______
COMMISSION FOR BASIC SYSTEMS
OPEN PROGRAMME AREA GROUPON
INTEGRATED OBSERVING SYSTEMS
IMPLEMENTATION/COORDINATION TEAM
ON THE INTEGRATED OBSERVING SYSTEM
Fifth Session
(GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, 15-18 SEPTEMBER 2008) / CBS/OPAG-IOS/ICT-IOS-5/Doc. 8.1
(15.VIII.2008)
______
ITEM: 8.1
Original: ENGLISH
IMPACT STUDIES ON THE GOS
Report on the Impacts of New Instrumentation on the GOS
(Submitted by Mr Alan Douglas, Met Office and
Mr William Nyakwada, Kenya Meteorological Service,
both Co-Rapporteurs on the Impact of New Instrumentation on the GOS)
This document provides a detailed analysis on the impacts of new instrumentation on the GOS.
Action Proposed
The Meeting is invited to take into consideration information contained in this document when discussing relevant agenda items.
______
Appendix:Countries responding to the questionnaire on the impacts of new instrumentation on the GOS.
CBS/OPAG-IOS/ICT-IOS-5/Doc. 8.1, p. 1
REPORT ON THE IMPACTS OF NEW INSTRUMENTATION ON THE GOS
Executive Summary
1.Following a decision taken at the 2006 Extraordinary Meeting of CBS, a questionnaire on the Impacts of New Instrumentation on the GOS was prepared and issued in 2007. Fifty Members responded to the questionnaire and the results of the questionnaire considered at the 5th meeting of the ICT in September 2008.
2.The results of the questionnaire, despite the relative low numbers, indicates that a greater expenditure on observational systems was made in the 3-year period under review, especially in terms of new equipment, than in the period covered by the 2006 report. It also highlighted the fact that a high proportion of the investment came from Member funding, though not always from the NMHS budget; with external financial support primarily concentrated on those Members with a designated status, e.g. LLDC, SIDS.
3.The questionnaire summary highlights that a global priority appeared to be in investment in AWS systems, since some 72% of all respondents had introduced new/additional AWS systems and some 22% had upgraded AWS systems during the period in question. Satellite reception equipment and upper air systems were the next highest categories for investment though there were some individually high investments in equipment such as next generation Radar by a few Members.
Key Conclusions and Recommendations
4.Only about 30% of the potential number of returns were received, and the chasing exercise through the Regional Rapporteurs produced no extra returns. Given the emphasis on this questionnaire at the Extraordinary meeting of the CBS, this must be regarded as a disappointing level of return.
5.Overall, even allowing for the different numbers of returns, these figures indicate a higher level of investment in Observing systems than the 2006 report, both in terms of new equipment and upgrades; though more particularly with new systems. That trend should be welcomed – though is probably not a fast enough growth. The figures also show that a high proportion of the funding came directly from the Members (though not always direct from the NMHS budget).
6.The main areas of expenditure on new equipment were in terms of AWS stations, satellite receivers and upper air systems. The same three groups headed the upgrade listings; but with upper air systems taking the lead.
7.Whilst the majority of returns related to upgraded systems reported an increase in running costs as a consequence; there was a significant minority reporting a resultant decrease. This trend should be encouraged and welcomed as it can help provide a business case for upgrades.
8.There were no really significant differences when Region was compared to Region (though a high investment in Region 1 is a welcome sign) nor when Members with a designated status were considered in groups (though, as might be expected, the LLDC Members showed the highest proportion of inward support).
9.From those Members reporting, there is a continued low level of perceived use/benefit from the WMO Virtual (Satellite) Laboratory and also a relatively high level ofMembers expressing no knowledge of the relevant TD. Clearly these take resources to produce / run; and consideration needs to be given about future publicity / support for such activities.
10.Questionnaires should only be undertaken if Members have unreservedly agreed to complete and return the questionnaire, and that Regional Rapporteurs support the
Co-Rapporteurs by chasing missing or questionable information.
DETAILED REPORT ON THE IMPACTS OF NEW INSTRUMENTATION ON THE GOS
Introduction
1.In recognition of the perceived impacts of new technology on the Global Observing System (GOS), the meeting of the CBS-XIII (St. Petersburg, 2005) decided to appoint Co-Rapporteurs and tasked them with gathering and analysing information on “The impacts of new instrumentation on the GOS”
2.The broad approach that was adopted by the co-Rapporteurs was to design and issue a Questionnaire to the WMO Members to try and ascertain what changes they had been forced to make to respond to changes imposed (whether by new standards and/or suppliers), what new and / or upgraded equipment they had introduced ice, and whether changes / additions were funded through the NMHS budget, partially funded by that route, or funded by another organisation (for whatever reason). Finally the questionnaire sought to establish whether the changes increased or decreased the running costs of the NMHS, and also to obtain responses to selected questions identified by the Chair and/or WMO Secretariat.
3.The basis of the original questionnaire was agreed in 2005, the questionnaire issued in early 2006, and the results presented to the September 2006 OPAG meeting, and the key points included in the report to the Extraordinary meeting of CBS in late 2006.
4.Due to the low response rate, that meeting of CBS invited the co-Rapporteurs to revise and re-issue a questionnaire in the expectation that a greater number of responses would be available. A revised questionnaire, incorporating WMO secretariat and OPAG Chair comments, was issued in 2007 but despite prompting and reminders, only 50 responses have been received, and form the basis of this report. Twenty (20) of these responses came from those who also submitted responses in 2005, but because of the changes to questions, and the different period covered; it is not been possible to use the responses from those other 26 Members who responded in 2005 but not in 2007.
5.Although only 50 Members responded (see full list in Appendix), the responses cover the full range of developing and developed Members, and represent all of the WMO regions. Thus, given the distribution, it is considered that the overall results are reasonably representative of the wider WMO community.
6. This questionnaire was divided into 3 sections, Section A covered the introduction of NEW equipment, Section B covered upgrades to existing equipment and Section C was a set of additional questions. The results from each category are presented under the following headings:
- High level Responses for Sections A, B and C;
- Key conclusions / highlights from the Responses when considered by Region;
- Key conclusions / highlights from the Responses when considered by WMO categorization of status of development (separately identifying those Members with LDC, LLDC and SIDS status); and
- Overall Conclusions and Recommendations.
7. A CD incorporating the basic analysed data and tables has been prepared to go with this report. Copies of these spreadsheet tables, referred to as Annex C, Annex D and Annex E in this report, are available on request from the WMO Secretariat.
High Level Responses for Sections A, B and C
General Note: Except where specifically indicated, all % quoted in this report refer to the % of the total number of Member respondents to the overall questionnaire; not to the numbers responding to each question or sub-question.
Section A – Introduction of new systems / technology
8.Given that multiple entries were invited, 155 new systems, representing over 75,000 individual units, were included in the returns for Section A, with costs given for all of these systems; though in some cases the costs were indicated only in one of three cost bands. [Note that the very high figure of 75,000 units is because Russia entered a figure of 71,000 for upper air systems – this probably means they have included the number of individual sonde units purchased, whereas other Members do not appear to have included such figures. For some of the comparisons, it has thus been assumed that Russia has invested in 5 new systems; thus making the overall total 3488 new systems]. Based on the actual values quoted, the cost was just over US$94M. However, based on an assumed value for each of the three bands *, the overall total became just over US$397M (for the 3 year period covered by the questionnaire and noting that a few Member States did not provide any cost indication, therefore it is believed that the figures represent an understatement of the true cost).
[* The assumptions used where Members indicated cost in one of three bands were:
for the band <US$1M, a figure of US$500,000 was used,
for the band US$1M-25M a figure of US$5,000,000 was used, and
for the band >US$25M a figure of US$25,000,000 was used].
9.Of these 155 systems, 124 (or 80%) of the new systems were introduced because of a new standard and/or a new requirement. In 80 (of the 155 cases, i.e. 52%) the host NMHS fully funded the purchase, and in a further 39 cases (25%) the funding was entirely from within the Member state. The remaining 36 cases (23%) were fully, or partially, funded through external parties. The value of those (fully funded) items was US$179.75M based on the assumptions used throughout this report. The estimated value of the systems fully funded by the MemberState, whether or not fully funded by the NMHS was US$302M. The values quoted, and given that these returns represent much less than 50% of the global community, indicate the magnitude of investment in new systems that are being fully funded by MemberStates, and just over half of that is fully funded by the NMHS.
10.The most common systems introduced over the 3-year period in question were:
- AWS [74% of respondent members had introduced new AWS];
- Satellite Reception Units [introduced by 62% of Members responding]; and
- Upper Air Systems [introduced by 32% of members responding].
No other single type of system was introduced by more than 20% of the responding Members. All of the details (broken down by category of system) can be found in Annex C. It should be noted that the total investment in AWS, for instance, based on the standard assumptions used in this report, came to over US$112M (for 1154 individual units), that for satellite reception equipment to
over US$94.5M (for 70 units) and that for new Upper Air Systems to over US$14M. Clearly, especially in terms of the satellite reception systems, not all Members have introduced the same systems and therefore average costs can be somewhat misleading.
11.As indicated above, some 36% of the system groupings were wholly or partially funded by a body from outside the Member State – this support representing some approximately US$80M. In the majority of cases (76.6% of those within this category) were fully, or almost fully, funded by the external party. There was an increased dependence on such full funding support for the more expensive types of equipment, hence the estimate of external funding support being US$80M of the total of US$95M for equipment with some / all of external funding support. The details of the funding Agencies involved can be ascertained from Annex C, at least, where the Member provided that information.
Section B – Upgrading of new systems / technology
12.Given that multiple entries were invited, 75 systems were upgraded, representing over 2,000 individual units, were included in the returns for Section B, with costs given for all of these systems; though in some cases the costs were indicated only in one of three cost bands. [Note that the very high figure of over 2,000 units is because Botswana entered a figure of 1,500 for upper air systems – this probably means they have included the number of individual sonde units purchased, whereas other Members do not appear to have included such figures. For some of the comparisons, it has thus been assumed that Botswana upgraded their upper air system (i.e. only
1 unit); thus making the overall total 505 new systems]. Based on the actual values quoted, the cost of the upgrades over the three year period was just over US$40M. However, based on an assumed value for each of the three bands *, the overall total became just over US$96M (again noting that a few Member States did not provide any cost indication and that the level for the bands was set low; it is believed that the figures represent an understatement of the true cost).
[* The assumptions used where Members indicated cost in one of three bands were:
for the band <US$1M, a figure of US$200,000 was used,
for the band US$1M-10M a figure of US$1,500,000 was used, and
for the band >US$10M a figure of US$10,000,000 was used].
13.Of these 75 systems, 61 (or 81%) of the systems were upgraded to meet new standards and/or a new requirements. In 48 (of the 75 cases, i.e. 64%) the host NMHS fully funded the purchase, and in a further 7 cases (9.3%) the funding was entirely from within the Member state. Of the rest 17 cases (22.7%) were fully, or partially, funded through external parties and 3 (4%) did not indicate the funding entity. The value of those (fully funded) items was US$39.5M based on the assumptions used throughout this report. The estimated value of the systems fully funded by the MemberState, whether or not fully funded by the NMHS was US$40.6M. The values quoted, and given that these returns represent much less than 50% of the global community, indicate the magnitude of investment in system upgrades that are being fully funded by Member States, with just under half of that being fully funded by the NMHS.
14.In terms of training, 26 (or 35%) did not respond to this section or indicated that no training was required in association with the upgrade; all but three were in the latter category. Forty (representing 53%) indicated the training provided met all their needs, with the remaining 9 (12%) indicating that the training was inadequate.
15.The most common systems upgraded over the 3-year period in question were:
- Upper Air [48% of respondent members had introduced new AWS];
- AWS [introduced by 22% of members responding]; and
- Satellite Reception Units [introduced by 20% of Members responding].
No other single type of system was introduced by more than 15% of the responding Members. All of the details (broken down by category of system) can be found in Annex C. It should be noted that though a greater proportion of Members upgraded Upper-Air Stations, the greatest investment in upgrades was associated with AWS systems, approx US24M, against US$19M for Upper-Air systems and only US$2.3M for upgrading satellite receivers.
16.Members were asked to identify whether the changes, once completed would increase, decrease, or make no real difference to the ongoing operational costs. For four of the systems, we had no response; but for the rest, the results were:
Overall running costs increased / 45.3%No real change in running costs / 40.0%
Overall running costs decreased / 9.3%
No response given / 5.3%
Section C – Responses to additional questions
17.Section C sought to identify responses to a group of questions, mainly related to reception and use of satellite observations and elements of the WMO Technical Document No 1267 called “Implementation Plan for the Evolution of Space and Surface-based Subsystems of the GOS”. A full summary of the results can be found in Annex E.
18.All Members who responded to the Questionnaire responded to this section, so all results are based on the full 50 responses.
19.Question 1 sought responses on whether Members received satellite data and products regularly via the Internet in addition to any direct reception method. Twenty two (22) Members [44%] said that they did use the Internet, whilst the rest [56%] said they did not. There was no clear differentiation by Region or Category of member. Several Members added comments to this particular response, and these are listed in Annex E. The 44% is a reduction from the 56.5% figure reported in the 2006 report and perhaps indicates that more Members now rely on direct reception methods.
20.Question 2 asked whether members had used the capabilities of the WMO Virtual Laboratory to help improved their capabilities in making use of the data and products available. Only 12 Members, 24% of the respondents indicated that they had done so, and only one Member added any comment against this question (used to search for training material). Each of the WMO Regions is represented amongst those Members responding positively, though only one of the twelve respondents was from a “Designated Category” [a SIDS]. The 24% positive response is the same as that recorded in the 2006 report.