1 / 20

GEO Post-2015

Observing, Sharing, Informing through GEOSS: Renewing the GEO Vision beyond 2015 Issues and Options (Document 15). GEO Post-2015. Argentina – Laura Frulla, Conrado Varotto Australia –Sue Barrell, Agnes Lane, Stuart Minchin

anka
Download Presentation

GEO Post-2015

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Observing, Sharing, Informing through GEOSS:Renewing the GEO Vision beyond 2015Issues and Options(Document 15) GEO Post-2015

  2. 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 Membership

  3. 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 GEO Post 2015 Working Group Membership

  4. Key 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

  5. Rationale for Continuing GEO 1: Addressing urgent global challenges Humanity currently faces enormous and complex challenges that will only continue to grow over the next few decades.

  6. Rationale for Continuing GEO 2: Support for Sustainable Development "Rio+20" Outcome Document recognized a specific role to be played by GEOSS in sustainable development

  7. Rationale for Continuing GEO 3: Building on Accomplishments of GEO The flow of data from the various countries and international organizations involved in GEOSS implementation should not stop

  8. recommendation 1:Continuation 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.

  9. Core Functions for GEO R&D for EO applications building capacity to collect & use EO data access & sharing EO interoperability & integration observation networks

  10. options:Strategic 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 servicesbased 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

  11. ‘Service’ definition… In the context of this paper, the term “service” is defined as the delivery of products based on Earth observation data and information addressing user needs through the coordinated use of the infrastructure and assets of the Members and Participation Organizations.

  12. recommendation 2:Strategic 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 servicesbased on Earth observations, to be adopted, supported, and managed by specific governments and organizations • Requires moderately strengthened financial model for GEO

  13. 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. pros and cons:Strategic Direction

  14. options:Societal Benefit Areas • 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

  15. recommendation 3:Societal 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)

  16. 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. pros and cons:Societal Benefit Areas

  17. options:Governance • 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

  18. recommendation 4:Governance 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

  19. 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. pros and cons:Governance

  20. GEO Post 2015:Comments and Discussion(Document 15)

More Related