minutes of the - arctic observing · web viewminutes of the saon board meeting potsdam, germany,...

Minutes of the

SAON Board Meeting

Potsdam, Germany, 1-2 October 2012

1. Welcome and Introductions

The SAON Chair, Tom Armstrong (AMAP), opened the meeting of the SAON Board at 9:00 hrs on Monday, 1st October 2012. The participants introduced themselves. The meeting adopted the agenda as proposed. The agenda is attached as Appendix 1 and the list of participants as Appendix 2.

In his welcome statement to the participants, Tom Armstrong described how the main purpose of the meeting would be to further develop the strategy of SAON. He explained the need for the formulation of an overarching strategy that would support the implementation of SAON.

2. Actions from last Board Meeting

The SAON Secretary, Jan René Larsen (AMAP) went through the List of Action from the Board meeting in Tromsø, noting that all actions had been completed. The Chairmanship and the Secretariat had been given the action to “Develop a document on the criteria and process for the approval of new tasks”. The Secretariat had prepared a proposal (doc. #30), but it was agreed to postpone the discussion of this.

3. SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring and 4. SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Access to data

Invitations to the meeting had been sent to the regular members of the Board as well as to Task Leads. In his invitation letter, Tom Armstrong had invited both groups to prepare presentations for the meeting: “I draw your attention to agenda item 4 (‘Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring’) and agenda item 5 (‘Access to data’). For each of these items, I kindly ask you to prepare a 3 min presentation that will address how you think that SAON should develop within these areas from the perspective of your country/Task/organization.”

Following this, a series of presentations/background documents had been sent to the SAON Secretariat prior to the meeting, and had been made available to the participants at the SAON web site (http://www.arcticobserving.org/board/board-meetings). In addition, a series of documents were made available during and after the meeting. A full list of meeting documents is found in Appendix 3.

Countries, Tasks, and organizations addressed these questions in their presentations to the meeting as follows:

Countries: Canada (Helen Joseph, doc. #44) Denmark (Jan René Larsen) Finland (Jouni Pulliainen) Germany (Hugues Lantuit) Iceland (Halldór Jóhannsson) Italy (Vito Vitale, doc. #6, #7) Japan (Tetsuo Ohata, doc. #40) Norway (Ola Glesne) Poland (Waldemar Walczowski, doc. #10, 42) Russia (Igor Ashik, doc. #45, #46) Sweden (Magnus Tannerfeldt) USA (Erica L. Key, Martin Jeffries, doc. #2, #37)

Tasks: Polar Profile (Task 2, John Hugh, doc. #33, #62) Establishing an Arctic network on environmental monitoring of hazardous substances

(Task 6, Ola Glesne, doc. #38) An International Review of Community-Based Monitoring in the Context of Sustaining

Arctic Observing Networks Process (Task 9, Eva Kruemmel, Noor Johnson, doc. #8) An Arctic Data Coordination Network (Task N2, Mark Parsons, doc #1, #20) Classification Task (Task 10, Victoria Gofman, doc #25)

Organizations: WMO (Miroslav Ondras, doc. #18, #43, #48, #53) GEO/GEOSS (Yubao Qiu, doc. #49, #58)

Following the presentations, the floor was opened for a broader discussion on how a SAON strategy should be developed and implemented. Tom Armstrong and David Hik (IASC, SAON vice-Chair) had developed two strategy documents that were presented to the meeting (doc. #50, #51). They reminded the meeting of the overall goals of SAON, namely to provide observational information in a timely manner, and that information should be policy relevant and policy prescriptive. They asked the meeting to study the documents and to formulate relevant actions.

On an organization level, Magnus Tannerfeldt proposed that SAON should take an overall role as an organization that would be setting standards and giving recommendations. For example, the need for a definition of community-based monitoring was discussed. Erica L. Key believed that SAON should be developed into something that could be an integrated part of an

http://www.arcticobserving.org/tasks/111

http://www.arcticobserving.org/board/board-meetings

investigator’s life like Arctic Council (AC) and IASC. She suggested that a governance map should be developed that clearly defined the role of SAON. Marin Jeffries believed that SAON should seek to develop a closer relationship with the industry. Lars-Otto Reiersen (AMAP) responded that this had been tried with the oil, mining and offshore industry, and usually required negotiations on the mutual release of data.

On the question of standardization, Erica L. Key asked if standardization of measurements should be developed to cover ‘everything’, and asked if this is something that SAON should foster? She added that she did not want to prescribe instruments, but standardization should apply to data protocols. Thorkild Meedom (Denmark) added that he did not want to see standardization of the way data are collected. Simon Wilson (AMAP) saw no point in SAON to be prescriptive. Moreover, he could not see SAON as providing data, but saw a role of SAON in facilitating access to data. Martin Jeffries believed that the discussion about SAON’s role should focus on the integrity of data usage. Even if SAON should not work to make data available, SAON could still do coordination and facilitation, and could still have a data policy. This led to a broader discussion on data policy, and David Hik noted that IASC has created a new data policy group, and that this question could be taken care of by this group.

Mark Parsons wanted an overall discussion about what SAON really is. This would be important to know otherwise he believed that the researcher in the field would feel disconnected. The other question to understand would be ‘Who is SAON?’ He believed that the coordination of data is coordination of people. Hugues Lantuit added to this by making reference to his involvement in the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (GTNP): In this Task they had wanted to understand what was required in order to get the ‘SAON medal/badge’. Peter Schlosser (Task 12, Arctic Observing Summit) added to the question ‘Who is SAON?’ that the scientific community should have the feeling that they own the program, since this is where the data stream is generated.

Tom Armstrong summarized the discussion and proposed that three break-out groups should be formed:

1) Coordination, governance, and sustainment2) Data management3) Community Based Monitoring

The three break-out groups met, and the reports of the groups are found in Appendix 6, 7, and 8, and are summarized below:

Coordination, governance, and sustainment (presented by Martin Jeffries):

On the SAON history, there has always been tensions between being all-inclusive and then expand later. We can probably not go back but have to deal with what we have. The components are very wide: Permafrost, human health, Artic Ocean circulation. Arctic observing is important.SAON should be careful what we think we are coordinating. We do not want to coordinate what is already being coordinated. A point is that if our goal is to provide information and advice to policymakers, then we need to find out what they want.

Concluding: SAON must be productive. There should be a rolling list of actions and activities on a list which is subject to updates and reviews. From the point of view of sustaining, we need to have something to show. Many people can see themselves in SAON in a working group, and this could be the right way to get people engaged in SAON. The work could focus on standards, protocols, and interoperability, and can cover people from other latitudes, structures, and connections. In doing this it is important to look for what is existing so that SAON is not reinventing the wheel.

Data Management (presented by Mark Parsons)

The core question that had been discussed was: ‘What is a network’, and ‘How do we approve networks’. It was agreed that there should be a low barrier to entry for a network, perhaps two levels. The basic level requirements should be: a list of data, and a way to get to the data, point of indication, indication about how it will be sustained, how would you like to move forwards. The mechanism of approval should be defined – this could be the task for a working group. There should be a mechanism for review, assessment, and support, and also for demotion. There had been a discussion on recognized data centers, and one option would be to look at ICSU/WDS.

Community Based Monitoring (CBM, presented by Noor Johnson):

The CBM break-out group addressed how to best support the development of CBM as an observing network within the context of SAON. There is an immediate need to better define CBM and to document best practices of current projects, including methods, data format and deliverables, and how to best involve traditional knowledge holders in monitoring. In addition, the group identified several other areas that are critical to advancing CBM, including:

- The need to better articulate benefits of CBM to different stakeholders, including communities, decision-makers, and scientists;

- Developing and strengthening connections to other projects both inside and outside SAON that are relevant to CBM (such as the UNESCO “knowledge co-production” initiative, the Eye on Earth community, the Arctic Observing Summit, and ELOKA meetings.

- Improving integration with the Arctic observing community as a whole, with the larger goal being to fill in gaps and improve the state of the Arctic reporting.

The current tasks on CBM (task 9 and 10) will contribute to these needs but cannot in themselves address all of them; there is therefore a need for SAON to continue to focus on the development of CBM as a network. There is also a need to integrate CBM within other SAON sub-goals and tasks, such as observation coordination and sustaining and managing data.

5. New Tasks. Reporting from other Tasks

Task reports were presented for these Tasks: Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (GTNP) (Task 1, Inga May, doc. #26) Circumpolar Health Observatory (Task 3, Helen Joseph)


The Canadian IPY Data Assembly Centre Network (Task 5, Scott Tomlinson, Helen Joseph, doc. #11)

Coordination of existing Arctic relevant Meta-databases and Project Directories (Task 8, Jan René Larsen, doc. #60)

PEOPLE – ACE (Task 11, Marty Kress, Steve Spehn, doc. #5) Arctic Observing Summit (Task 12, Peter Schlosser, doc. #47) IASOA (Task N1, Sandy Starkweather, doc. #21) Contribution to SAON through RRR (Task #N3, Miroslav Ondras, WMO, doc. #19) Arctic IONET (Task N5, Nicolaj Bock, EEA, doc. #56)

Some of the Tasks had not been able to send a representative to the meeting, but had supplied a written report and/or been in contact with the Secretariat:

CBMP (Task 13, doc. #12, #36) Arctic Ocean Structure (Task 14, doc. #23) Expand Historical Climate Analysis to the Pacific Sector of the Arctic (Task 15, doc.

#27)

In its review, the Board noted that all Tasks are in a good shape, with good progress, and mostly are well funded. The Board prepared an overview of the Tasks and their status, which can be found in Appendix 5.

For some of the Tasks, the Board had more detailed discussions: Role of remote sensing (Task 4): The intention of the Task had been to work with a space

agency, but the CSA had had reluctance to lead this. It was considered to put the task on hold. Lars-Otto Reiersen noted that AMAP is missing a lot of sensors and that this area should be given priority. He noted that the AMAP Secretariat has been approached by Canada and Italy on this. Vito Vitale noted that the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS) has a work package on this topic. It was agreed that the Task was important and should seek new leadership.

Arctic Observing Summit (AOS, Task 12): The Task is led by ISAC, and there was a discussion about the relationship with SAON, on the mandate and on the involvement of the Board in the preparation of the Summit. The preparations involve the production of white papers in a two-fold process: There are designated authors, but there is also an open process. 2-300 participants are expected. Lars-Otto Reiersen stated that SAON needs an outreach platform, but there is no need for two series of meetings. The Board repeated that AOS is a SAON Task, but that better coordination with the Board must be established. The proposal to establish the International Network of Arctic Observing Systems (INAOS) was not endorsed.

WMO Rolling Review of Requirements (RRR, Task N3): There had been no reply to the invitation to join the work. SAON had also been in invited to nominate a representative of the WMO Commission of Basic Systems (CBS) Inter-Programme Expert Team on Observing Systems Design and Evolution (IPET-OSDE) to bring a perspective of Arctic countries into the WMO effort in integrating global observing systems. David Hik proposed that SAON accepts this invitation, noting that when a global organization approaches SAON, then we should grab this. The SAON Secretary could attend IPET-




OSDE, and if a working group structure is developed the member could be drawn from this pool.

Following the Task presentations, there was an overall discussion on how to define a Task. Inga May noted that GTNP is now a program, and she asked how do we wrap up a task when ‘mission is accomplished’. She wanted to know how to establish a new task. GTNP had discussed, if it had helped at all to have ‘the SAON badge’. It was concluded that SAON had given a good start. Inga May noted that the funding will last four years and saw the need for a discussion on how to turn Tasks into programs and back. Volker Rachold (IASC) suggested a definition where SAON networks are continuous, while the Tasks are temporary. Alternatively, Martin Jeffries suggested a scenario, where a Task was accomplished successful, and is now a program. Hugues Lantuit noted that this goes back to a standard definition, which must define a threshold. Miroslav Ondras noted that it could be a task in itself how to integrate the networks. Such an activity should look for interconnections in terms of data management and standards. Simon Wilson argued that an aspect of a Task should be how to sustain data storage/data centers. Halldor Johansson (Iceland) wanted Tasks to be defined as layers. A question had been discussed at a recent meeting by the Arctic parliamentarians: “How to color code the Arctic” Halldor Johansson noted that permafrost is now a layer. Mark Parsons added that the definition of layers also must contain a definition about how to integrate layers. It was also noted that networks and programs like INTERACT and CBMP are defined as SAON Tasks, which is confusing. The meeting concluded that the next Board meeting should clarify these terms.

Martin Jeffries presented a proposal for a new Task: Distributed Biological Observatory (doc. #16). The Task is a truly international proposal, more of network. There is focus on the Pacific sector, and the Task is tied up to the CBMP. The Task has strong support from Canada and Germany. The proposal was endorsed.

6. SAON Products and Services

Jan René Larsen presented the SAON Networks Database. In the initial phases of SAON, the SAON Steering Group had used a questionnaire to collect information about existing Arctic networks. These questionnaires had been compiled into national reports, which had now been digitized together with other national and organizational reports.

Information from 20 countries and 127 organisations had been processed, and a total of 267 activities/projects from 196 networks, covering 603 positions/sites/stations were identified and recorded. 40 themes had been recorded, and the activities had also been coded according to geographical scale: Local, national, regional, arctic, and global.

Several challenges had been identified during the work: Some countries have submitted several reports, which contain internal contradictions.

There have been problems updating old reporting with newer reporting Additional classification may cover: national monitoring networks, field stations,

research plots Proposals for improvements: Introduce periodicity/frequency:

annual/monthly/continuous/seasonal etc.

Sites’ are not always one position, but may be plots (e.g. sampling plots) or study areas (e.g. a glacier).

Data are already outdated, have bugs, etc Future maintenance:

• Submission of national reports as updates (no)• Web interface for maintanance• Electronic submission of structured data records

The details about the project can be found in doc. #15, and the database can be found at www.arcticobserving.org/networks. Jan René Larsen had worked with Alaska Ocean Observing System (www.aoos.org) and Arctic Portal (www.arcticportal.org) to establish visualizations of the project. Screen shots are found in Appendix 9.

7. SAON Terms of Reference

Tom Armstrong described the process behind the drafting of the SAON Terms of Reference (ToR), making reference to the Nuuk declaration, the Stockholm drafting group and work mainly among the Arctic Council (AC) Permanent Participants, Canada, and USA. He explained that the document is fixed at this point of time and for the current implementation of SAON. He put emphasis on the adaptive management component of the document in that it describes a review phase where desires to change can be expressed. This first review will be initiated in 2013. Tom Armstrong in particular thanked ICC, Jimmy Stotts and Eva Kruemmel for their effort in this. Eva Kruemmel thanked Tom Armstrong for his dedicated work on the ToR and explained that ICC still feels that the ToR needs improvement, particularly in two areas: there should be mention of promotion of Community Based Monitoring in the preamble, and the Executive Committee should be slightly bigger to include more country and PP representatives to ensure continuity and avoid the long turn-around time of 16 years for the countries and 12 years for the PPs.

Russel Shearer (AMAP) acknowledged this as a monumental task, noting that this was the first time in the AC history that a structure outside the Council had been created.A question was raised if for instance an Arctic Observing Summit was proposed, if this would have to go through the AC. Tom Armstrong responded that neither the AC nor IASC would have to approve such an activity. He added that the Chair and vice-Chair represents AC and IASC, and that they should still look for the interest of these bodies. The SAON Initiating Group and the SAON Steering Group have worked hard to preserve the integrity of the arctic interests, not just those of AC. The SAON ToR document is found as doc. # 34.

8. The evaluation of SAON every 2nd year, prepare for the 1st evaluation

Following the Nuuk declaration, and the SAON ToR, the Board should prepare for a review of SAON. Jan René Larsen had prepared a draft proposal for this, but time did not permit a discussion of this (doc. #24). The Board asked the Executive Committee to further develop the plans for the review.

9. Any other business

Halldor Johansson presented plans for a SAON Data Interface - An Arctic information and data square (doc. #54). It would be an attempt to build an interface to collect metadata and establish a metadata catalogue. Data would be visualised through maps. The proposal raised several questions, including concern on overlap with the initiatives from Erica L. Key and Marty Kress. Other questions were about financing, and Halldor Johansson responded that funding would be established through an EU application. It was emphasised that SAON is not a legal body and can not have financial responsibility for a project. Tom Armstrong thanked Halldor Johansson for the proposal and asked to develop the project and resubmit it for review and endorsement.

Erica L. Key presented the ArcticHub as a facility to set up a virtual work space. It was discussed if the facility can be used to support inter-sessional SAON work. The Secretariat was asked to review the facility.

David Hik and Noor Johnson had attended an international workshop held in September 2012 in France, organized by UNESCO. The title was “Global Change and Co-production of Knowledge for the Circumpolar North: Establishing a New Community of Practice”. In its final document, the workshops states that this “‘Community of Practice’ will foster knowledge co-production among and between Indigenous and scientific knowledge holders that generates robust responses to global change, including climate change, for the circumpolar North” (doc. #52, #59).

Helen Joseph presented the Terms of Reference for the Canadian National SAON Coordinating Committee (doc. #57). Martin Jeffries presented the Terms of Reference and progress for the US National SAON Coordinating Committee (doc. #37).

The work with the SAON web site was briefly described by Jan René Larsen (doc. #31).

10. The next Board meeting – time & venue

It was noted that there are several options for the time and venue of the next Board meeting, including the Arctic Observing Summit in 2013. The Executive Committee will make a decision on this.

11. End of meeting

Tom Armstrong thanked Volker Rachold, AWI and IASC for hosting the meeting, noting that the venue had been great. He thanked the participants for their attendance, and saw in particular the attendance of the Task Leads as beneficial. He closed the meeting at 16:45 on 2nd October, noting that the Board had had fruitful discussions and had developed a good framework for its future work.

Appendix 1

Agenda for the Meeting of the SAON Board

Potsdam, 1st-2nd October, 2012

Day 1: Monday 1st October

0900 1. Opening of the meeting Welcome, practical information, approval of agenda, and introduction.

0930 2. Actions from last Board meeting Follow up on actions from last Board meeting (except items that follow as part of the agenda).

1030 Health break

1050 3. SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring

- Report on National activities (NIPs). Note: 3 min per country will be allocated.- Report from Task Leads. Note: 3 min per Task will be allocated.

1200 – 1300 Lunch

1300 3. Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring (continued)

1500 Health break

1520 4. SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Access to data- Report on National activities (NIPs). Note: 3 min per country will be allocated.- Report from Task Leads. Note: 3 min per Task will be allocated.

1830 Bus transfer to Schloss Cecilienhof

1900 Tour of the Museum

2000 Banquet

2230 Bus transfer to the hotel

2300 End of Day 1

Day 2: Tuesday 2nd October

0900 4. Access to data (continued)

1030 Health Break

1050 5. New Tasks. Reporting from other Tasks 5.1 Review of proposals for new Tasks. 5.2 Reporting from other Tasks.

1230-1330 Lunch

1330 6. SAON Products and Services6.1. SAON Web site. Proposal for improve of design and content to include key relevant activities performed by Arctic and non-Arctic countries and organisations, like

- Marine research cruises, space and flight activities, land stations. - Link to INTERACT and other relevant organisations/activities.- Overview of existing Databases and how to access them, etc.

6.2. The biannual SAON meetings/conferences. To be arranged for the first time in 2014 back-to-back to the Arctic Science Summit Week in Finland.6.3 SAON Network database.

1500 Health break

1520 7. SAON Terms of Reference

1600 8. The evaluation of SAON every 2nd year, prepare for the 1st evaluation

1630 9. Any other business

1650 10. The next Board meeting – time & venue

1655 11. End of meeting

1700 End of Day 2

Appendix 2List of Participants

SAON Function

First Name

Last Name Affiliation Address Email Phone

AMAP Chair Tom Armstrong U.S. Global Change Research Program Executive Office of the President

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 250 Washington, DC 20006, USA

[email protected] +1 2024193460

IASC Vice-Chair David Hik University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada

[email protected] +1 780 492 9878

Canada Nat. Rep. Helen C. Joseph Director, Oceanography and Climate Branch, Directrice, Direction de l’océanographie et du climat Ecosystem Science/Sciences des écosystèmes

200 rue Kent, pièce 12S011/ Room 12S011 200 Kent Street Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0E6, Canada


Denmark Nat. Rep. Thorkild Meedom [email protected] Nat. Rep. Jouni Pulliainen [email protected];Germany Nat. Rep. Hugues Lantuit Alfred-Wegener-

InstituteTelegrafenberg A43, 14473 Potsdam, Germany


Iceland Nat. Rep. Thorsteinn Gunnarsson RANNÍS, Rannsóknamiðstöð Íslands/The Icelandic Centre for Research

Borgir við Norðurslóð, 600 Akureyri, Iceland

[email protected] +354 899 3290

Italy Nat. Rep. Vito Vitale Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC),

Via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy


National Research Council

Japan Nat. Rep. Tetsuo Ohata Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology

2-15 Natsushima-cho, Yokosuka-city 237-0061, Japan

[email protected] +81-46-867-9250

Korea Nat. Rep. Byong-Kwon

Park Korea National Committee for Polar Research

Songdo Techno Park, 7-50, Songdo-Dong, Yeonsu-Gu, Incheon 406-840, Korea


Norway Nat. Rep. Ola Glesne Norwegian Pollution Control Authority

P.O.Box 8100 Dep.Strømsveien 96N-0032 Oslo, Norway

[email protected] +47 22 57 34 86

Poland Nat. Rep. Waldemar Walczowski Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences

ul.Powstancow Warszawy 55, 81-712 Sopot, Poland


Poland Nat. Rep. Jakub T. Wolski Ambassador for the Arctic and the Antarctic Legal Affairs, MFA of Poland

[email protected]

Poland Nat. Rep. Agnieszka Beszczynska-Möller

Institute of Oceanology PAS

Powst. Warszawy 55, 81-712 Sopot, Poland


Russia Nat. Rep. Igor Ashik Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute

38 Bering Street, St. Petersburg 199397, Russia


Sweden Nat. Rep. Magnus Tannerfeldt Head of Research Management, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat

P.O. Box. 50 003, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

[email protected] +46-8-673 97 33

USA Nat. Rep. Martin Jeffries Office of Naval Research Ocean, Atmosphere & Space Research Division

875 North Randolph Street, Room 1058 Arlington VA 22203, USA


USA Nat. Rep. Erica Key National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA


AMAP AMAP Rep. Russel Shearer Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

15 Eddy St. 14th Floor Gatineau, Québec KIA OH4, Canada


ICC ICC Rep. Eva Krümmel Inuit Circumpolar Council, Canada Office

75 Albert Street, Suite 1001 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7, Canada


WMO WMO Rep. Miroslav Ondras World Meteorological Organisation

7 bis, Avenue de la Paix, P.O.Box 2300, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland


Iceland SAON Website

Halldór Jóhannsson Arctic Portal Skipagata 12 - 600 Akureyri, Iceland


Canada Task T9 Noor Johnson Brown University Global Change Initiative

Canada [email protected]

Germany Task T1 Inga May Alfred-Wegener-Institute

Telegrafenberg A43, 14473 Potsdam, Germany


USA Task T11 Marty Kress Von Braun Center for Science & Innovation

320 Sparkman Drive, Suite 4034, Huntsville, AL 35805, USA


USA Task T2 Mark Parsons National Snow and Ice Data Center

449 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0449, USA


Canada Task T2 John Huck University of Alberta Libraries


USA Task T12 Peter Schlosser Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

139 Comer61 Route 9W - PO Box 1000Palisades NY, 10964-8000, USA


USA Task T11 Steven Spehn HQ USEUCOM, ECJ8-Q


EEA Task Eye on Earth -

Nikolaj Bock European Environment

Kongens Nytorv 6, DK-1050 Copenhagen K,

[email protected] +45.29.65.25.48

mailto:[email protected]

Polarwatch Agency DenmarkGEO Yubao Qiu GEO Secretariat Office 6J54

7 bis, avenue de la Paix, Case Postale 2300CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

[email protected] 41 (0)22 730 8471

USA Task T10 Victoria Gofman Collaborative Research and Consulting, Anchorage, USA


AMAP Secretariat Lars-Otto Reiersen Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

Gaustadalleen 21 N-0349 Oslo, Norway


AMAP Secretariat Simon Wilson Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme



AMAP Secretariat Jan Rene Larsen Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme



IASC Secretariat Volker Rachold International Arctic Science Committee



IASC Secretariat Heike Midleja International Arctic Science Committee



USA Task IASOA Sandy Starkweather 1)

NOAA [email protected]

1) Sandy Starkweather attended part time remotely by Skype

Appendix 3

Meeting documents

By agenda item:Agenda Item Document

No Document Title Document author

1 Opening of the meeting 29 Draft agenda Chairmanship and Secretariat

41 List of participants Secretariat / Volker Rachold

28 Travel info Secretariat / Volker Rachold

2 Actions from last Board meeting 30 Procedure for approval of Tasks Secretariat / Jan René Larsen

3SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring

33 Polar Profile (Task 2) John Huck

08 Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (Task 9)

Eva Kruemmel, Noor Johnson

12 Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Task 13) Mike Gill

21International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere (and Surface) IASOA(S) (Task N1)

Sandy Starkweather

07Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring: the perspective of Italy

Vito Vitale

40 SAON2012-Report-Japan(Ohata) Tetsuo Ohata

38 SAON Board Potsdam Forskning sharing data Ola Glesne

04 Coordination across networks and platforms Igor Ashik

10 Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring Waldemar Walczowski

02 Coordination across networks and platforms Erica L. Key

37 US Supplementary Doc Martin Jeffries32 Inventory Questionnaire (Compiled by Secretariat)

35 SAON Data Management Workshop Report (extract) (Extracted by Secretariat)

4 SAON activities and status for the Tasks: Access to data 33 Polar Profile (Task 2) John Huck

08 Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (Task 9)

Eva Kruemmel, Noor Johnson

05Strategic Options for SAON Vis-a-Vis Arctic Collaborative Environment Project (Task 11)

Marty Kress, Steve Spehn

12 Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Task 13) Mike Gill

21International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere (and Surface) IASOA(S) (Task N1)

Sandy Starkweather

01 An Arctic Data Coordination Network (Task N2) Mark A. Parsons

06 Access to data: towards and Italian Arctic Metadata System Vito Vitale

38 SAON Board Potsdam Forskning sharing data Ola Glesne

10 Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring Waldemar Walczowski

02 Coordination across networks and platforms Erica L. Key

37 US Supplementary Doc Martin Jeffries

18 Access to data (and metadata) WMO perspective Miroslav Ondras / WMO

32 Inventory Questionnaire (Compiled by Secretariat)

5 New Tasks 16Distributed Biological Observatory (New Task) Martin Jeffries

5 Reporting from other Tasks 17 Task overview Secretariat / Jan René Larsen

26 Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (Task 1) Inga May

11

The Canadian IPY Data Assembly Centre Network: A Case Study (Task 5) Scott Tomlinson

25 Classification Task (Task 10) Victoria Gofman

36 An update on the CBMP-Marine Plan (Task 13) Mike Gill

23 Arctic Ocean Structure (Task 14) Gleb Panteleev

27Expand Historical Climate Analysis to the Pacific Sector of the Arctic (Task 15)

Kevin R. Wood

20 Workshop minutes (Task N2) Mark A. Parsons

19SAON Task WMO Contribution to SAON through the RRR (Task N3) Miroslav Ondras / WMO

6 SAON Products and Services 31 SAON Web Site Secretariat / Jan René Larsen

15 SAON Networks Database Secretariat / Jan René Larsen

7 SAON Terms of Reference 34 SAON Terms of reference Chairmanship/Secretariat

8 The evaluation of SAON every 2nd year, prepare for the 1st evaluation 24 Draft SAON Review Plan Secretariat / Jan René

Larsen

By document number:Document no. Author Document Document uploaded

01 Mark A. Parsons An Arctic Data Coordination Network (Task N2) 17SEP201202 Erica L. Key Coordination across networks and platforms 17SEP201203 (Obsolete)04 (Obsolete)

05 Marty Kress, Steve Spehn Strategic Options for SAON Vis-a-Vis Arctic Collaborative Environment Project 17SEP2012

06 Vito Vitale Access to data: towards and Italian Arctic Metadata System 17SEP2012

07 Vito Vitale Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring: the perspective of Italy 17SEP2012

08 Eva Kruemmel, Noor Johnson Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (Task 9) 17SEP2012

09 (Obsolete)

10 Waldemar Walczowski Coordination across networks and platforms for research and monitoring 17SEP2012

11 Scott TomlinsonThe Canadian IPY Data Assembly Centre Network: A Case Study (Task 5) 17SEP2012

12 Mike GillCircumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (Task 13)

17SEP2012

13 (Obsolete)14 (Obsolete)

15 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen SAON Networks Database 26SEP2012

16 Martin JeffriesDistributed Biological Observatory (New Task)

20SEP2012

17 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen Task overview 26SEP2012

18 Miroslav Ondras Access to data (and metadata) WMO perspective 20SEP2012

19 Miroslav Ondras SAON Task WMO Contribution to SAON through the RRR (Task N3) 26SEP2012

20 Mark A. Parsons Workshop minutes (Task N2) 20SEP2012

21 Sandy Starkweather International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere (and Surface) IASOA(S) (Task N1) 26SEP2012

22 (Obsolete)23 Gleb Panteleev Arctic Ocean Structure (Task 14) 26SEP2012

24 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen Draft SAON Review Plan 26SEP2012

25 Victoria GofmanClassification Task (Task 10)

26SEP2012

26 Inga MayGlobal Terrestrial Network for Permafrost (Task 1)

26SEP2012

27 Kevin R. Wood Expand Historical Climate Analysis to the Pacific Sector of the Arctic (Task 15) 26SEP2012

28 Secretariat / Volker Rachold Travel info 26SEP2012

29 Chairmanship and Secretariat Draft agenda 26SEP2012

30 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen Procedure for approval of Tasks 26SEP2012

31 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen SAON Web Site 26SEP2012

32 (Compiled by Secretariat) Inventory Quesionnaire 26SEP201233 John Huck Polar Profile (Task 2) 26SEP201234 Chairmanship/Secretariat SAON Terms of reference 26SEP201235 (Extracted by Secretariat) SAON Data Management Workshop Report (extract) 26SEP201236 Mike Gill An update on the CBMP-Marine Plan (Task 13) 26SEP2012

37 Martin Jeffries US Supplementary Doc 28SEP2012 / Morning CET

38 Ola Glesne SAON Board Potsdam Forskning sharing data 28SEP2012 / Morning CET

39 (Obsolete)

40 Tetsuo Ohata SAON2012-Report-Japan(Ohata) 28SEP2012 / Afternoon CET

41 (Obsolete)Documents supplied during the meeting (1-2 October 2012)

42 Waldemar Walczowski Report on National activities, 2012, Poland

43 Miroslav Ondras SAON Activities: Access to data (and metadata) - WMO perspective

44 Helen Joseph National Report - Canada45 Igor Ashik Report on National SAON activities:

Coordination across networks and platforms for research and

monitoring - Russia

46 Igor AshikReport on National SAON activities:Access to data - Russia

47 Peter Schlosser AOS presentation

48 Miroslav Ondras SAON Activities: Coordination across networks and platform - WMO perspective

49 Yubao Qiu Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)/ Cold Region - Needs and Support

50 David Hik and Tom Armstrong SAON Strategy

51 David Hik and Tom Armstrong An Integrated SAON Strategy

52 UNESCOGlobal Change and Co-production of Knowledge for the Circumpolar North: Establishing a New Community of Practice

53 Miroslav Ondras An Integrated SAON Strategy - Proposal from WMO54 Halldór Jóhannsson SAON Data Interface55 Yubao Qiu (Obsolete)56 Nikolaj Bock SAON task proposal - Arctic e-IONET - EEA - rev160 Jan René Larsen Coordination of metadatabases

Documents supplied after the meeting57 Helen Joseph Canadian SAON Terms of Reference58 Yubao Qiu An Integrated SAON Strategy-GEO59 David Hik Final statement from Paris workshop Sept 2012

61 Secretariat / Jan René Larsen List of participants

62 John Huck Task 2: Polar Metadata Profile

Appendix 4

Action list

1 For the next Board agenda: Definition of Tasks, networks, and Program and their relationship. How to turn Tasks into programs and back

Executive Committee/Secretariat

2 Nominate a member of IPET-OSDE Executive Committee3 Contemplate on a Working Group structure Executive Committee4 Develop a proposal for the future maintenance of the SAON

Networks DatabaseSecretariat

5 Further develop the plans for the review of SAON Executive Committee

6 Further develop the proposal for a SAON Data Interface - An Arctic information and data square

Halldor Johannsson

7 Evaluate ArcticHub as a tool for SAON virtual work Secretariat

8 Further develop the SAON Strategy and related implementation plan, Further develop a set of high-level deliverables for the next year that reflect the goals and objectives described in the SAON Strategy

Executive Committee

Appendix 5

Task overview

Task No

Task Title Task Lead Next milestone Task completed by

1 IPA workshop on data user requirements definition for permafrost observing GTN-P Inga May

Task in principle completed, but will be continued: Governance structure in place; Database is almost finished.

2 Polar Metadata Profile and Recommended Vocabularies John Huck

Task implementation plan is under revision.Latest TC on 12 September 2012

3 Circumpolar Health Observatory Kue Young, University of Toronto, Canada

Ongoing project

4 Role of Remote Sensing in Arctic Monitoring Yves Crevier, Canada N/A N/A

5 The Canadian IPY Data Assembly Centre Network: A Case Study Scott Tomlinson, Canada Ongoing project

6Establishing an Arctic network on environmental monitoring of hazardous substances

Ola Glesne, Climate and Pollution Directorate, Norway

2nd workshop 22-23 November 2012

Pending planning

7 Polar data and information management principles and practice (workshop) Simon Wilson, AMAP Secretariat Workshop Pending

planning

8 Coordination of existing Arctic relevant Meta-databases and Project Directories

Lars-Otto Reiersen, AMAP Secretariat

Ongoing Pending planning

9 An International Review of Community-Based Monitoring in the Context of

Eva Kruemmel, ICC, Canada Ongoing



















Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Process (Canada and ICC)

10Development of Community-Based Monitoring Classification to Improve Standardization of Vocabularies

Jim Gamble, Aleut International Association (AIA), USA; Victoria Gofman, Collaborative Research and Consulting, USA

Ongoing

11 PEOPLE – ACE Marty Kress, USAOngoing. The plan is to transfer the operational system to NOAA in January 2013

12 Arctic Observing Summit Craig Lee

September 2012: Invitation to submit AOS white papers30 April - 2 May 2013: Arctic Observing Summit

13 Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (CAFF/CBMP) Mike Gill, Canada Ongoing Currently in

year 4 of 5

14 Arctic Ocean Structure (IPY) Gleb Panteleev, IARC, Univ. of Alaska

Ongoing

15 Expand Historical Climate Analysis to the Pacific Sector of the Arctic James E. Overland, NOAA, USA Ongoing

16 CBM Inventory (CAFF) Tom Barry, CAFF Secretariat Ongoing

17

INTERACT (SCANNET)SCANNET is a network of Arctic (terrestrial) observatories, stations and sites. INTERACT is a (time-limited) observing and research program at these stations.

Terry Callaghan, Abisko, Sweden

Ongoing. Plans and funding covers a four-year period. The project has completed the First Periodic Report.

N1International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere (IASOA): Planning, Partnering and Implementation

Sandy StarkweatherOngoing

N2A Research Coordination Network for Very Interdisciplinary Arctic Data and Information

Mark A. ParsonsProposal under development

N3 Contribution to the Sustaining Arctic WMO Ongoing

























Observing Networks (SAON) through the WMO Rolling Review of Requirements

N4 Arctic Biodiversity Coalition (ABC)

Terry V. Callaghan, Chair IASC Terrestrial WG & Coordinator, INTERACT; Mike Gill, Chair Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program

Proposal under development

N5

Arctic e-IONET (an electronic-Information and Observing Network in the Arctic): Building a Shared Environmental Information Service to support SAON

Nikolaj Bock, Chris Steenmans

Proposal under development







Appendix 6

SAON breakout session on governance/coordination

Summary of discussions:Chair: Martin JeffriesNotes: Hugues Lantuit

Peter Schlosser (PS):There was some friction at the beginning of the SAON process because some research communities misunderstood the intentions of SAON and were not happy to see an overarching entity to come and “dictate” the process from the top. PS: about an overarching entity coming to take over their assets. There is a need for more clarity about the structure of SAON and most importantly the need to create more incentives for people to participate.

Martin Jeffries (MJ):As mentioned earlier today, SAON is not a source of funding. This already helps to clarify the role of SAON. Some early concerns about coordination and the “overarching” top-down role of SAON have been overcome, as its role is not to “dictate” paradigms on observing. SAON can facilitate Arctic observing by bringing the relevant stakeholders together. For instance, could help bring groups doing permafrost monitoring in one region with others doing in the same in another region. This should be the role of SAON

Erica Key (EK):The words advocacy and lobby have been used today to describe the potential role of SAON. This is probably the path SAON should take. Since SAON does not have a pot to distribute from, it should play the advocacy card. It could for instance play an important role in assisting the Belmont process.

Vito Vitale (VV):There are many thematic groups that are well established out there: INTERACT, GTN-P, etc. What is lacking is a multidisciplinary system, bringing these groups together. The efforts of these groups and others need to be coordinated. SIOS is currently facing a similar issue. The first objective of the SAON coordination should be to put a multidisciplinary coordination system into place.

PS:Is there a way that SAON could help to operationalize networks? This is essential to be successful to have a multi-decadal perspective and operationalization is part of this. PS asks how SAON could foster this process.

MJ:The way the board is structured, with program managers or representatives of government, allows SAON to provide the channels to facilitate access to operationalization. The board members should be advocates of arctic observing in their own governments.

PS:Is there a connection to the Arctic Council that could help in that regard?

MJ:The chair and co-chair of the board represent SAON to the Arctic Council. One important step forward could be that the SAON activities are reported in a timely and frequent manner. MJ asked what was currently being communicated to the SAOs from the board leadership. He pleaded for more involvement to make the case for sustained observing.

Magnus Tannerfeldt (MT):SAON is in a position to make the connection to top level officials. The AC won’t give lots of money but can set the agenda. SAON should focus on what this group (the board) can actually achieve. The most important task is probably to find ways to sustain activities. SAON can help the funding community to identify the most important platforms to sustain.

Marty Kress (MK):Lots of what makes the goals of SAON has to do with how to capitalize on the research that was done during the IPY, but there is less on the needs for tomorrow. This is actually what decision makers need, this is a missing piece in the SAON process.

EK:There is a role for SAON as a forum: At an international meeting, I would like to know about the philosophy of different organizations that are involved: Is your government committed long term? There is a need for raising the awareness about each other’s strategy and SAON could help in this.

Tetsuo Ohata (TO):We should be thinking about the gaps. Are the present networks enough for future needs? SAON needs to evaluate if these networks are good or not? Are they sufficient to understand changes?

MJ:At the beginning of the SAON process, there was a conflict between inclusiveness and focus. In MJ’s mind, there is a need to focus on problems that are essential to move forward. The changing arctic environment, though, was a major and unifying theme for both of these directions. Ultimately, SAON should focus on what decision makers need? Should we focus on a small set of big issues?

VV:The “raison d’être” of SAON in comparison to other organisations is its necessary holistic and comprehensive approach, as well as its link to the AC. The board needs to accompany this comprehensive approach and help to identify scientific gaps.

Thorkild Meedom (TM):You can not just ask the governments of the Arctic Council for money. There needs to be a purpose. It needs to be clearly articulated and the budget clearly defined

MJ:There is clearly a lack of purpose at the moment and that is a reason for making SAON or SAON tasks not fundable.

Miroslav Ondras (MO):Emphasis should be on strengthening the coordination between operational and research communities in the establishment and operation of arctic observing networks. This includes design and evolution of SAON networks according to user requirements and capabilities of existing arctic observing systems. The focus should be on observing practices, starting with documenting the current practices applied in operational and research networks and followed by an agreement on best practices to be applied across all the arctic observing systems. This would guarantee interoperability of those networks and data compatibility that is one of the most critical factors also for climate monitoring and climate studies. It should also be recognized that Arctic observing networks do not exist in the isolation, rather they form a part of the global observing systems and collaboration with them is important in the areas of network design and evolution. WMO has the long standing experience in these areas that could be used by SAON.

MT:In terms of securing activities or identifying new themes, could SAON identify new issues on a cyclical basis. It could then put an action plan for that specific issue forward. INTERACT is an example for this: It is crucial to secure funds to sustain it now, as funds will be running out at the end of the EU funding. This could be done in an advisory and support role. That does not take away the other things but there will be some focus at some point in time, on a rolling basis

PS:The system should be viewed holistically, this is very important. This has to be brought into sync with being focused. There needs to be a way to do this in a holistic approach so that we do not lose components of the system. Systems have to be connected nowadays. PS gives the example of a project that put together a grand plan but there was enough funds, but there was a process for the funders to look at the plan and to make commitments to bits of it. At the end, they were at 90% commitment. Where is that process in the Arctic?

Hugues Lantuit (HL):Hugues Lantuit asked to take a step back and to think about the challenges and issues associated with the fact that SAON is directly linked to the AC. This relationship has proven useful in the past, but has also contributed to slow the process. In any case, there is a need to acknowledge that because of that link, an Arctic observing system will work differently. This partnership should be clarified.

Yubao Qiu (YQ): YQ indicates that he is trying to understand the system: Is it volunteer-based? SAON is not a funding mechanism, so should it rely on individual researchers?

MJ:What products would be useful to people?

EK:

How does SAON coordinate things? There are no resources at present. There needs to be categories for tasks coming in. Standards and protocols, data and interoperability, operationalization of research networks, place based system analysis, stakeholder engagement, value added products, etc.. The capacity building piece of bringing a network to operational state maybe does not need SAON. “I want the stamp, it is something of international utility”

Waldemar Walczowski (WW):There are a lot of organizations making coordination of study sites and this aspect is taken care of (e.g. INTERACT). What is important for SAON is to get scientists to talk with politicians. This should be developed in SAON. Decision-makers and scientists are already linked but politicians should be brought in.

VV:There are many existing gaps. There are also many forces in the field: geopolitical, economical, climate change, etc. Better coordination is needed. Standards and protocols are needed. SAON should provide a forum to form that holistic vision. INTERACT/SCANNET is an ideal platform. We can not force too much for the top down.

PS:What is special in SAON is the “S”: sustained. It is one of the greatest challenges. Even if it tries to be holistic, the issue of making this sustainable remains. We are looking at very long investments and commitments.

MJ:This relates to the tension that was there between the two communities. Focus vs. comprehensiveness. Beyond that, the practice of observation is what unites us. A more mechanistic approach is probably the solution: bringing activities together in topics, as indicated by EK, and focus on those that are achievable and put them into topics (i.e. Working Groups) where we learn from each other and develop best practices. That gives us more focus and more credibility. This is in the national and international interest and helps us to put the “S” in sustained.

Halldor Johansson (HJ):This is exactly what we are trying to do: there will be a permafrost database, but it will have to be linked with other disciplines and the value added will be the capacity to compare it with other topics

MJ:The ultimate question is: How do make the politicians look good?

Tom Armstrong (TA):There is an increase in showing proactivity on Arctic issues in the US, because of the increasing political involvement of the administration. If there is something that can be brought to the table to show for better coordination, it will make an impact. They will take advantage of these things.

TM:

I see SAON as a resource: If I were having data from Greenland, I could go to SAON to know how to bring data to international standards. It is the international forum for this

MJ: A Working Group in the previously described mechanistic approach would make this possible.

MO: We made a number of proposals and talked about a mechanistic approach: How do we do it? WMO has a mechanism in place to do this and MO invites SAON to take advantage of it

MJ:We should not be afraid of borrowing shamelessly what has been done!

Appendix 7

SAON Board breakout session on data management

Participants Agnieszka Beszczynska-Möller Ola Glesne David Hik John Huck Mark Parsons Volker Rachold Steve Spehn Waldemar Walczowski Simon Wilson Jakub Wolski

Discussion of Issues and Goals

Parsons, Larsen, and Wilson summarized some of the past discussions around Arctic data management including:

The State of Polar Datahttp://www.icsu.org/news-centre/publications/reports-and-reviews/ipy-summary

SAON Data Management Workshop reporthttp://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/DRAFT_REPORT_-_SAON_Data_Management_Workshop_Report_FINAL_GBL0818101.pdf (see also doc #35)

Arctic Data Coordination Workshop reporthttp://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/Tasks/TN2/adcn_april_2012_minutes.doc (doc #20)

The last workshop was particularly relevant because it suggests that SAON provide the focal point for Arctic data coordination and lays out suggested criteria for being recognized as a SAON network.In the subsequent discussion several issues were identified. A core challenge is to identify the relevant components of SAON, notably the actual observing networks and supporting data centers. A central question is what are the data that need to be coordinated and managed? We had some discussion of whether we are dealing with all Arctic data or are we limited to data from SAON networks. We generally agreed we were addressing data coming from SAON networks, but that just begged the question as to what it means to be considered a SAON network. As has been noted in previous efforts, we recognized a need to map the various nodes of the networks and how they connect, but that requires a definition of the networks involved.Similarly, we discussed if there is a required or desired level of data quality. We recognized that data quality is a very subjective issue and depends on the intended application of the data. Nevertheless, data users need at least some indication of the uncertainties around a given data

http://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/Tasks/TN2/adcn_april_2012_minutes.doc

http://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/Tasks/TN2/adcn_april_2012_minutes.doc

http://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/DRAFT_REPORT_-_SAON_Data_Management_Workshop_Report_FINAL_GBL0818101.pdf

http://www.arcticobserving.org/images/stories/DRAFT_REPORT_-_SAON_Data_Management_Workshop_Report_FINAL_GBL0818101.pdf

http://www.icsu.org/news-centre/publications/reports-and-reviews/ipy-summary

http://www.icsu.org/news-centre/publications/reports-and-reviews/ipy-summary

set. So while it may be impractical to formally assert a quality level for data, there should be some requirements around how the data are described and that these requirements could be part of broader requirements to be recognized as a formal SAON network.Participants at the Arctic data coordination workshop in Montreal defined a recommended set of criteria to be a successful observing network:

1. The network identifies a data point of contact and resource person.2. The network has at least one associated data center which must meet

the requirements for ICSU World Data System certification (http://icsu-wds.org/wds-members/join-icsu-wds/criteria-membership-certification)

3. The network/data center must adhere to the IPY data policy4. The network and data center must use standard metadata that meets

the needs of the discipline(s) 5. The network and data center must coordinate with relevant

international data systems in their domain.The breakout group thought these are good criteria but recognized that not every network will be able to achieve this immediately. Furthermore, SAON has no real authority to demand heavy requirements. We thought instead it would be better to define two or more levels of network certification. The idea is that it should be easy for a network to join SAON, but there needs to be a path forward, whereby SAON can help individual networks advance and achieve the higher “gold star-level” certification. The higher level of certification should ensure that the observational data of a network are broadly available, useful, and preserved. That is our core goal: shared, useful, preserved data.The criteria defined in Montreal may serve as the initial high-level certification. The base level certification should consist of at least the following:

1. The network specifically defines what relevant data currently exists and what is to be collected.

2. The network has a designated point of contact for data issues.3. The network has a plan to move toward a higher level of certification

as appropriate.4. The network has some indication of how it can be sustained over time.

The SAON Board and membership should provide an assessment that can help the network advance and sustain, and then provide active assistance through the process. This assistance could be through help identifying data centers, relevant metadata and exchange standards, and tools etc. as well as by broadening partnerships and by enhancing recognition by nations and funding agencies.

Recommended Processes and Outcomes The SAON Board should define multi-tiered certification criteria to

formally recognize SAON member observing networks and help ensure they are sustained and broadly useful.

The Board should develop a review mechanism for certifying and (decertifying) member networks, perhaps in a manner similar to how they currently review and approve tasks.

http://icsu-wds.org/wds-members/join-icsu-wds/criteria-membership-certification


The SAON Board and membership should help Arctic observing networks advance and sustain toward providing ethically open, well-described, useful, well-preserved data.

The Board should consider data center certification as well as network certification, building from the ICSU World Data System certification (http://icsu-wds.org/wds-members/join-icsu-wds/criteria-membership-certification).



Appendix 8

SAON Board breakout session on Community-based Monitoring

Overall goals for CBM:

1) Developing a framework and approach to CBM within the context of SAON, including: Definitions – Identify a working definition for SAON’s purposes. Methods Data format and deliverables Identifying, mapping, and analyzing existing projects in relation to CBM Inclusion of TK holders in monitoring– identifying where TK holders could be an asset to

goals of scientific processes. [Distinguishing between monitoring and non-repetitive TK projects].

Interface with industry and other economic sectors Integration of CBM within the other SAON sub-goals Implementation Plan

2) Better articulation of benefits of CBM to: Communities Decision-makers Scientists

3) Develop and strengthen connections to other projects that are relevant to CBM: Paris UNESCO group Eye on Earth user conference Arctic Observing Summit ELOKA meetings

4) [Once sustained as a network] - Better state of the Arctic report – feed into high level synthesis and helping fill in gaps.

Appendix 9

Test visualizations of SAON Network Database

Visualization constructed by Alaska Ocean Observing System (www.aoos.org). Data are dummy values.

Visualization constructed by Arctic Portal (www.arcticportal.org)Data are dummy values.

http://www.aoos.org/