EC-PORS-IV/INF.20, p. 1

Annex 1

Summary of JCOMM comments on IPIGCW implementation

(Jan. 2013)

From / Comment / Issues / Expertise
Boram / JCOMM-4 expressed its readiness to contribute to the IPI implementation in the GCW framework, based on the discussion at the IPY2012 Conference "From Knowledge to Action" (22–27 April 2012, Montréal, Canada). A large part of input may be from the Expert Team on Sea ice, in cooperation with the International Ice Charting Working Group as a technical forum of ice services. From the point of WMO part of JCOMM, our interest is to continue maintaining relevant technical documents to sea ice, such as “Sea Ice Nomenclature”, “Sea-Ice Information Services in the World” (as extension for Polar Regions of WMO-No. 9, Volume D), “Ice Objects Catalogue” (joint WMO-IHO standard for ice in the Electronic Chart Display Information System (ECDIS)), etc. Suggest the consultation for these documents include Vasily (ETSI chair) for more detailed technical review... / JCOMM-4 outcome, and JCOMM contribution to IPI
Update relevant TDs (e.g. sea-ice nomenclature) / ETSI
Intl. Ice-Chart WG
Vasily Smolyanitsky ()
Ming / See Annex /
  • Comments on IPI AND GCW documents
  • Comments on the GCW implementation plan
  • Recommendations
/ Ming Ji ()
Peter / The documents are big on rhetoric and light on specifics, so difficult to be specific in commenting. While largely agreeing with the comments of Ming, Peter offers a couple of cautionary notes:
  1. The IPI is billed as a fully multi-agency activity, of which WMO is only one partner. Whether it will work out this way in practice remains to be seen, but assuming it does, then almost by definition it will be a lengthy process to get agreement by everyone on the concept, let alone broadscale and specific objectives,details of an implementation plan, funding process, etc.
  1. On the other hand, as P. Dexter understands it, the GCW is primarily a WMO initiative, thus much easier (in principle) to establish and begin implementing. In as much as the GCW will be one contribution to the IPI, this may be OK, though more coordination should take place, as Ming urges.
  1. Otherwise, P. Dexter agrees with Ming's comments. The GCW does seem very top-heavy, and ignores the potential contributions of all the TCs, JCOMM included.
One thing that stood out as missing from the IPI document is any mention of the Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS). This is largely an initiative of SCAR/SCOR growing out of the IPY, it has a detailed implementation plan, which is getting underway, and is likely to make a major contribution to the IPI. Thus it should have some sort of prominence up front in the document, and not just passing reference under potential project partners.
Back in 2010, P. Dexter attended the meeting of EC-PORS in Hobart, when initial work was done on a lot of this stuff, including preparation of the Congress resolutions relating to IPI and GCW. At the time he indicated the willingness of JCOMM to be involved in various ways, and this is reflected in the material from JCOMM 4 quoted by Boram. In addition, he suggested that JCOMM had a lot to offer the GIPPS Project (Global Integrated Polar Prediction System), through ET-OOFS and ETSI in particular, relating to ocean and sea ice modelling. So you need to keeep all this in mind when interacting on these polar activities. GIPPS is likely to be a major activity of IPI. / Heavy/lengthy process
More coordination needed, in particular with TCs & JCOMM
Ocean & sea-ice modelling
SOOS / GIPPS through ET-OOFS & ETSI
Gary Brassington ()
Vasily Smolyanitsky ()
Ask David Meldrum () to coordinate JCOMM input to IPI for the future
Etienne / From an OPA perspective, our interactions will be through the Cryonet Team so it will be important for JCOMM to be represented there. The development of high-latitude Reference sites appears to be an important development of GCW, so it would be worth to investigate whether interactions and/or cooperation with the OceanSITEs will be required regarding those sites to be deployed in the Arctic ocean, or on ice-shelfs around Antarctica. I'd suggest that you consult with Bob Weller and Uwe Send in this regard.
From a DMPA perspective, we'll have to monitor the development of the GCW Portal, and probably also be represented in the Portal Team. While interoperability with the WIS is a given (because this is mainly a WMO driven initiative), there might also be benefits to connect this to the IODE Ocean Data Portal (ODP). So I'd suggest you contact the Chair of ETDMP, Sergey Belov. / Cryonet Team / OceanSITES
GCW Portal / ODP & ETDMP / Bob Weller ()
Uwe Send ()
Sergey Belov ()
Candyce / D. Meldrum should continue to play a role in JCOMM on polar matters, incl. SOOS science & implementation (incl. OceanSITEs, drifters, Argo etc.) (co-President’s agreement required). / OCG
SOOS science & implementation / C. Clark ()
D. Meldrum ()

See also Annex.

______

Annex

Comments from Ming Ji

Comments on IPI AND GCW documents:

-The two initiatives are clearly related-overlapping. GCW should be part of the IPI. However, it seems the authors of the two initiatives never recognize the existence of the other.

-IPI appears to be a broader, higher level initiative that includes GCW. Given the IPI schedule for the 1st draft of its implementation plan is for 2015-2016, developing of the GCW implementation plan seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse. In this context, the GCW implementation plan is clearly premature, it should wait for the IPI implementation plan, and be part of the IPI implementation plan.

Comments on the GCW implementation plan:

-It is not clear just what are the missions of the GCW. In Section 2.2, it first stated that GCW is about all cryospheric observations (the 1st sentence). It then stated that “GCW will include observation, monitoring, assessment, product development, prediction, and research” (1st sentence in the 2nd full paragraph.

-If it is the full scale “program” of observing, monitoring, prediction, research etc., one would beg the question of “what are the relationships with other WMO programs ?” such as CLIVAR, GEWEX, etc… which also do observing, research, prediction, analyses/assessments, datasets development … So, “why another comprehensive program?” .

-This proposal did not consider how to leverage existing programs and WMO structures (e.g., TCs), but plans to build another completely self-contained, comprehensive “program” including its own Secretariat. One must ask if this approach is sustainable ?

Recommendations:

1)The GCW plan should be coordinated with the IPI plan (it should wait for the decision and coordinate on specifics approaches of the IPI implementation plan).

2)The entire approach for both IPI and GCW should first consider existing WMO programs (such as CLIVAR, GEWEX, others) for the developmental phase of the GCW, and it should also first consider roles of WMO infrastructure (such as TCs) for the “operational phase” of the GCW.

Both documents ignored existing WMO programs and infrastructure. This approach is not sustainable and highly ineffective.