3.1. Michael Gwynne introduced the implementation plan and observed that it should be a guide to reflect the constant evolution and development of GTOS. The philosophy behind it was to also develop a version with sufficient background for newcomers to GTOS.
3.2. Mr. Gwynne noted that the plan reflected the views of the participants at the GTOS Coordination and Implementation Meeting (Rome, Italy, May 1997), of the GTSC members as well as of members of the Steering Committees for GCOS and GOOS. He also had consultations with governments and politicians (in particular in Kenya, UK and USA) about global monitoring and assessment programmes. They all expressed interest but stressed the need for reliable environmental information on a short-term basis and that the information be understood by everybody - not only scientists.
3.3. The author pointed out that these considerations must not be ignored by GTOS in developing its programme. He presented the three phases of the implementation plan (preparatory, establishment and development), which are each one-year long, plus a phase which looks towards the 21st Century.
3.4. There was discussion of the three phases: it was suggested that the actions should be presented on an issue basis rather than following a time table. The group agreed that the related chapters (6 to 8) should be merged and restructured following a number of key issues for the development of GTOS, as proposed during the meeting. The schedule of the activities should be more flexible, so that it could be adapted according to the constraints and opportunities of the programme. It was also suggested to cost out each activity recommended in the plan.
3.5. The participants suggested that the implementation at local level be more detailed. A focus solely on global issues in the early stages could raise questions among policy makers and financing organizations regarding the practical utility of GTOS. The group emphasized the need for appropriate outputs applicable at regional levels, ensuring short term benefits with long term implications. Some participants highlighted the importance of building on existing initiatives at a national and institutional level, giving the possibility to reinforce those who don't have sufficient resources to develop their work. In order to obtain funding from donors, project proposals should focus on working at a local/regional level in order to set up infrastructure capabilities, rather than focusing solely on solving global environmental problems. It was noted that the demonstration projects are a good means for meeting the needs of diverse interest groups.
3.6. It was agreed that, in addition to the detailed implementation plan, a shorter document should be developed for larger distribution which captures the essence of the main implementation plan and is targeted to decision-makers and donors. It should focus on the main actions that will be implemented by GTOS, include practical examples of how data and information can be applied to policy issues, and be written in a more concise and journalistic style. An executive summary should be produced to be distributed widely. There was also agreement on the need to develop principles of involvement in GTOS, such as those developed by GOOS in their Strategic Plan and Principles.
3.7. There was discussion on data issues, in particular on data quality, analysis, access and scale. GTOS was seen to have a responsibility to ensure qualitative documentation on data, rather than in verifying it. In order to avoid GTOS becoming an "owner" of data, most of the data analysis should lie outside the system, but GTOS should be able to provide information on quality, context and access. Regarding data access, it is important to allow different levels of access to data, according to sites/networks constraints. It is not realistic to insist for unrestricted data access. The scale of data is an important issue but GTOS should not focus on small datasets, which are expensive: it does not mean that GTOS will exclude them, but that it should not be a priority. The importance of linking scientific data with policy planning issues was strongly emphasized, considering that funding agencies and governments are not interested in data itself.
3.8. It was suggested that the development of GTOS information systems be approached in two parts - the development of information infrastructure and the population of the infrastructure with data and information.
3.9. Some participants were concerned that socio-economic issues, which should be included in GTOS were not being sufficiently addressed. Decision makers need this kind of information, linked to bio-physical data. The development of a Joint Socio-economic Panel, as proposed in the implementation plan, should be a high priority for GTOS.
3.10. The group suggested a number of changes in the various chapters of the implementation plan, such as wording (e.g. GTOS "is becoming", or "will be", but not "is"), update of some paragraphs in view of the recent developments (e.g. GOSSP), add new elements (e.g. role of educators as data users). It was agreed that written comments on the plan should be sent to the Secretariat after the meeting and that a new version will be circulated to the GTSC and Co-sponsors by the end of July.
ACTIONS:
Participants to send comments and inputs on the implementation plan to the Secretariat by the beginning of July 1998.
Secretariat to produce a new version of the implementation plan, including the modifications and suggestions made during the meeting, and to distribute it to the Steering Committee and Co-sponsors by the end of July.
To produce a second version of the plan (e.g. ca. 10 pages), targeted to donors and decision makers, focusing on the main actions to be implemented by GTOS.
To produce an executive summary of the implementation plan (up to 3 pages) for wide distribution.
To develop principles of involvement in GTOS, such as those developed by GOOS in their Strategic Plan and Principles.
