Workshop on Private Sector Interest and Roles in the IOOS Houston, Texas David L. Martin, Ph.D.

1. A National Federation of Regional Associations Workshop on Private Sector Interest and Roles in the IOOS Houston, Texas David L. Martin, Ph.D. Associate Director, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, USA March 2, 2004

2. What will IOOS Look Like? • Global Component (nearly entirely a Federal responsibility – for both operations & research support) • Coastal Component • National System (‘backbone’) – Mostly Federal • Networks regions into a national federations and link environmental changes that propagate across regions • Federation of Regional Observing Systems • Federal, state & local government involvement with academia, Tribal, private industry, NGOs and other stakeholders increase temporal/spatial resolution of backbone & increase variables measured and products produced

3. IOOS Global System • Full implementation of Argo and the global ocean time series observatories. • Successful completion of the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE). • Optimizing the global network of observations, and • Enhancing the ocean time series observatories with key biological and chemical sensors.

4. The National Backbone • Measure and process variables needed by all regional systems • Satellite remote sensing • Reference, sentinel stations • Link to global system • Data standards & exchange protocols • Capacity building Wave Height Ocean Color Surface Temperature

5. Primary interface with user groups outside federal agencies. • Focal point for data analysis and product development that will have local, regional and national applications. • Terrestrial influence measurements • Many national backbone R&D projects will be first done in regional observing systems. • Development of regional systems is a very high priority

6. Representative Northwest Observing Systems (non-exhaustive) From: NOAA Coastal Services Center http://www.csc.noaa.gov/coos/northwest.html

7. Representative Northwest Observing Efforts Involving Tribal, State, local governments, Academia, etc.

8. Criteria for a Regional System • Proof of a Solid Governance Structure that can deliver a Regional IOOS • By incorporating/improving existing assets and engaging regional expertise. It must describe governing and executive bodies, the roles and responsibilities of members, and how decisions are made/modified, etc. • Provision of an acceptable business plan that is endorsed by stakeholders • Articulate Regional system goals IAW seven IOOS goals, specify products and customers, conform to protocols, be capable of 24/7 ops providing timely user-driven products, describe sources of funding, provide a budget, etc. This will become the Strategic Plan • Describe the process by which the governance structure and business plan were developed/improved • Easy to list, rigorous to implement, and . . . how do we agree and/or accomplish these? How do we formalize and empower the “We” in the various US Regions?

9. Regional Associations Provide the Legitimizing Framework • For the Individual U.S. Regions: • They provide a focal point for a Regional Consortia of stakeholders to whom accountable (performance based) transfers of Federal resources can occur • Enhance intra-regional connectivity and collaboration • Priorities, technology transfer, science, etc., etc., etc. • As Part of a National Federation of Regional Associations • Lessons learned from other RAs (best practices, etc.) • Facilitates seamless interconnectivity (interoperability) between Regions • Demonstration to national leadership of maturity (vice internecine bickering) • Ease pressure for Congressional earmarks/plus-ups as RAs become the vehicle of choice for directed regional ocean observing resources • Etc., etc.,

10. Regional Associations are Formed to: • Oversee & manage the design and sustained operation of integrated Regional observing systems addressing societal needs • Agree and establish Regional geographic boundaries • Obtain and disperse funds to operate and improve Regional observing systems • Ensure the timely provision of quality controlled data and information to users • So . . . , if they’re so good, what’s the problem?

11. Remember, “Interoperability” and Cross-Boundary Governance is Difficult at Many Levels The federal government explored a range of options for its own interagency governance problem for the role and mission of Ocean.US: • Strong, central management; allocates funds: • National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), Integrated Program Office (IPO) - Line item in NOAA and USAF budgets, IPO has responsibility and authority. • Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Two agencies (DoD and DoE) provide research dollars at their discretion; agencies mutually determine investment areas. • National Ice Center - Joint participation in a budget contributed by agencies to meet a national mission; procurement authority within each agency contributing funds. • Implementation through memoranda, agreements, or proposals; funds allocated by individual agencies: • Sea Grant - Multi-agency at distributed end of the system; collaborative allocation of resources for locally defined programs within national thematic areas; conducts activities (outreach, education, synthesis). • National Laboratories - Research priorities established locally within broad-based guidelines. • University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) - Federally supported consortium with a board of trustees. • Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) - Non-profit consortium of academic institutions that manages (principally government funded) programs (e.g., ocean drilling program). • Coordination and information role; little direct influence on funding: • U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) - Facilitates interactions, identifies areas of potential collaboration, facilitates collaboration, assembles and disseminates information. • University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) - Scheduling and participation in a broad range of oceanographic research ship activities.

12. Governance System for RAs: Reaching Consensus • A wide range of stakeholders needs to be approached, educated and encouraged to participate • Tribal leaders, Academia, Federal agencies, industry, other state/local governments, NGO’s, etc. • Interactions in a number of Region have accelerated during past year • Need to identify the MANY others – a Region’s constituents must help. • Regional participants must remain engaged with colleagues in other Regional Associations, Ocean.US and others in D.C. and the nation • e.g., Regional Observing System “Summit”: Regional Interoperability Forum, attend RA meetings nearby, etc. • e.g., NANOOS1 Workshop attendees included Alaskans, Canadians, Californians • Regions must develop mechanisms to address the “hard” issues. 1NANOOS – Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems

13. Because RA Governance Means More Than Merely Getting Along . . • What is the governance mechanism for the RA? How is the Regional Association to be chartered for a multi-state role (with international connectivity if applicable)? • What roles will various entities agree to play? And what will they not do? • What is the role of Federal agencies (or Tribal, state, local, etc.) in the Regional Association hierarchy and decisions? • What is the role of non-governmental entities (industry, academia, NGO’s etc) ? • How are differences between stakeholders arbitrated? • Prioritization/scheduling of observing systems • Allocations of resources • How are “boundaries” between regions determined? - e.g., For the PNW, what is the geographical extent of “Northern California”? • These issues and others have been identified and discussed at various fora • Arriving at equitable solutions will take time and discourse – ignoring such issues is not an option • Ocean.US (e.g., the entire federal structure in Washington, D.C.) will NOT solve Regional governance isues. • Regions must do this for themselves

14. The National Federation of Regional Associations Will Assist • Promote Regional observing systems nationwide • Enhance communications between NOPP agencies and RA • Assist in delineation of geographic boundaries • Promote inter-RA collaboration • Guide the development of the backbone • Influence the development and enable the implementation of national standards and protocols. • When mature, certify the RA’s themselves

15. Summary • An IOOS is required to address a wide range of issues • National effort has the support of both the Executive and Legislative branches • Ocean.US plan forwarded to Congress by the White House • The IOOS will measure the full spectrum of ocean parameters needed to address a wide range of issues • Physical, biological, chemical, geological, meteorological etc. • The IOOS has global and coastal modules • Coastal efforts consist of both national “backbone” (mostly Federal – e.g., NDBC, CMAN, NWLON, PaCOS, etc.) and Regional efforts • To address regional concerns and build regional constituencies WITHIN the construct of an integrated system • The goal is Regional relevancy with National oversight. • Regional Associations, and a National Federation of these Associations will provide the governance structure to enable this portion of the IOOS