ࡱ> oqnb 0jbjb *Rhh*00%,RG(((( (T6((P } h0%p,((00d D00 UK comments on Planning and Implementation for GOOS the Baker report The UK IOC Office has examined the report and as requested at the meetings of I-GOOS IX and the IOC Assembly is taking the opportunity to provide some comments following consultation within the UK marine community. We understand that a synthesis of Member States comments will be made in preparation for JCOMM-III this November and we look forward to continuing the debate to which the Baker report has made an important contribution. Overall The UK welcomes the study and believes it has raised a number of issues that are crucial for the next phase of GOOS. The conclusions and recommendations will help to focus attention on the achievements and remaining challenges involved in setting up a fully-functioning global observing system and, in particular, what organisational changes need to be considered. However, we also have some points for consideration both a general concern and some specific comments on some of the sections in the report. General concern What seemed to be missing was a grass-roots analysis of the functions needed to support GOOS activities. In no particular order these are: A means of assessing scientific and technical developments relevant to GOOS and advising on their implementation (presently OOPC/AOPC through GSSC) A means of monitoring GOOS implementation and data flow (presently JCOMMOPS but only partially does the job) A means of coping with intergovernmental aspects of day-to-day implementation activities (presently JCOMMOPS) A means of dealing with high - level intergovernmental issues (at present dealt with by I-GOOS and, for Law of the Sea issues, ABELOS, and then passed to IOC/WMO) A means of influencing governments to support GOOS (national programmes and support for international infrastructure) (presently IOC and WMO and JCOMM) A means of addressing issues that cross ocean/atmosphere and ocean/land domains (IOC/WMO/WCRP) We have come to the view that none of these tasks is carried out wholly effectively by the present bodies. In part, this may be due to lack of resources but we suspect it also derives from a lack of clarity of the boundaries of each group see below) One area that is not mentioned, where we think some specific attention is required, is in air-sea interaction. In GCOS the ECVs are split between atmosphere and ocean and overseen separately by AOPC and OOPC. This makes it difficult to consider air-sea interaction in a complete way. (This has been raised in connection with the GCOS implementation plan but we also think that any review that might arise from the Baker report should make sure that air sea exchanges are properly considered. Similarly, there may also be other topics that fall on the boundaries between two or more bodies and where responsibility needs to be more clearly established. Specific comments Summary Each of the governing and advisory bodies needs to examine how it can operate most effectively to provide GOOS with what it needs and restructure as appropriate GOOS is an important initiative and both IOC and WMO need to support it in an effective manner, but it isnt entirely clear at the outset whether we are talking about major restructuring to place GOOS, in effect, in the driving seat or whether we are talking about maximizing the efficiency and contribution of both WMO and IOC? However, later in the report it becomes evident that the objective is to maximize the input from, and interaction with all components (IOC, WMO, JCOMM, I-GOOS, GEO, etc). How well are the TORs of all these groups aligned with respect to a rationalized GOOS structure? It will be particularly important that the contributions of IOC and WMO are distinguished to reflect their different roles. There is a clear recommendation that I-GOOS should be dissolved but we should examine the perception that it is I-GOOS that is the key point of failure. This needs to be related to an understanding of what is needed to deliver a fully functioning global ocean observing system (see comments under General concern above). Conversely, the report appears to be favourably disposed towards JCOMM arguing that its deficiencies are due to lack of support. However, JCOMM does not (at present) encompass the coastal module of GOOS which in one sense makes its task easier but also reduces the extent of its support (the smaller coastal states will see JCOMM as a lower priority than implementing the coastal GOOS module. Moreover, since JCOMM is a delivery rather than governance mechanism its challenges are of a different nature. It is possible that the JCOMM Review, which was called for in 2008 and which has not yet taken place, might have revealed some important problems with JCOMM. If the remit of JCOMM is expanded to include some of the aspects of coastal GOOS it may finish up suffering from the same perceptions as I-GOOS. Therefore, we believe that the study points to the need for an overall assessment of what is needed for the next phase and that the roles and effectiveness of all of the present GOOS bodies should be examined with a view to possible change. 1.1 Society needs better ocean information The key point is that sustained observations will meet a wide spectrum of user needs from academic research through strategic research to monitoring for compliance with national and international legislation/conventions and therefore needs an appropriate mix of funding sources instead of just coming from the research funders. However, we must be careful that this doesnt come across as telling users what they want and then asking for the money to continue to support it even when they are not signed up! The operational users may be shortsighted and not realise the importance and Governments may have other political priorities, but a more sustainable support mechanism must be found and essentially the importance moved up the Governments agendas. The need to make regular assessments of our seas as part of a marine stewardship agenda has become a high priority but the connection with the consequent requirement for sustained observations, particularly beyond waters of national jurisdiction, is not as well argued as it should have been. GOOS is not seen as providing what the policy makers want. 2.1 Completion of a GOOS plan The completion of the development of a realistic business plan and links to users should have high priority for GOOS at this point. It is more usual to base a business plan upon the users requirements than trying to engage the users later. The above approach to a business plan is a technology push approach that is seldom convincing to the users and leads to a poor outcome in terms of funding or sustainability. To reach the 60% funding, the GOOS community has used a formula that has worked well in the past a heavy reliance on research funding and close ties with the research agencies The 60% refers to the percentage of the initial design that has been implemented which may not equate to 60% funding. In the UK, and perhaps other countries too, it has been a struggle to secure continuity of funding over more than a year or two at a time. The UK contributions to Argo and to Jason-2 are examples of the difficulties faced. How can we find the support for enhancement and sustainability of GOOS? This requires finding additional customers a user pull for ocean services based on sustained observations. Yes, and this user pull must be built into the business plan. 2.2.1 Building a user pull In the end, it is the users who will demand the products from an operational coastal and global GOOS. It is incumbent on IOC and its partners to make the case to these users about what a new observational system can do We agree, but it is not what it can do that is important to users, it is the issue of whether it can do something they have identified as a need! The GOOS business plan should draw on these examples. Some care is needed here. GMES was not a user pull initiative, it was politically driven by the EU & ESA to justify the expenditure by Member States on satellite platforms and this created difficulties (certainly within the UK when there was subsequently an attempt to engage users particularly from the policy area who needed some convincing about why GMES was a good thing for them. 2.2.2 Products and services Recommendation 2.2.2 The business plan should clearly identify products and services to be delivered. It should also identify to whom they will be delivered. 2.2.3 Marketing Climate change and the oceans impact on climate change can be a driver for marketing, and should be pushed for this reason So who is seen as the customer? The soft drinks industry or the weather forecasting agency? And will they contribute to the funding. 3.2.1 I-GOOS First, it seems clear that a new oversight group should consider its membership and try to ensure that the most effective people are engaged. For example, it would be very helpful to have some representatives who are responsible for compliance-type monitoring. This would help dispel the notion that GOOS is a system designed by the research community for the research community. The Global Marine Assessment process may be one way of bridging this gap. This is an important suggestion that should be used to provide a basis for discussion on the future governance of GOOS. In this sense a new group could play a particularly important role in helping coastal GOOS to happen globally, especially for those waters off the coasts of developing countries, by helping to obtain the needed funding, especially for those GRAs composed of developing countries It is not obvious why a new group would be any more successful on this particular point than I-GOOS. More analysis is needed of why I-GOOS is perceived to have failed and whether the new GOOS Regional Council provides a way ahead. An example is how a replacement for I-GOOS would relate to the GRC, e.g. in advocacy for increased funding for developing countries? The GOOS Regional Council has been established to coordinate implementation of coastal GOOS through the coordinated efforts of individual nations and GOOS Regional Alliances (GRAs). This body needs to be empowered to coordinate implementation of the coastal module. The challenges are obvious: lack of funding for the Council and GRAs and the resistance to more bureaucracy However, if such a structure allows local and regional stakeholders to have greater ownership and input to planning then more democracy may be worth the increased level of bureaucracy. 3.3 JCOMM In order to JCOMM to meet its mandate, it will need full support and commitment for its restructured arrangement from both IOC and WMO. Given this comment, readers of the report may wonder why JCOMM is not also classed with I-GOOS as a failed experiment. Trevor Guymer UK IOC Office September 2009 KL   7IQ&MFta !k"%#i#}#~#[$$&%&&&,'I'M'l'v''(())N**+L-.// hS)hS)CJOJQJ^JaJ#hS)hS)6CJOJQJ^JaJhS)hS)6CJOJQJhS)hS)6OJQJhS)hS)>*OJQJhS)hS)OJQJmH sH hS)hS)5OJQJhS)hS)OJQJhS)hHQhS)54KLu   } 5  Q 7$[$\$]a$gdS)$ & F dd[$\$]a$gdS)$d[$]a$gdS)$d[$\$]a$gdS)$a$gdS) $xa$gdS)$a$gdS)07IQ0"MFa !k"%#c#~#[$$&%&&.'$x7$8$H$a$gdS) $$a$gdS) $xa$gdS)$a$gdS)$[$\$]a$gdS).'f'v''y((N**+L-.~//0000000$a$gdS) $xa$gdS)/0000hS)hS)OJQJhS)hS)6OJQJ(/ =!"#$% 8@8 NormalCJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontZi@Z  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k@(No List de@d #KHTML Preformatted 7$8$H$CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH DD HQ Balloon TextCJOJQJaJRP@R ) Body Text 2$a$B*_HaJmH phsH ^O"^ )Default 7$8$H$)B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH phsH tH *R !z z z!z!z"&~)*u KLu}5Q7 I Q 0"MFak%c~[& .!f!v!!y""N$$%L'(~))*******0 ʀ0P0 ʀ0P0P0P0P0P0P 0P 0P  0  0P 0P 0P0 ʀ0P0 ʀ0P0 0PP0 0PP0 ʀ0 0P0 0 0P0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 0 ʀ0 ʀ0P0 0 0 ʀ0 0 0 ʀ0 0 0P00 ʀ0PP0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀ0 ʀKLu}5QI Q "MFak%c~[& .!f!v!!y""N$$%L'~))***0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P 0/0#(7.'0$&'0%**ytN|^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.ytN PK/B/mD;~bD]vq@d`u@ @  *P @UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial7Calibri? Courier New]@Palatino LinotypePalatinoCawKȿLucida Grande h2:&:& K"I~4d*!`#KUK comments on Baker report Trevor Guymer Trevor Guymer  Oh+'0[   @ L Xdlt|'UK comments on Baker reportTrevor GuymerNormalTrevor Guymer9Microsoft Word 11.5.3@5z @͏/@؄/"GTZPICTZJd ,, MSWD ,<Times New Roman< 2.(ZU-)$K-)' co- Q)<mm-)Tents-)V o-)%n - Q)9Pl-)-an-)5n-)ing- Q)C -) a-)n-)d- Q) -) I- Q)m-)*p- Q)l-)e- Q)m-)*entati-){o-)n- Q) f-)o- Q)r-) -) G-)&OOS-)j-) ) -) -) the- Q)C -) -)B-)!a- Q)k-)e- Q)r-) - Q) r-)epo- Q)Kr-)t-)-\) -(w , Calibri-*<The-`)K -) "UK IOC Office has examined the rep- Q(o-)rt- Q)" -) and- Q)L a-)&s- Q) -) requested- Q) -) at- Q)) -) the- Q)D -) me-)Ae-)tings-)b -) of-)) -) I) -)GOO-)bS -( wIX-`)' -) %and the IOC Assembly is taking the op- Q( p-)ort- Q)<u-)nity- Q)M -) to- Q)+ -) p- Q)r-)ovide- Q)o -) some- Q)o c-)#omments- Q) -) f- Q)o-)llo- Q)0w-)%in- Q)%g -(Iw consultati- Q)o-)n - ) -)wit- Q)@h-)in - )% -)the- Q)D -)UK - ): -)m- Q)(a-)rin- Q)6e - () -)commu- Q)n-)ity. - )@ -)We- Q)E -)u- Q)n-)derstand - ) -)that- Q)T -)a - ) -) synthesis- Q) -)o- Q)f -(wMember-=) -)States comment-(s-=) -)will be made in pre- Q(Yp-)aration-`) -)f- Q)o-)r-`) -)JCOMM)-)III-`)' -)this- Q)J -)November-) -(wand-G)L -)we - Q)Ll-) ook-G)K -)forwa- Q)vr-)d-) -)t- Q)o-G) -)con- Q)It-)in- Q)%u-)ing-)= -)the- Q)D -)d- Q)e-)bate-)\ -)t- Q)o-G) -)whic- Q)^h-G) -)the Bake- Q)r-G) -)re- Q)*p-)ort-)< -)has- Q)F -)m- Q)(a-)de-)3 -)a- Q)n -(w important- Q) -) cont- Q)Zr-)ibu- Q)?t-)ion.-`)L -(VwOverall- Q) -(wThe- Q)K -) 'UK welcomes the study and believes it h-(a-)s-`) -) raised-){ -) a-`) -) number-) -) of-`)) -) issues-)z -) that-`)T -) are-)B -) crucia- Q)xl -(wfor-`): -))the next phase of GOOS. The conclusions a- Q(Ln-)d- ) -) recommendat- Q(i-) ons- )H -)will- Q)E -)h- Q)e-)lp- )% -)to- Q)+ -)focu- Q)Xs -( w attention-G) -)o- Q)n-G) -)the ac- Q)h-) ievements-) -)and- Q)L -)rema- Q)ji-) ning-G)W -)c- Q)h-)allenges-) -)inv- Q)<o-)lved-)U -)i- Q) n-G) -) setting u)p-G) - Q)a-) f- Q)u-)lly- Q)---(Jwfunct- Q)ii-) on- Q)4i-) ng - )2 -)global- Q)z -) observing - ) -)sy-)+s-)tem- @z)R -)and,-)X -)in- @z)% -)partic- Q)tu-)lar, - )@ -)what- Q)g -) organisation- Q)a-)l - )  -)changes- )) -(w need to be- Q) -) consid- Q)e-)red.-`)Q -(wHowever,-) -)we als- Q)o-) -) have some - Q)p-)o- Q)i-) nts-=)? -)fo- Q))r-) -)c- Q)o-)nsi- Q)9d-)eratio- Q)xn-) -)-) - Q)b-)oth-=)E -)a- Q) -)gener- Q)ua-)l-=)  - Q)c-)onc- Q)Ie-)rn-=)+ - Q)a-)n- Q)d -(w some specifi- Q)c-) comments-) -) o- Q)n-) some-)z -) of- Q)) t-)he-)3 -) sections- Q) i-)n-) -) the- Q)D -) re- Q)*p-)o)rt.- Q)/ -(pwGeneral concern-(p -(wWhat seemed to- Q( -) be-)3 -) missing- Q) -) was-)P -) a- Q) -) grass)i-)r- Q)o-)ots-)? -) analysis- Q) -) of-)) -) th- Q)+e-) func- Q)ct-) ions needed-) -) t-`)o- Q) -(%wsupport GOOS ac- Q(%t-)ivities.- Q) -(wIn no p- Q)a-)rtic- Q)Bu-)la- Q)#r-) o- Q)%r-)der-)D -) these- Q)q -) are:-`)O -(1.,<`Arial<`-\)& -)%A-=) -) means of ) assessing-=) -) scientifi- Q)c-=) -)an- Q)2d-=) -)tech- Q)Yn-)ica- Q)8l-=)  -)d- Q)e-) velopments-`) -)relevant- Q) -)t- Q)o -(Q GOOS-)y -) and advis- Q)i-) ng-)2 -)o- Q)n-) -)the- Q)Di-) r-p) -) implementati- Q(Qo-)n-) - Q) -) (presently-) -) OOPC/AOPC-`3) -( through GSSC) -`(= -(2.,<`Arial<`-\)& -)%A-=) -)means of monitor- Q(i-) ng-`)2 -)GOOS- Q)y -)implementation-`( - Q)a-)nd-`)4 -)data- Q)[ -)flow-`)X -) (presentl- Q)y -( JCOMMOPS but only p- Q(a-)rtia- Q)El-) ly-)" -) does- Q)a -) the-)D - Q) j-) ob)-)C -`)  -(E3.<`-\)& -)%A-\) -)" means of - Q)c-)o- Q)p-)ing-@ )= -)"with-`)Z -)#intergovernmenta- Q(El-)  -)#aspects-) -)"of-\)) -)"day)I-)t)o)-)da- Q)2y -( implementati- Q(o-)n-) -) activi- Q)kt-)ies)8 ()presently JCOMMOPS) - Q( -(4.<`-\)& -)%A- Q) -) means of deal- Q(Ti-) ng with high- Q) -) -- Q) -) level - Q)ki-) ntergovern- Q)m-)) ental issues ) ) (at- Q)8 -) present-) -( dealt-`)g -) with by I)-)GOOS-`)y -)a- Q)n-)d,- )& - Q)f-)o- Q)r-`) -) Law of th- Q)e-`) -)Sea i- Q)ds-)sues,- )g -)ABELOS,- Q) a-)*nd- )4 -)the- Q)Dn -( 9 passed to IOC/WMO) -`( 9 -( v5.<`-\)& -)%A- Q) -)% means of i- Q( vTn-)flu- Q)4e-)ncing-)l -)% governments- Q( v[ -)%to-)+ -)%s- Q)u-)pport-)p -)%GOOS- Q)y (-)5nation- Q)al -(  programme)s-) -)and supp- Q)o-)rt-`)" -)f- Q)o-)r-`) -)inte- Q)Or-)nation- Q)a-)l-`)  - Q)i-) nfras- Q)ft-)ructure)-) -) ) () presently-) -)IOC- Q)I -(  and WMO - Q)a-)nd-)4 -) JCOMM)- Q) -`)  -( -6.<`-\)& -)%A-`) -)&means of addressing issu-( -e-)s-) -)&that-)T -)&cros-)Ts- Q) -)%ocean/atmosphere- Q( -u -)&an-`)2d- Q) -( j ocean/l- Q)a-)nd-)4 - Q) d-)omains-) -) (IOC- Q)X/-) WMO/WCRP)-( j8 -`)  -( wWe- @z)E -) have come to-(  -)the-)D -)vie-);w- @z)# -)that none of the-( cs-)e-) -)ta-))s-)ks-)+ -)i-) s- @z) -)carried out wholl- Q( y -( weff)7ectively-`) -) by the presen-( }t-`) -)bodies. In part, this -( Fm-)'ay-=)/ -)be-)3 -)due-=)M -)to-)+ -)lac-)8k-`) -) of resources-) -( \wbut-=)E -)we s-)cu-)spect-)m -)it-) -)also-)Q -)derives-) -)from-)b -)a-) -)lack-)O -)of-)) -)cl-) a-)rity-)D -)of-)) -)the-)D -)bounda- Q)r-)ies-`)8 -)of- Q)) -)eac- Q)Fh -( w group see be- Q( }l-) ow)-`)M  ! ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! !  ! ! ! ՜.+,0 hp  'IACMSTI* UK comments on Baker report Title  !"#$%&'()+,-./012345689:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdeghijklmpRoot Entry FNp/r1Table*WordDocument*RSummaryInformation(7\DocumentSummaryInformation8fCompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8