Transcript National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP)

Development of Regional Associations and of
the National Federation of Regional
Associations ( NFRA)
IOOS: First Annual Implementation Conference
Washington, D.C.
David L. Martin, Ph.D.
Chair, NFRA Organizing Committee
August 31, 2004
Convergence of Interests
and Capabilities – Leading to IOOS
NOPP and Ocean.US
Academic Community
Commission on
Ocean Policy
Global Ocean
Observing System
GOOS
Ocean
Caucus
NSF Ocean
Observatories Initiative
Recognized
Need
Note: Regional interests are implicit throughout
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
• Regional federal entities, state & local government with
involvement with academia, Tribal, private industry, NGOs
and other stakeholders -- increase temporal/spatial
resolution of backbone & increase variables measured and
products produced
•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.
•Incorporate sub-regional systems
•Development of regional systems is a very high priority with
Congress and the Commission on Ocean Policy
Required Characteristics of
Regional Efforts
• A Solid Governance Structure
– Describing 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 should become the Regional 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 U.S. Regions?
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 bickering)
Ease pressure for Congressional earmarks/plus-ups as RAs become the
vehicle of choice for directed regional ocean observing resources
– Etc., etc.,
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
• Incorporate sub-regional efforts within the integrated system
• Obtain and disperse funds to operate and improve Regional
observing systems
• Ensure the timely provision of quality controlled data and
information to users and private sector data and product
providers
Governance System for RAs:
Reaching Consensus
• A wide range of stakeholders needs to be approached, educated and
encouraged to participate
– Tribal leaders, private sector, Academia,Regional Federal agencies, 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., Various RA Workshop attendees include national and international
representatives from adjoining regions
• Regions are developing mechanisms to address the “hard” issues.
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 Regional Federal agencies (or Tribal, state, local, etc.) in the
Regional Association hierarchy and decisions?
• What is the role of non-governmental entities (private sector, 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 issues.
– Regions must do this for themselves
Criteria for a Certification as a
Regional Association
• Proof of a Solid Governance Structure that can deliver a
Regional IOOS
– By incorporating/improving existing assets and engaging regional
expertise. It must serve as its own fiscal agent (accept funds, enter
enforceable contracts, etc.); it must be insurable unless indemnified
legislatively
• Adoption of a membership policy
– That specifies one or more categories, qualifications, rights and
responsibilities; describes how members are added/removed; provides for
geographic balance; ensures diverse membership from regional user and
provider groups and stakeholders
• Creation of a Governing Board
– Formally created, public in all transactions IAW State/Fed laws; appoints
a Chief Administrative Officer or Executive body; that is bound by
procedures, that develops metrics to improve system performance;
exercises appropriate powers to ensure its autonomy; is diverse in its
makeup
Criteria for a Certification as a
Regional Association (continued)
• Formally involves users who will use the data and information
products generated by the RA as evidenced by:
– A panel advisory to the Governing Board that includes representatives of
a significant share primary users and private sector data and product
providers together with a detailed description of how this panel will be
used
– An active, ongoing outreach and marketing program described in the
RA’s Business Plan1 having
• A person or entity assigned responsibility for education and communication
• Documents how the RCOOS is responsive to needs of users and private
sector data and product providers
• Establishes processes by which the needs of users and private sector data and
product providers and gauged
1Note:
Criteria for acceptable RA Business Plan are similarly detailed
Criteria for a Certification as a
Regional Association (Bus. Plan)
 Goals & Objectives
• Establish an RCOOS that addresses the 7 societal goals as determined by user groups
in the region
• Contribute to the development of the IOOS as a whole
 Needs, Benefits, Product Development & Marketing
• Link to objectives
• Prepare a plan for product development & diversifying the user base
 Linking Observations to Model and Products
• Observations & data transmission
• Data management & communications
• Data analysis & products
 Research & Development
 Training
• Workforce of trained operators
• User community
 Funding
• Prepare a plan for obtaining, increasing, sustaining & diversifying revenues for
design, implementation, operation and improvement
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.
NFRA Organizing Committee
Alaska (AOOS):
Molly McCammon
Nancy Bird
Caribbean:
Jorge Corredor
Roy Watlington
Pacific Northwest (NANOOS)
David Martin - Chair
Steven Rumrilll
Southeast (SEACOOS)
Rick Devoe
Andy Clark
Hawaii and Pacific Islands:
Eileen Shea
Chris Chung
Mid-Atlantic (MARA)
Bill Boicourt
Carolyn Thoroughgood
Central and Northern California (CeNCOOS):
Marcia McNutt
Linda Sheehan
Northeast (GoMOOS)
Philip Bogden
Janet Campbell
Southern California (SCCOOS):
John Orcutt
Marco A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Great Lakes
Jeffrey Reutter
Thomas Rayburn
Gulf of Mexico (GCOOS):
Landry Bernard
Buzz Martin
US GOOS Steering Committee
Worth Nowlin
Mark Luther
Organizing Committee Initial Tasks
• NFRA Mission Statement
• Regional RA Summit
– Criteria for Certification as Regional Association
– Criteria for Acceptable Business Plan
– Interactions with Congressional delegations
• Primarily Senate version and House mods to S 1400
• Regional priorities for Backbone and RCOOS’s
• Provision of near-term (FY05 & 06) and long-term RA and
regional RCOOS resource needs
• Review of IOOS Implementation Plan
– Participants in First IOOS Implementation Conference
Regional Effort Resource Needs
Assumes ~10 will be established and that all 10 ill be fully operational by Yr 5
YR 1
2.5
YR2
2.5
YR3
1
YR4
0.5
YR5
0
44.5
41.5
68
55.5
23
Mature Systems [$20m-$30M/ea]
full operations
0
60
120
180
270
NFRA
(Estab. And operation of NFRA)
0.5
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
Education & Outreach
(Public education, outreach to
potential users and private
sector data/product providers
2.5
5.5
10
12.5
15.5
TOTAL
50
110
200
250
310
Start-up ($0.5M each)
formation of Regional Assoc.
Initial Systems [$5M-$15M/ea]
(Integration of networks in
region, data integration cntrs.,
data access & sharing sys.)
Regional Effort Summary
• The IOOS has global and coastal modules
– Coastal efforts consist of both national “backbone” (mostly Federal – e.g.,
NDBC, CMAN, NWLON, USACE Wave & RSM, USGS stream gauges,
etc.) and non-federal 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
• Resource requirements are substantial for RCOOS initial and
full operation; they are relatively modest for RA Certification,
but several times greater than present RA Partnership building
grants (present funding levels do not allow certification in 2
years)
• Fundamental issue concerns the level of actionable Federal
support of these non-agency Regional efforts (to date, support ≠
sufficient funding)