Year 1
1) Seek to establish a GTOS regional coordination unit
The Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) should be a driving force during the next phase of the GTOS CEE programme. The alternative would be to manage the programme centrally at the GTOS Secretariat. However, a decentralized operation system would ensure permanent communication within the region.
Assessment of the costs of managing the GTOS CEE programme is essential in order to obtain financial support. The assessment should consider RCU operational costs, working meetings on demonstration projects and CEE Board annual meetings. Provisional budgets could be proposed to potential sponsors.
2) Identify national focal points (NFP)
NFPs have already been selected for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, and have prepared country reports. The terms of reference and tasks of the NFPs should be further detailed for the second phase of the GTOS CEE programme. The selection of NFPs for other countries in the region should be initiated by the RCU and endorsed by national governmental bodies (e.g. Ministries of the Environment).
3) Establish a regional CEE Board
A CEE Board could be set up immediately with the participation of the four NFPs, and could be enlarged as required. Possibilities for financing the work of NFPs must be considered. The CEE Board should later select the representative of the region in the GT-Net Panel. The Board should operate as an inter-governmental advisory body. As soon as funds are available, a meeting of NFPs as a CEE Board should be organized to discuss activities: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 16. FAO SEUR could support the arrangements.
4) Facilitate the creation of national inventories of observing sites and data sets
The first phase of the GTOS CEE programme has already made steps forward to achieve this objective with the environmental assessments in four countries and also for some others in a less detailed format (Armenia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania). However, even these studies are not sufficiently detailed for proper analysis of regional observation capacity. Finding new sources and enlarging the scope of the investigation to the whole region should be continued. The criteria for selection has to be further elaborated according to major environmental issues.
It is essential to improve access to data held by research institutions and government bodies. Many data sets only exist on paper and are therefore inaccessible. There is an urgent need to transpose these to electronic format before the information is lost.
Problems to overcome include lack of manpower, identifying procedural standards for compatibility and establishing conditions of data access. GTOS recommendations would be useful (see also Action 12). The application of the Aarhus Convention, signed by most European countries could facilitate access to environmental data. The involvement of existing international networks is encouraged (e.g. network of Biosphere Reserves).
5) Assess capacity building needs for making terrestrial observations
The environmental assessments have demonstrated that there is sufficient expertise in the four countries for initiating environmental observations, but there is a lack of staff for data and information management; in some cases, legal authority is unclear. Studies should be carried out for other countries in the region. A training plan should be elaborated according to the results. International initiatives like ILTER, GTOS and NoLIMITS also agreed to play a part in capacity building in information management (see also Action 14).
6) Organize a working meeting to develop regional participation in GTOS demonstration projects
The GTOS Steering Committee has initiated several demonstration projects (Net Primary Productivity, Global Observation of Forest Cover, Soil biodiversity/decomposition, Human health, etc) that could represent the platforms for initial active participation as a region in global programmes. Several institutions have expressed their interest or have prepared material for some of the demonstration projects. The working meeting could be organized with representatives of these institutions, with the objective of harmonization of methodologies, the use of a bio-geographic approach and related problems. Considering the links between human health vis-à-vis land cover change or climate change would be a possible demonstration project.
7) Elaborate proposals for regional demonstration programmes
The working meeting on global demonstration projects (Action 6) could also serve as a forum for new initiatives. The projects proposed at the Synthesis Workshop by participants have been confirmed. Other programmes such as transboundary issues should however be included. Examples were given during the Synthesis Workshop on problems of bilateral exchanges of data (e.g. in the Danube Delta - Romania and Ukraine share little data). It was felt that multilateral exchange might, in fact, help to overcome some of these problems. A search for funding mechanism for longer-term activities should be carried out.
8) Update the GTOS CEE homepage
The RCU should facilitate participation in the GTOS CEE programme. To make GTOS work it is important to reach a critical number of members and ensure its long-term functioning. GTOS could initially approach possible partners. The benefits of exchange of information will be the main attraction for contributors to the network. The benefits of participating in GTOS should be stressed and added values listed. For example, access to satellite imagery is a need of regional institutions, but it is too costly. GTOS could help with negotiation for multiple users to bring down costs in exchange for in situ data.
9) Set up an E-mail discussion group for GTOS CEE
A discussion group for the global programme is already operational and effective. This group could help communication and harmonization of ideas and methodologies at a low cost. This could evolve into the setting up of a series of discussion groups to cater for those with general and more specific interests in GTOS.
Year 1-2
10) Update the TEMS meta-database for the region
There is a requirement for TEMS to be updated globally and the CEE region in particular. Current entries vary greatly in the quality of the information provided for individual observing sites. Updates need to be performed in collaboration with site managers preferably moving measurement resolutions and accuracy towards a greater level of harmonization. WAICENT plays a role in this process providing an acceptable standard format for updating. NFPs should be involved in contacting sites and coordinating the activities. Fusion of sites for more integration is encouraged.
11) Develop a common platform for data and information documentation and exchange
Among its many roles, GTOS will use metadata to provide pointers to the location of specific data. To achieve this, there is a need for seamless information interfaces at least at metadata level for users, even if different components are disparate. A strategy for reaching the balance of metadata availability has to be determined (cost/benefit of producing metadata).
Recommendations:
continue the development of meta-databases at the national level;
consider development of a region-wide meta-database (see Action 19);
identify a metadata standard or develop the ability to translate current metadata standards in use;
review data release and exchange policies;
adapt old datasets from monitoring sites selected for old objectives to current priorities.
12) Assess adequacy of existing observation sites (programmes) in terms of the GHOST hierarchy
The GTOS CEE region is an area large enough to consider all tiers in the Global Hierarchical Strategy (GHOST). Tiers differ in sample numbers and areas: Tier 1 = large scale experiments and gradient studies; Tier 2 = long-term research centres; Tier 3 = field stations; Tier 4 = observation sites periodically visited; Tier 5 = frequent, low resolution remote sensing. The coverage of each tier has to be analysed and gaps identified. Spatial locations of various stations involved need to be identified in the process. Remote sensing by satellite imagery is also a national responsibility.
13) Organize a data and information tools workshop
Information management is a basic element of GTOS and also other international programmes related to environmental observations. To reduce costs and efforts, tools for data management should be elaborated in collaboration with related programmes. The workshop should be organized with the ILTER and NoLIMITS projects. Activities under Action 12 could involve preparing the materials necessary for the workshop. Information tools cover entering, searching, sorting, grouping, summarizing, graphing and exchanging of data.
14) Enhance collaboration with existing international research and monitoring initiatives
International programmes, besides national bodies, can be important to GTOS data and information users. Collaboration with various environmental conventions and inventory, monitoring and research programmes is already on-going. Contacts should be continued between the regional programme and the UNEP GRID (Global Resource Information Database) programme, the European Networking of Long-term Integrated Monitoring In Terrestrial Systems (NoLIMITS) initiative and the International Long Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network. Existing mechanisms relating to reporting systems should be applied.
Year 2-3
15) Produce outputs for scientific and policy users
The establishment of a metadata system by GTOS based on hierarchical methods is useful only if the information is integrated and evaluated at levels above the national scale. This synthesis should be undertaken with defined objectives in agreement with users. The results of Action 13 would support this work. Outputs should be prepared according to scientific requirements and also in a public format.
16) Formalize key data sets
The first two years of the programme will result in a detailed knowledge of regional observations relevant to GTOS objectives. The analysis of the tiers of the Global Hierarchical Observing Strategy (GHOST) in Action 13 may well show gaps in the coverage of sites. Action 16 will provide clear limits of data accessibility. Efforts must be made to obtain access to data or to facilitate filling in the gaps in observation coverage.
Year 3 and Beyond
17) Harmonize measurement methodologies
As GTOS relies on existing observation networks, it is extremely difficult to influence the sampling methodologies being used. However, efforts should be made to achieve higher levels of inter-comparability. GTOS should try to identify a set of preferred methodologies for the measurement/observation of core variables and provide these to participants in a manual. This activity should be coordinated at a regional and global scale.
18) Establish a GTOS regional metadata centre
The aim of GTOS is not to handle basic data, but to link monitoring systems in a single network. Information has to be collated at a metadata level. Through the harmonization of national metadata centres, regional centres could be established. If successful, the CEE metadata centre could be used as a model for the development of similar centres in other regions. The GRID centres could be potentially involved in the process.
19) Establish National Coordinating Committees
The use of the existing system of national committees and other coordinating mechanisms will be encouraged to avoid duplication of efforts and to enhance the effectiveness of available funds. When the GTOS CEE programme reaches a sufficient size, it should consider the establishment of National Coordinating Committees. These could promote the development of the programme and harmonize expert opinions at a high national level. Alternatively the existing national organizations and the CEE Board could undertake this work.
