The panel noted with concern that many of its earlier recommendations had not yet been translated into relevant action. For example, there is still an urgent need to provide routine geostationary data over the Indian Ocean. The panel agreed that it should review and clearly restate its earlier recommendations. The panel felt it necessary to make its future recommendations more specific, and if possible, target them to appropriate bodies for action.
The panel agreed that for at least two reasons it had become necessary to make a thorough revision of the first version of the Space Plan. The first reason is linked to the evolution in the panel's terms of reference, now taking into account GOOS and GTOS observing requirements. The second is the rapid evolution of space agency activities, notably the concept of an Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS). The IGOS planning activity, in particular, will require strong inputs from the users. The panel recommended that the revised Plan provide the perspectives of the global observing systems for the IGOS process. The panel recommended that the revision of the Space Plan be its highest priority. Members agreed to actively participate in the revision, and, if possible, to complete a draft of it by mid-1997. In order to meet this challenging deadline, the Chairman, and the Director of the JPO, will outline a work plan which will assign tasks to specific individuals. The participation of other panels and of both GOOS and GTOS experts will be essential.
An essential element of the updated Space Plan would be a review of the requirements, to be made in conjunction with the science panels. The panel agreed to participate with the space agencies and the other CEOS affiliates to harmonise definitions and vocabulary across all user requirements. The GCOS JPO will assume responsibility for communicating between the panel and the affiliates.
The panel determined that an objective assessment of space assets, in comparison with the requirements, should be incorporated in the revised plan. Such an assessment would then form the basis for updating the panel recommendations. The Chairman proposed that the revised Space Plan emphasise the GOSSP 'core' parameters for each of the seven G3OS “missions” areas (formerly the “GCOS missions”). These 'core' parameters should be reviewed by individual 'external' experts, as well. The Chairman proposed the panel adopt a review process which used a step-by-step evaluation method based on requirements for spatial and temporal coverage, accuracy, and frequency of observation. This process, if adopted, could become a standard for the affiliates and the space agencies. Since the results of the evaluation are conveniently represented by means of colour coding, the Chairman identified the method as the 'colour code' analysis. The results of applying the method to the 'core' parameters would be communicated to the space agencies.
The evaluation process should comprise correspondence with individual experts and the presentation of a first draft describing the selected 'core' parameters. The chairman agreed to provide oversight and assistance with this aspect of the process. Furthermore, a test case for few parameters will be prepared to be sent to the individual selected experts.
The panel considered it important to develop an effective way to revise the Space Plan so that its analysis would provide a clear account of the need for space-based observations in terms of critical problem areas, or 'themes'. Using a 'theme approach', users would be invited to show how our understanding of global problems (e.g., sea level changes) depends on observations, and how the collection and analysis of these observations would be effective in addressing the problem. Several 'themes', some of which have been articulated by agencies such as WMO, NOAA, and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), were discussed by the panel, and were thought to be appropriate for the Space Plan revision. The approach that was adopted would lead from the 'themes' to specific variables needed, an assessment of relevant observational capabilities, to a final set of recommendations to meet the requirements. Finally, a summary chart, possibly using the 'colour code' approach, would be prepared to illustrate the situation with regard to the 'core' parameters.
The panel agreed that it should, in cooperation with the science panels, identify requirements for calibration and validation as an input to the upcoming CEOS WGCV. The GCOS representative, Dr Croom was invited to suggest that Leaf Area Index (LAI) be considered as a variable to be addressed by the WGCV. The GTOS SC should also be invited to consider LAI and suggest other variables for consideration by the WGCV to establish a working relationship for cooperation.
