Report on the GEO Post-2015 Working Group Timothy Stryker, CEO and Brent Smith, NOAA

1. Report on the GEO Post-2015 Working Group Timothy Stryker, CEO and Brent Smith, NOAA CEOS SIT-27 La Jolla, California March 27-28

2. GEO Post-2015 WG Background • WG Established by GEO-VIII Plenary, Istanbul • r • “…assess options and scenarios for the next phase of GEOSS implementation, including the scope of activities, institutional arrangements, internal governance, and resourcing of GEO.” • Open to all GEO Members and Participating Organizations • Interim reporting to GEO ExCom and 2012 GEO-IX Plenary • Final Report to 2013 GEO-X Plenary/Ministerial Summit with detailed recommendations for the post-2015 future of GEO and GEOSS (“GEOSS 2.0”) • Interim Reporting to GEO ExCom and Plenary

3. Framework for Post-2015 Discussion • Starting Materials • “Vision” papers provided by GEO Members • Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan • “Sustaining GEOSS Beyond 2015: A GEO ExCom Discussion Paper on the Future of GEOSS and GEO” • Issues and options for GEOSS (scope, updating the framework and guiding documents) • Issues and options for GEO (institutional, governance, resourcing, new priorities) • Four Possible Post-2015 Scenarios Outlined • Notional and evolving • Range from “Business as Usual Plus” to Radical Change

4. CEOS Participants in Post-2015 WG • CEOS Involved in WG as a Participating Organization • CEOS interest in GEO as an organizing framework for space-based and in-situ EO to meet societal needs • Desire for strong and effective GEO leadership and Secretariat as partners to CEOS • CEOS-wide Representation in WG • Brent Smith, NOAA, and Tim Stryker, CEO • CEOS Agency Representation in National/Other PO Delegations • Luc Brûlé (Canada), Stefano Bruzzi (Italy), Gilberto Câmara (Brazil), Per-Erik Skrøvseth (Norway), Laura Frulla (Argentina), Robert Husband (EUMETSAT), Barbara Ryan (WMO), Helmut Staudenrausch (Germany), Wenjian Zhang (WMO)

5. Topics Addressed in First Meeting • Administrative • Co-Chairs P. Collohan, USA; M. Muofhe, S. Africa; and G. Ollier, EC • Review/Approve modified Terms of Reference • Opening Statements • Future of GEOSS • Future operational GEOSS • Strengthening observing networks; space and in situ • Architecture • Data sharing • Information products and key initiatives • Review Discussion Paper scenarios • Future of GEO • Resourcing • Institutional issues • Governance within GEO • Role of PO’s and private sector • Plenary, ExCom, Boards, Work Plan, Working Groups, what needs improvement • Future actions and schedule • Develop new improved scenarios to examine • May 25 telecon; provide report to July 12-13 ExCom; post-ExCom telcon • 2nd WG meeting likely in September 2012 to finalize report to GEO Plenary-IX

6. Initial Observations on Potentially Emerging Viewpoints within WG (cont’d) • GEO should not claim to be operational • GEO should not claim to organize everything else, but rather work productively/proactively with existing mechanisms to fill gaps in observations and provision of needed information • It will be important to determine to what degree GEO should be responsible for (a) observations (definitely), (b) information provision (possibly), and (c) service provision (very unlikely) • Should GEO be “deeper” or “wider”? • More rapid progress on a smaller number of end-to-end initiatives, or a broader enabling environment for many projects, often with a slower rate of progress? • There have been some notable successes in data sharing and this activity should remain a high priority of GEO • Complaints about GEO Work Plan and Management Structure • Discontinuity between the old and new GEO Work Plan • Work Plan is no more than a “Wish List” in many areas • Implementation Board structure seems cumbersome and opaque

7. Initial Observations on Potentially Emerging Viewpoints within WG • Differing opinions on the initial success of GEO; most participants cautiously optimistic • Space community (CEOS and individual agencies) well-organized and well-funded as significant contributor to the GEOSS • Unrealized goals with the in-situ community figured prominently • - Further development and maintenance of, and coordination with, the in-situ community is needed • (no in-situ representatives were present for first meeting) • GEO as an “incubator” for large-scale initiatives that may become (proto-) operational and separate from GEO with their own dedicated organization and funding • Question of whether “visibility” translates into utility and success

8. Initial Observations on Potentially Emerging Viewpoints within WG (cont’d) • No major programmatic/organizational changes envisioned • Founding vision and scope were not seriously contested • Much discussion on whether GEO is living up to its claims and “holding its own” vis-a-vis UN organizations or programs • GEO likely to remain within WMO administrative structure • Voluntary nature of GEO is strongly supported • GEO Secretariat needs to be stabilized and strengthened • Amount in Trust Fund is insufficient for resources that are needed • Possibly emerging idea (broached in side discussions, not at large) is the need for all members to be vested in GEO, and pay some level of dues on a sliding scale • Interest in the possibility of endowments from external donors • Need to augment role of private sector in GEOSS implementation

9. Further CEOS Input to Working Group? Do you have any CEOS-specific comments relating to the issues discussed at last week’s first meeting of GEO Post-2015 WG? -- Floor Open for CEOS Discussion --