Observing, Sharing, Informing Observing, Sharing, Informing through GEOSS:through GEOSS:

Renewing the GEO Vision beyond 2015Renewing the GEO Vision beyond 2015Issues and OptionsIssues and Options

(Document 15)(Document 15)

GEO Post-2015GEO Post-2015

GEO Post 2015 Working Group GEO Post 2015 Working Group MembershipMembership

• Argentina – Laura Frulla, Conrado Varotto

• Australia –Sue Barrell, Agnes Lane, Stuart Minchin

• Brazil – Minister Fábio Vaz Pitaluga, Gilberto Câmara, Julio Dalge, Hilcea Ferreira

• Canada – Heather Aucoin, Luc Brûle, Michael Crowe, Brian O’Donnell

• China – Huadong Guo, Bingfang Wu, Guoqing Li, Fang Chen, Huanyin Yue

• Estonia – Tiit Kutser• European Commission – Gilles

Ollier• France – Daniel Vidal-Madjar

• Germany – Paul Becker, Helmut Staudenrausch

• Italy – Ezio Bussoletti, Maria Dalla Costa, Stefano Bruzzi

• Japan – Takao Akutsu, Takashi Kiyoura, Toshio Koike, Rui Kotani, Osamu Ochiai, Tomoko Hirakawa Ushio, Shizu Yabe

• Norway – Øystein Nesje, Per Erik Skrøvseth

• Russian Federation – Alexander Gusev

• South Africa – Mmboneni Muofhe, Imraan Saloojee

• United Kingdom – Arwyn Davies, Ruth Kelman, Liz Tucker

• United States – Peter Colohan, David Reidmiller, Kathryn Sullivan, Trigg Talley

GEO Post 2015 Working Group GEO Post 2015 Working Group MembershipMembership

• CEOS – Brent Smith, Tim Stryker

• COSPAR – Jean-Louis Fellous

• EUMETSAT – Paul Counet, Robert Husband

• European Space Agency – Simonetta Cheli

• International Steering Committee for Global Mapping (ISCGM) – Fraser Taylor

• International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) – Robert Missotten

• Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) – Lan-Kun Chung, Jeanne Foust, George Percivall

• Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (POGO) – Trevor Platt

• World Meteorological Organization – Wenjian Zhang

Key Points of ProcessKey Points of Process

• The Post 2015 Working Group seeks guidance on the options presented and next steps

• The language of report and Annex are not presented for negotiation nor acceptance, and will not have any standing following this meeting

• A revised set of documents will be produced for 2013

Rationale for Continuing GEORationale for Continuing GEO

1: Addressing urgent global challenges1: Addressing urgent global challenges

Humanity currently faces enormous and complexHumanity currently faces enormous and complexchallenges that will only continue to grow over the challenges that will only continue to grow over the next few decades.next few decades.

Rationale for Continuing GEORationale for Continuing GEO

2: Support for Sustainable Development2: Support for Sustainable Development

"Rio+20" Outcome Document recognized a specific"Rio+20" Outcome Document recognized a specificrole to be played by GEOSS in sustainablerole to be played by GEOSS in sustainabledevelopmentdevelopment

Rationale for Continuing GEORationale for Continuing GEO

3: Building on Accomplishments of GEO3: Building on Accomplishments of GEO

The flow of data from the various countries andThe flow of data from the various countries andinternational organizations involved in GEOSSinternational organizations involved in GEOSSimplementation should not stopimplementation should not stop

recommendation 1:recommendation 1: Continuation of GEOContinuation of GEO

• The Post 2015 Working Group strongly believes that the need for GEO remains and that, while recognizing there is room for improvement, GEO is making significant progress towards meeting its Strategic Targets.

• Considering the urgency of the global challenges faced by humanity and the benefits of a response involving an international, collective approach to supplying the Earth observations, the Post-2015 WG recommends that GEO, and the implementation of GEOSS, be continued.

R&D for EOR&D for EOapplicationsapplications

building building capacity tocapacity tocollect &collect &use EOuse EO

data access data access & sharing& sharing

EO EO interoperability interoperability & integration& integration

Core Functions for GEOCore Functions for GEO

observationobservationnetworksnetworks

options:options: Strategic DirectionStrategic Direction

• 2.1.A: GEO will function as a catalyst for Earth observations…

• 2.1.B: 2.1.A + GEO will commit appropriate resources to implement and sustain a more robust and expanded GEOSS information system…

– Requires strengthened financial model for GEO

• 2.1.C: 2.1.B + GEO will incubate specific applications and services based on Earth observations, to be adopted, supported, and managed by specific governments and organizations

– Requires moderately strengthened financial model for GEO

• 2.1.D: 2.1.C + GEO will develop and deliver, on a continuing basis, a sequence of operational applications and services in support of international priorities

– Requires entirely new financial model for GEO

‘‘Service’ Service’ definition…definition…

In the context of this paper, the term “service” is In the context of this paper, the term “service” is

defined as defined as

the delivery of products based on the delivery of products based on

Earth observation data and informationEarth observation data and information

addressing user needs through the coordinated use addressing user needs through the coordinated use

of the infrastructure and assets of the Members and of the infrastructure and assets of the Members and

Participation Organizations.Participation Organizations.

recommendation 2:recommendation 2: Strategic DirectionStrategic Direction

Considering the demonstrated success of the incubation model (which brings together existing observation systems dedicated to a specific issue and sets up the conditions to ensure that global and regional observation datasets become available and easily), the Post-2015 WG recommends Plenary endorse strategic direction option 2.1.C for the period 2015-2025.

•2.1.C: 2.1.B + GEO will incubate specific applications and services based on Earth observations, to be adopted, supported, and managed by specific governments and organizations

–Requires moderately strengthened financial model for GEO

pros and cons:pros and cons: Strategic DirectionStrategic Direction

Pro:

Option 2.1.C builds on the

work of GEO in the first 10

years, allowing it to incubate

new applications and

services as the naturally

evolve from GEO Tasks, while

avoiding the much larger

commitment of delivering

operational services.

Con:

Option 2.1.C will require

additional resources, may go

farther than some Members

and Participating Organizations

perceive the mandate of GEO to

be, or may not go far enough.

• 2.2.A: Retain the overall current SBA structure (status quo)

• 2.2.B: Maintain the current basic SBA structure while allowing for modifications, and explore linkages to sustainable development framework themes:– Sustainable Economies (economic development)

– Resilient Society (social development)

– Vibrant Planet (environmental protection)

• 2.3.C: Restructure the work of GEO around sustainable development framework themes, building on the successes of the current SBA structure

options:options: Societal Benefit AreasSocietal Benefit Areas

recommendation 3:recommendation 3: SoSocietal Benefit Areascietal Benefit Areas

Given the historical background that gave rise to GEO and links with sustainable development issues since its inception (Section 1.1 above), the Post-2015 WG recommends Plenary endorse SBA structure option 2.2.B for the period 2015-2025.

•2.2.B: Maintain the current basic SBA structure while allowing for modifications, and explore linkages to sustainable development framework themes:

–Sustainable Economies (economic development)

–Resilient Society (social development)

–Vibrant Planet (environmental protection)

pros and cons:pros and cons: Societal Benefit AreasSocietal Benefit Areas

Pro:

Option 2.2.B provides GEO

with flexibility to modify the

existing Societal Benefit Area

structure, exploring linkages

to sustainable development

themes without constraining

GEO in the paths it may

wish to pursue.

Con:

Option 2.2.B reopens the debate

about the Societal Benefit Area

structure, which could prove

challenging; some may wish to

explore a more direct link to

sustainable development

themes.

• 2.3.A: The current GEO governance structure will be maintained (voluntary, non-juridical, and flexible)

• 2.3.B: The current GEO governance structure will be maintained (voluntary, non-juridical and flexible); additionally…

– linkages with other relevant Earth-observation organizations, including the private sector, should be improved

– resources to sustain key components of GEOSS should be identified

• 2.3.C: GEO will be constituted as a totally new, formal intergovernmental program or organization, with mandatory financial contributions and a more formalized governance structure

options:options: GovernanceGovernance

recommendation 4:recommendation 4: GovernanceGovernance

In the interest of preserving GEO as a flexible, agile and inclusive international partnership, the Post-2015 WG recommends Plenary endorse governance option 2.3.B for the period 2015-2025.

•2.3.B: The current GEO governance structure will be maintained (voluntary, non-juridical and flexible); additionally…

–linkages with other relevant Earth-observation organizations, including the private sector, should be improved

–resources to sustain key components of GEOSS should be identified

pros and cons:pros and cons: GovernanceGovernance

Pro:

Option 2.3.B allows for the

GEO governance structure to

be amended in particular

with regard to establishing

appropriate linkages with

e.g. the UN organisations

and the private sector.

Con:

Option 2.3.B re-opens the

debate about GEO governance,

which may be counterproductive;

some may wish to explore more

significant alterations to GEO’s

governance than this option

suggests.

GEO Post 2015:GEO Post 2015:Comments Comments and Discussionand Discussion(Document 15)(Document 15)