Committee on Earth Observation Satellites CEOS and the
Committee on Earth Observation Satellites CEOS and the GEO Programme Board SIT Chair and CEO Teams SIT Tech Workshop 2016 Agenda Item #12 CEOS Strategic Implementation Team Tech Workshop Oxford, UK 14 th-15 th September 2016
What is the Programme Board? New structure for the second decade of GEO. o Other ‘boards’ discontinued. Key role: stewardship of the GEO Work Programme, both: o Quality assurance and monitoring. o Proactive development. Membership: Theoretically approx 32 (now 40+). Balance of representatives from Member nations and Participating Organizations. Three co-chairs: currently China, United States and European Environment Agency. Meetings: Three face-to-face meetings to date. Operating model: Still emerging. More later … SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 2
Current CEOS Representation Stephen Briggs Primary Representative Jonathon Ross Alternate Representative Ivan Petiteville Alternate Representative SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 3
Who is there? Members Participating Organizations Canada Israel CEOS ITC Central African Republic Italy CODATA IUGG China Korea, Republic Of COSPAR OGC Colombia Madagascar EEA POGO Ecuador Mexico ESIP UNESCAP Egypt Somalia GBIF WDS European Commission Spain GOOS WMO France United Kingdom GRSS Gabon United States IEEE Germany Zimbabwe ISDE Greece ISPRS • PO Engagement has been strong. • Less developed countries not as active as we may like to see. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 4
Key activities of year 1 1. Review of the 2017 -2019 Work Programme: 1. GEO Initiatives 2. GEO Flagships 2. Review/Prioritisation of The Foundational Tasks 3. Terms of Reference and operating model 4. Monitoring and evaluation 5. LATE ADDITION – The SDGs – COVERED UNDER SDG TOPIC SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 5
GI/GF for WP 2017 -2019 • Review process focussed on candidate GEO Initiatives and GEO Flagships. • PB established templates and review procedures. • Each proposal was reviewed by a team of three, typically with two iterations. • CEOS lead on three teams. • Good involvement from PB members and alternates. o Including some not involved in the meetings themselves. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 6
GI/GF for WP 2017 -2019 Thoughts: • PB has so far taken a relatively ‘lenient’ approach, e. g. where proposals state they will ‘work out’ governance. • So far focus has been ‘bottom up’ vs ‘challenge oriented’ • PB needs to monitor extent to which ‘cross cutting’ topics (e. g. climate, capacity building) are addressed. • Some confusion about extent to which PB should validate that Flagships are ‘politically acceptable’. (vs policy relevant) • Focus on individual review teams has not fostered the type of ‘holistic’ view that will be required in future. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 7
Two interesting case studies • The Carbon ? Initiative? ? Flagship? o Great potential. Important mandate. o What role should PB play in: § ‘Shepherding’ towards Flagship status? § Connecting the key players? • GFOI o Fairly apparently a ‘Flagship’. o Does its level of autonomy and maturity mean it should be ‘set free’? SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 8
Foundational Tasks What is a Foundational Task? • Good question. What is driving the debate: • General sense that there were ‘Too many’ FTs – and that some activity should be in Initiatives/Flagships • Too much of a drain on GEOSEC resources to initiative, drive, lead, support the comprehensive portfolio included in the 2016 WP. • General shift focus from ‘building the GEOSS’ to ‘delivering specific initiatives (which hopefully help build the GEOSS)’. Why do we care? • We want to ensure that a bunch of fundamental work that CEOS does as the ‘space arm’ of GEO, in addition to contributions to specific initiatives, is reflected. • Some of the FTs are things we think are very important (e. g. Observation Requirements). SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 9
Foundational Tasks Guidance from Ex. Com was to prioritise FTs that: • Are on a critical path and if fail or are not completed would significantly impact GEO goals and objectives; • Support the success of GEO CAs, Initiatives and Flagships. Some threshold issues causing endless loops; • Is it implicit that FTs are about stuff the SEC leads/does and/or is funded from Trust Fund? • To what extent should GEOSEC budget/resourcing be a ‘constraint’ in structuring the FTs? • Should something only be an FT if there is a ‘problem’ and we want the SEC to initiative a ‘fix’? • Should we only include FTs that are resourced, or should unresourced but ‘important’ things be included? Results … SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 10
Joke Of The Day When is a unique identifier … … Not a unique identifier? SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 11
2016 Work Programme Partly: GD-03: Global Observing and Information Systems GEOSEC Proposal PB Disposition GD-01 GEOSS concept refinement and implementation: Global Observing and User Information Systems (includes RF protection) Remove GD-01: Advancing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles GD-02: Advancing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles Retain as FT GD-02: GCI Operations GD-03: GCI Operations Retain as FT (expand to include ‘continuous improvement’ of existing GCI) GD-04: GEONETCase Development and Operations GD-07: GEONETCast Development and Operations Remove GD-11: Communication Networks GD-08: Communication Networks GD-07: GCI Development GD-04: GCI Development GD-10: Radio-frequency protection * Where does RF go? To be taken forward as a consolidated Initiative to drive future evolutions of GCI Development to be lead by EC GD-08: SBAs Process/User Requirements GD-09: Knowledge Base Development GD-09: SBA process: Systematic determination of user needs / observational gaps and Knowledge Base development Retain observational needs process as FT Remove knowledge base element. 12
2016 Work Programme GEOSEC Proposal PB Disposition CD-01: Capability Building Coordination Retain as FT (sharing of best practices) CD-02: Reinforcing engagement at national and regional level CD-03: Reinforcing engagement at national and regional level Remove (core GEOSEC, caucus, Member business + regional Initiatives) Not present CD-02: CAs, GIs and GFs Implementation Support Remove (core GEOSEC business) CD-03: Assess the benefits from EOs and of their socio-economic value CD-04: Assess the benefits from EOs and of their socio-economic value Remove (SO-03 to synthesis existing studies, GI/CA to be setup to develop new methods) SO-01: Management and Support Retain as FT SO-04: Resource Mobilization SO-01: Management and Support (includes resource mobilization) SO-02: Communication Engagement Retain as FT SO-03: Monitoring and Evaluation Retain as FT SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 13
GD-05 and GD-06 Long-term coordination of the underpinning observing systems make GI/GF/CA possible: • Contributions that should be acknowledged. • Do not readily fit for the other mechanisms. Acknowledged that there are two separate cases: • Three areas where things are going well, delivered by work of POs: GOOS (oceans), WMO (atmosphere), CEOS and CGMS (space observations). This should be recognised. • 1 area where things need attention: terrestrial in-situ. This needs intervention and attention. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 14
GD-05 and GD-06 Outcome GD-05: • Retained as the space task. GD-06: • Proposal by GOOS to structure thematically into three sub-tasks: • Atmosphere: Lead by WMO. • Oceans: Lead by GOOS. • Land: To be taken forward by Secretariat, and prioritised for Trust Fund investment, with involvement from existing players. • Include a fourth sub-task to focus on progressing in -situ/satellite data integration. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 15
Monitoring and Evaluation • Limited progress to date. • Monitoring. It is felt that should be: o As light as possible for contributors o Tailored to the size and nature of activities (community activities vs initiatives vs flagships vs foundational tasks) o Provide useful guidance, and be easy to implement by GEOSEC. • Evaluation o Some questions whether the ‘targets’ and ‘indicators’ need to be refreshed. • Acknowledgement that some ‘expert advice’ is required. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 16
Terms of Reference PB approached Ex. Com to suggest revisions. Key issues: • Number and role of alternates. o Resolved: up to 2 alternates, may participate. • Voting o Resolved: no voting, ‘strong objection’ escalated to Ex. Com. • Ad-hominem issue: o Kind of resolved: PB members are ‘representatives’ of their org; names requested, Ex. Com still wants to see a CV. • Term length and continuity: o Resolved: Terms will be staggered, so that 1/3 of seats are made vacant each tear. Lottery to be used to start process. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 17
Operating Model Meeting format • Some sense that longer more in-depth meetings may be required? • Still a bit unclear about why meetings are scheduled when they are, and how this lines up with other processes. • Preparation has not been ideal. Procedures (e. g. for review process, reporting, M&E etc) • Still largely unclear and ad-hoc. Role of GEOSEC and Co-Chairs • Still evolving, e. g. in terms of Co-Chairs tasking GEOSEC to prepare discussion papers, reports etc. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 18
CEOS and the PB SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 19
Our experience What is the Programme Board? The group remains in a ‘forming phase’ in terms of its working practices. First year has very much been about aligning/consolidating ‘bottom up’ proposals into the new GEO structure. • Improving consistency. • Lifting quality/completeness of implementation plans. • Familiarity of PB members with the breadth of activity. Less has been in done on the ‘proactive’ side, e. g. actively brokering new contributions, etc • Expected to increase over the years. • The ‘challenge driven’ approach offers promise. The organisational side needs considerable work, and clarity on the role of the GEOSEC in supporting the PB. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 20
So where to from here … Playing a strong role in the PB is a logical fit for CEOS: • Highlights the role of CEOS as the ‘space arm’ of GEO. • We are involved in a lot of the activities being discussed. • We have a lot to offer through our broad knowledge. • Pathway to Ex. Com Observer seat. However, it is a fair amount of work: • Much ‘non productive’ work - on terms of reference, due to procedural issues, etc this year. Might improve. • Work map ramp up as the group becomes more ‘proactive’. A ‘new’ PB will be established at GEO-XIII. • Ex. Com will seek to provide some continuity. • Expected co-chair roles will be up for re-election? SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 21
Future engagement model 1. CEOS has re-nominated for next three years, using existing names for Principal and Alternates. o Note: the ‘lottery’ means we may need to re-nominate in 1, 2 or 3 years. 2. We will ‘update’ the details of our PB representatives consistent with internal protocols, e. g. SIT Chair transitions, CEO transitions, SEC processes. 3. Principal CEOS PB Rep will be duty of SIT Chair, consistent with SIT Chair To. R. o Note: as PB matures, Principal rep may prioritise Ex. Com as appropriate, with Alternates doing PB ‘leg work’. SIT TWS ‘ 16, 14 -15 Sept 2016 22
- Slides: 22