 arising from the 1995 CEOS Plenary in Montreal, CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers met in Seattle, Washington, to discuss the desirability, feasibility, and potential effectiveness of an integrated global observing strategy (IGOS). [See Appendix 1 for a list of attendees.] As agreed at the 1995 Plenary , the ad hoc meeting was hosted by NOAA and NASA. An Organizing Committee (Appendix 2), comprised of NOAA, NASA, STA, NASDA, ESA, EUMETSAT, GCOS, and CSIRO planned the meeting, which was chaired by the current CEOS Chairman, Dr. Brian Embleton of CSIRO. All CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers were invited to attend and provide input. In keeping with the goals and objectives of CEOS, the meeting focused on the space component of a possible IGOS, while noting that a fully integrated strategy would necessarily include provisions for incorporating observations made by non space-based instrumentation. The interest in exploring the elements of a long-term, integrated strategy was sparked by the general realization that many research and operational endeavors can make effective use of Earth observations from space and non-space sources, but there exists no strategic framework within which observational requirements can be presented and addressed by potential data providers. Over the next decade new space-based Earth observing instruments will be built and orbited by many countries. In addition, countries are also planning extensive research and operational Earth observing campaigns using non space-based instrumentation. The data from these instruments will constitute a rich source of basic information regarding the Earth system. To make the most effective use of these important data, close coordination and integration of the observing and analysis programs, both horizontally (i.e., within the space-based or non space-based components) and vertically (i.e., between the space-based and non space-based components) is required. This is the basis for the concept of an integrated global observing strategy. The term strategy connotes flexibility, openness, and inclusiveness. A strategy implies, for example, that CEOS and other organizations concerned with observing and understanding the Earth as a system could make more effective use of existing and already planned instrumentation by avoiding unnecessary redundancies, filling data gaps, and integrating research results. It also implies the integrated use of both operational and research systems for studying Earth and managing its resources. By contrast, the term system implies greater rigidity in planning and a focus on fixed end points. Yet, observational capabilities will evolve over time and must be able to accommodate changing technology, scientific understanding, and user needs, as well as changes in the internal capabilities of potential data providers. On 19 December 1995, NOAA and NASA invited CEOS participants to a meeting in Seattle, to initiate the process of formulating recommendations for the CEOS Plenary in November 1996 on the role of CEOS in the development of the space component of an integrated global observing strategy. On 16 February 1996, in preparation for the meeting the Organizing Committee invited responses from all CEOS participating agencies to the following questions: - What issues or topics would you like CEOS to address in the Seattle meeting? - From your perspective, regarding space-based Earth observation and long-term observational needs: a) What are the most urgent deficiencies in the current situation? b) What are the strong points and successes? What are the defining characteristics of an integrated global observing strategy? The Organizing Committee used the responses to help frame the meeting agenda. ESA, with support from EUMETSAT, offered to synthesize all the responses into an integrated paper and to present this synthesis at the meeting. The meeting lasted for two and one half days. After the Chairman's opening remarks regarding the purpose of the meeting (Appendix 3) , the hosts, Dr. Charles Kennel (NASA) and Mr. Robert Winokur (NOAA) presented some general views on an IGOS (Appendix 4), suggesting that CEOS could have a major part to play in defining and implementing the IGOS concept. Short briefings on different aspects of an IGOS (appendices 5-9) followed, with time allowed for participants to react and discuss them: - To Realize Strategic Earth Observation - Dr. Kaoru Mamiya (STA) The discussion of an IGOS was broken into four topic sessions, each of which was preceded by a short synthesis of CEOS participants' views on the topic, based on their responses to the Organizing Committee's questions. Participants were invited to offer brief comments during the discussion of each topic. The Chairman encouraged the group to try to identify areas of consensus and areas where views differed, along with recommendations, if appropriate, for further CEOS activity. Following these discussions, small group drafting sessions were held for each of the topics, to clarify and summarize the general discussions. The drafting sessions were led by Dr. John Townshend (GCOS); Dr. David Williams (EUMETSAT); Dr. Lisa Shaffer (NASA); and Dr. Brent Smith (NOAA). Results of these drafting sessions were presented in the final full group session and refined further. The following sections reflect the overall plenary discussions, the inputs from the drafting sessions, and the reactions to the Topic reports during the final full group session. Topic 1: The Need for An IGOS, Scope, and Objectives Participants agreed broadly on the need for an IGOS, in order to make more effective use of the investments in existing or planned space-based and non space-based systems for research and operational applications with CEOS focussing on the space component. Earth observation is widely recognized as an essential element in understanding Earth as a system; a wide variety of observational needs and data requirements have been identified. Space-based observation systems, including the acquisition of data and data relay, management, processing, and analysis, will greatly assist in addressing many social, economic, and environmental issues, such as sustainable development and environmental security. For example, remedying many of the deficiencies in understanding long-term climate change, identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is crucially dependent on space observations. The broad utility of space-based data has created a world wide demand for a complex set of instruments to collect data, the ability to transmit data to Earth efficiently, and systems to create and distribute needed data products. No single agency or country has the available resources to meet these needs, particularly when space agencies generally face increasingly constrained budgets. They are called upon to provide more service with fewer resources, yet many needs for data are not being met by the existing systems. Participants agreed that the existing and planned future space-based systems could fulfil user needs more effectively if agencies sought better coordination and cooperation. It is for these purposes that participants generally supported the concept of an IGOS. The strategy could integrate planning among agencies to create cost-effective space-based systems, inter-calibration, compatibility of data delivery systems, and better links between and among users and providers. The process commenced in Seattle to address the future requirements for a globally integrated observing strategy could also assist the long-term co-ordination and planning for space segments. A central focus of an IGOS is the shift from an attitude of "technology push" in the development of space systems to a much greater responsiveness to user needs ("demand pull"). Participants expected that such an approach would lead to improved integration of user needs with agency capabilities, greater overall cost efficiency, and enhanced delivery of services to meet economic, social, and environmental needs. In the absence of major changes in the existing mechanisms for funding and managing space systems, the particular needs of individual nations and small groups of nations will determine size and allocation of the overall available funding for space-based systems; however, working together in the context of an integrated strategy would allow nations to achieve greater benefits from their space investments. An IGOS, participants agreed, would also create a context for Earth observations that would encourage national or regional data providers to build in additional capability where small additional investments in sensor calibration and validation would extend the benefits of acquiring the data to a broader user community. Although participants supported the IGOS concept, they reached less agreement on the specific characteristics of an IGOS and how it might be structured. They did agree that CEOS's role in an overall integrated strategy should be limited to the space component. Some participants expressed concern that CEOS would be viewed as prescribing the overall structure of an IGOS. They expressed the view that coordination and planning among non-space data providers was the purview of other organizations. Participants recognized the importance of in situ data to validate and calibrate space-based data How broad a scope should an IGOS have? Participants agreed that it must address the needs of a wide variety of users, including researchers, operational users, and policymakers and others who make decisions based on the information an IGOS might provide. As noted above, the space-based component of an IGOS must include the acquisition of observations, data transmission, processing, distribution, and archiving, and should ensure the open, wide availability of primary data and data products. It must also include in situ observations needed for calibration and validation of space-based observations. An IGOS could provide the framework within which private sector data providers and value-added companies could intersect with publicly-supported agencies. Several participants suggested that in crafting the conceptual framework for an IGOS, participants should particularly consider the needs of developing countries, both as providers and users of data. In the plenary discussion, participants noted that CEOS, through its participating agencies, is implementing a developing country strategy. Many of the CEOS Affiliates also include developing countries and represent their needs within the Affiliates' own programs. Some participants asserted that an IGOS would be evolutionary. To embark upon the implementation of an IGOS, some participants suggested that CEOS might begin with a few well-defined pilot projects that could be addressed primarily with data acquired from space, such as disaster monitoring, regional climate studies, and environmental stress. Participants suggested that planning for an IGOS could establish specific goals and milestones as well as mechanisms for assessing progress toward achieving its goals. Ideally, assessment of progress would be accomplished through peer review at the space agency level, and through feedback from the user community. Rather than setting a fixed end point, the strategy should provide a direction and the means to harmonize the contributions of many different agencies. To what societal and political objectives should an IGOS respond? Participants
suggested that an IGOS might provide data sets to cope with : Topic 2: Defining Characteristics of an IGOS The discussion of the defining characteristics of an IGOS emphasized that its agenda should be guided principally by user requirements and open to all CEOS data providers and data user organizations willing to contribute to defining and meeting its goals and objectives. Participants agreed that each user community should define its own set of requirements and data priorities clearly, based on detailed information about societal needs. Participants felt that an IGOS could be structured to meet the following minimum objectives in order to satisfy a formal set of users' data requirements: - continuity of data provision (coverage and characteristics); Participants agreed that an IGOS could provide a framework for continuing dialogue between users and providers of data. It could further set out the relationships and roles among the participating communities, and strengthen mechanisms for consultation and exchange of information. As the discussion emphasized, contributors to an IGOS must expect differences of opinion and be prepared to deal with them constructively. The meeting devoted considerable time to the issue of the commitments of data providers to make observations and provide data within the context of national or regional priorities and funding. Participants agreed that data commitments by an agency or organization must necessarily be voluntary; they also concluded that it was extremely important for the commitment, once made, to be met by the data provider. If for some reason the data provider has to change or abrogate a previous commitment, it should give timely advanced notice. Finally, an IGOS framework might also set measurable benchmarks for gauging progress. Because participants expect the goals and objectives of an IGOS to evolve over time, the endpoints need not be fixed. Nevertheless, the ability of an IGOS structure to meet goals should be assessed periodically and any deficiencies corrected. An IGOS would, in general, achieve efficiencies through finding common means to satisfy related data requirements. The meeting noted that architects of an IGOS have a solid foundation to build upon, both in existing space-based systems, and in extensive experience with operational and research networks. Because an IGOS would involve the contributions of data from many countries and organizations, participants agreed that it would also have to accommodate a variety of data policies. However, the Seattle meeting did not enter into detailed discussion of data policy issues. CEOS data providers serve a wide variety of users and will continue to do so. Topic 3: Implementation Mechanisms/Role of CEOS Attempting to define mechanisms to implement the space-based component of an IGOS proved the most challenging of all the issues discussed at the ad hoc meeting. This was, in large part, because building consensus on mechanisms to develop a strategy requires participants to consider how each organization might need to harmonize its requirements and capabilities with others, and such considerations take time and considerable discussion. This meeting made significant steps toward reaching harmony among data users and providers by noting areas of agreement and disagreement in the implementation steps. Given a set of user requirements for data, based on economic, societal, and political needs for information about the environment, the next step is to conduct an analysis of how well the existing and planned future systems meet user requirements. The CEOS Task Force on Planning and Analysis is now working through the first of these steps and will report to the November Plenary. Data users and data providers, working together, must develop a strategy to meet the objectives outlined in Topics 1 and 2. One important area of disagreement among participants was over the relative importance that CEOS should give to political imperatives in determining requirement priorities. In particular, some participants suggested that CEOS should pre-screen requirements based on the need to satisfy political objectives (such as Article 2 of the Framework Convention for Climate Change (FCCC)). Others maintained that requirements should be accepted from all CEOS Affiliates without prescreening. Participants generally agreed that CEOS should not attempt to rank requirements in priority order. Rather it should present users' data requirements and the need each meets (economic, political, social, benefits) as opportunities for action. This procedure would allow each agency, country, region, or groups of agencies to choose from among them as interest and resources allow. In sum, an IGOS should attempt to meet as many of the user requirements as possible, as well as possible, taking into account user priorities. Participants agreed that the goal of CEOS in implementing the space component of an IGOS should be to move from a collection of contributions to a collective contribution. Such a commitment would imply a willingness to accept mutual interdependence in providing required data. In implementing its approach to achieving an IGOS, CEOS will have to give considerable attention to determining what and how much information about data requirements providers will need in order to fill the need. Meeting participants agreed that the planning process within CEOS and within participant organizations should be documented so that others are aware of planned new programs and may participate in the planning process. The drafting group devoted considerable discussion to the appropriateness of identifying pilot projects or targets to begin IGOS implementation. As noted in Topic 1 above, participants did not agree on identifying a first step. Several participants cautioned against moving too fast on such an important matter and pointed out that picking a pilot project might pre-empt the non space-based community and user groups. A divergence in internal agency priorities, capabilities, and external political constraints leads to different views of the appropriate first steps. The Task Force analysis should document opportunities for future action; agencies can then choose first steps that are appropriate to their own conditions, rather than attempting to fit into a single first step. While participants were reluctant to chose a specific pilot project, they also had no desire to preclude proposals and coordinated actions to address specific topics or themes that might arise. Participants concurred that CEOS is a key forum in which to address the space component of an IGOS, recognizing the need to make provisions for including data from private sector providers as well. Private industry is moving quickly, particularly in high resolution land remote sensing, to develop its capability to provide data on a commercial basis. Participants, however, left details of how including private sector actors might function to later discussions. CEOS is established as a successful forum for interaction with many users through its Affiliates. The deliberations of CEOS and its actions vis-à-vis an IGOS could well serve as a pathfinder in the in situ community's movements toward an IGOS. CEOS could, in particular, contribute to the focusing and enhancing of political support for key actions. Despite the considerable success of space-based observations in meeting the data needs of the world, however, it is still necessary to highlight the unique contributions of data from space. The discussion of Topic 3 revealed the need for CEOS to address IGOS issues, including: - Strategic level participation in an IGOS process; If CEOS decides to participate in an IGOS, CEOS will have the obligation to create a public strategy document, to which users and providers jointly contribute, documenting requirements and a clearly-defined road map for meeting them. In assessing this future need, participants discussed whether or not there should be a space-based document, separate from a counterpart in situ document, but did not reach consensus on the matter. In either case, framers of such a document(s) will have to make certain tradeoffs, and these should be thoroughly discussed before proceeding. Topic 4: Next Steps: Recommendations for Action As noted in the previous discussion, meeting participants viewed the IGOS concept favorably, but felt that it required further refinement. This report provides a basis for further deliberation of an integrated global observing strategy, particularly concerning CEOS involvement in the space-based component. Recommendation 1: The outcomes of the Seattle Ad Hoc CEOS Meeting on the Space Component of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy, should be fully discussed at the 1996 CEOS Plenary in Canberra. Participants agreed that an integrated strategy would make possible more effective use of the investment in existing or planned space-based and non space-based systems for research and operational applications. Issues related to the establishment of an IGOS were thoroughly discussed in Seattle. However, because the Seattle meeting did not include representation from all CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers, and because detailed discussion of several items were deferred until CEOS participating agencies had gathered additional information and considered it more fully, participants in the Seattle meeting felt that the Plenary should engage in full discussion of an IGOS, using this report as a starting point. This approach will allow CEOS to give more definition to the IGOS concept and the role of CEOS in its structure. Recommendation 2: In order to address the many issues concerning the development of an IGOS, the 1996 Plenary should consider creating a CEOS study team, made up of those Members, Affiliates, and Observers ready to contribute to an IGOS. The Seattle Organizing Committee will continue, in order to facilitate interactions with the planned GCOS meeting in September 1996 and other activities necessary for pre-Plenary organization. In view of the general support for the IGOS concept, participants advocated further refinement of the IGOS concept, concentrating on the development of CEOS policy related to the space component. The study team, would also build upon the work of the Task Force on Planning and Analysis, attempting to harmonize long-term CEOS plans, based on consolidated user requirements, with IGOS goals. The study team would consider the need for the space component of an IGOS and propose possible approaches for CEOS to take in structuring its involvement in an IGOS. The study team may also consider more effective integration of in situ data with space data to help CEOS achieve its objectives. Although the meeting reached no unanimity regarding proposals for testing the IGOS concept, interested CEOS participants could develop proof of concept candidates for discussion during future IGOS deliberations. CEOS Members, Affiliates, and Observers are encouraged to review and refine as appropriate their own strategies leading to greater integration of Earth observations requirements and capabilities. CEOS may also wish to explore the possibilities of responding to international mandates of relevance to an IGOS, such as the FCCC and recent reports of the IPCC. Recommendation 3: That the CEOS Chairman and Secretariat undertake a review of CEOS Terms of Reference with regard to: 1) the status of Affiliates within CEOS; and 2) any changes necessary to accommodate an IGOS, and report as appropriate at the Plenary. Recommendation 4: The Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) should be invited to become a CEOS Affiliate. GCOS and GOOS are now CEOS Affiliates. Satellites can fulfil many of the data needs of GTOS, and the in situ data potentially provided by GTOS members would be of considerable use to CEOS for calibration and validation of space data. Recommendation 5: GCOS should be invited to present, to the 1996 Plenary, the results of the September meeting on in situ observations for Global Observing Systems. Of considerable importance in achieving a fully integrated IGOS is the role of the in situ community, especially as it relates to CEOS. Participants stressed several times during the meeting that CEOS and members of the in situ community will eventually need to integrate their data needs and interests. At the Seattle meeting, Dr. John Townshend, GCOS Principal, gave a short presentation on the state of the in situ system for Earth observations (Appendix 9), noting its heterogeneous nature, in which data are generally gathered for a broad variety of local or regional purposes. Participants generally agreed that CEOS and the entire international community needed to have a better understanding of the potential contributions and limitations of the in situ community in providing data to an IGOS. Participants welcomed Dr. Townshend's plans to organize a GCOS meeting, to be held in Geneva, 11-13 September, 1996, entitled: In situ Observations for the Global Observing Systems. At Dr. Townshend's request, the CEOS Chairman has nominated two CEOS members to serve on the Organizing Committee of the in situ meeting. Seattle participants suggested that the Organizing Committees of the Seattle meeting and the Geneva in situ meeting should meet prior to the Plenary to identify proposed next steps of the space component for consideration at the Plenary. List of Appendices [not included in web version] Appendix 1: List of Attendees Appendix 2: The Seattle Organizing Committee Appendix 3: Introductory Remarks - Dr. Brian Embleton (CSIRO) Appendix 4: General Views on IGOS - Dr. Charles Kennel (NASA) and Mr. Robert Winokur (NOAA). Appendix 5: To Realize Strategic Earth Observation - Dr. Kaoru Mamiya (STA) Appendix 6: An Operational User Organization's Perspective - Dr. Tillmann Mohr (EUMETSAT) Appendix 7: Coordinated User Organizations' Perspective - Mr. Michel Jarraud (WMO) Appendix 8: Space Segment Providers Overview - Mr. Yukio Haruyama (NASDA) Appendix 9: Synthesis of the Views of CEOS Participants on an IGOS - Dr. Harald Arend (ESA) Appendix 10: The State of the In situ Data System - Dr. John Townshend (GCOS) Appendix 11: Reference by Dr Adigun Ade Abiodun: An international remote sensing system - a possibility. [Space Policy, 9, 179-184] |
