Resources for GLOSS
Thorkild Aarup and Philip Woodworth
Draft report for the GLOSS GE7 meeting
1 March 2001
Introduction
During the past year, the GLOSS Technical Secretary and Chairman have been investigating possibilities for obtaining additional funding for the programme. This report summarizes the results of the efforts and makes suggestions for additional activities to attract more resources to the GLOSS programme.
This report is also in part a response to GLOSS GE6 Action Items:
19. investigation of possible Global Environmental Facility (GEF) bid for funds for a West African network (IOC/POL/Adekoya/Aman/Brundrit)
20. investigation of possible support from foreign aid budgets of selected countries, and of the use of the Turner Fund at UNESCO (Aarup)
53. funding possibilities for GLOSS, follow-up of several ideas suggested at GE6 (Chairman/IOC)
Background
Regular IOC Secretariat budget funds for GLOSS are extremely limited and tend to be devoted to the costs of meetings, training courses and sea level products (e.g. data and training CD-ROMs). There are virtually no funds for new gauges, geodetic equipment or tide gauge network development. The reasons for this state of affairs are twofold. Firstly, the IOC is funded to facilitate and coordinate international actions, and to raise awareness and capacity, not to implement systems. Secondly, IOC’s limited funds arrive via two sources: (i) allocations from UNESCO, which themselves are under heavy pressure, and (ii) additional allocations to the IOC Trust Fund, which provide IOC with its flexibility, but which are earmarked by the donors for some specific purpose, like funding training activities. There are no IOC programmes, including GLOSS, that can fund a broad slate of activities, or equipment, without donations from outside. In the case of GLOSS there is a particular need to enhance resources for tide gauges and tide gauge network development (particularly in developing countries) as outlined in the Chairman’s report to the GLOSS GE7 (
It should also be noted that until now, most of the costs of the GLOSS activities have been supported by the IOC directly, with assistance notably from the government of the United Kingdom, and from France and the USA for particular meetings. This method of programme support is quite unlike that which the IOC and WMO jointly practice to sustain other equally important observational programmes like the Data Buoy Cooperation Panel (DBCP) and the Ship of Opportunity Programme (SOOP), where the countries with most interest in the programme are subscribers to it, their subscriptions among other things funding the support of a technical coordinator who operates through Service ARGOS in Toulouse.
Fund raising activities since the GLOSS GE6
Since the GLOSS GE6 additional resources for GLOSS have been sought as follows :
i) solicitation for direct support of the GLOSS GE7 meeting (France, Japan, USA, Canada)
ii) a letter from IOC, signed by the Executive Secretary, was sent out to selected IOC member states (about 30) asking for general support to the GLOSS programme and its implementation (tide gauges, calibration, etc.). This letter was cc’d to the GLOSS contacts in the respective Member States.
iii) a letter from the IOC Executive Secretary was sent to selected space agencies (NASA, ESA and CNES) asking for support to GLOSS and in particular for calibration-ALT activities.
iv) a letter from the GLOSS Technical Secretary was sent to tide gauge manufacturers (Aanderaa, Endeco, Fieldings Fischer, Hydrosphere, Leopold and Stevens, Mors, Ott, Sonar Research, Sutron, Valeport, Vitel) asking for either (1) donation of equipment; or (2) collaboration on developing proposals to their national foreign aid agencies for purchase of equipment
The results of the activities i)-iii) are summarized in Annex I. The activities have been met with some success. There have been some pledges of financial support. Some countries have responded with in-kind offers of used tide gauge equipment, hosting of courses, translation of GLOSS material etc.. We are still waiting to hear from some countries where the response is being discussed. In a few cases we have inquired with GLOSS contacts (who were cc’ed in on the IOC general support request letter) about funding possibilities within their national foreign aid agency but more follow up actions are needed.
The results of the solicitation to the tide gauge manufacturers (activity iv) have been meager. A few responded to the letter. One manufacturer promised to consider it seriously but a follow up did not give any concrete results. Follow-up to specific tide gauge manufacturers in two countries (Norway and Germany) were also arranged through two IOC delegates but without results.
Bilateral and multilateral financial support for GLOSS activities (tide gauge acquisitions etc.)
In addition to the above activities we have explored funding possibilities from other sources such as foreign aid agencies, GEF, development banks, EU etc. This initiative should be further developed. Below are some first findings and results:
●There are only about 20 major donor countries. All of them are moving towards lean government, and cutting funds. In order to win funds one must generally show that you can provide something that adds real value, and something that meets their needs. This requires dialogue with donors, to bring them on board, and to get them to accept local priorities. It also requires careful consideration to be given to packaging - to meet donor interests.
●The GEF type proposals typically need to be packaged together with other issues (like climate change) and they typically need to be broader in scope than issues directly related to say sea-level monitoring. Consequently these types of proposals require a fair amount of groundwork in terms of making links with other groups, establishing local commitments and developing consensus. The time frame for developing the GEF-type proposals is typically 2-3 years. In addition, IOC cannot submit them. They have to be submitted by groups of developing countries. This means working through those countries, and persuading them that this should be at the top of their agenda (difficult when in competition for bids for basic infrastructure like hospitals, dams and education).
●Many national bilateral and multilateral foreign aid programmes require that a request come from the local recipient country, as for GEF. This again underscores the need to develop local buy-in and getting local GLOSS contacts actively involved.
●In order to tap into national bilateral/multilateral foreign aid programs there is a need for additional research into these funding possibilities. This is not just a matter of going to the foreign aid agency's home page, which often is in the local language. There is also a need for local knowledge and establishing contacts in the foreign aid agencies. (We have asked a few of our GLOSS contacts to check out national foreign aid options for GLOSS but so far with limited results.). As a first step we have a list of national and international potential funding sources that may be of interest for GLOSS (see ANNEX 2).
●A GOOS capacity building workshop for Africa is in the planning for the second half of 2001. The workshop will be a follow up to the 1998 PACSICOM conference on sustainable development. One of the high priority recommendations from that conference was to "upgrade and expand the present African network of tide gauges". This statement got ministerial approval in the PACSICOM Declaration, which means that governments signed up to it (in principle). During the proposed workshop the participants will work on two proposals one of them focusing on the upgrading and expanding the tide gauge network. (Such a proposal may build on the ideas from the ODINAFRICA proposal, the 1995 Caribbean climate change proposal for the World Bank, and three regional World Hydrological Observing System (WHYCOS) stream gauge proposals for the World Bank/EU/ORSTOM). Justin Ahanhanzo, IOC is working on the format for the workshop and GLOSS will be invited to join the workshop. There is a good chance of success because (i) the notion has been endorsed ministerially; (ii) the proposal would be part of an overall post-PACSICOM process; and (iii) several donor governments are already engaged in the post-PASCSICOM process, so there will be money around.
●Finally, it should be pointed out that as resources to spin up capacity building proposals are limited it may be appropriate to consider strategy and priorities. As a start, a more diversified approach, giving support to smaller proposals to say bilateral aid pools, may be preferred over an approach that steers all the resources towards a large proposal (i.e. the GEF type proposal). Smaller proposals are usually easier to develop, can be targeted towards several agencies (and even discretionary spending) and hopefully establish some faster initial success to build further upon. Smaller proposals can sometimes also be decided upon locally. (As an example Danish embassies are able to approve aid projects up to $ 600,000 within the programme priority areas for bilateral aid for a given country). The draw back of the small scale proposal approach may be added overhead. In all cases it must be demonstrated that the project meets the clearly stated needs of the host country(ies), the benefits to the host country(ies) must be spelled out, and the host country(ies) must be partners in the enterprise.
The level of activity that is required to move some of the above proposals forward is beyond the limited resources of the IOC Secretariat. We therefore propose the following further actions.
Suggestions for further actions
●Establish an intersessional working group under GLOSS to:
(i) develop a strategy/priority for attracting funds for GLOSS capacity building activities in particularly acquisition/upgrade/installation of tide gauge equipment and tide gauge network development in developing countries. (The strategy/priority need to address money, equipment, stations/countries/regions and particularly how to strengthen local involvement).
(ii) develop a dialog with funding agencies and get GLOSS activities on their agenda (this may involve the assembly of a portfolio of project proposals; production of information material; or asking for lobby assistance by GLOSS contacts in the respective donor countries).
To further enhance the implementation/upgrade of GLOSS it is also suggested to:
●Enhance the dialogue with scientific and operational oceanographic programs that can assist with the implementation of GLOSS (Examples: GOOS/COOP; regional GOOS organizations; Large Marine Ecosystems (LME); WMO programs concerned with climate change, hydrology, storm surges and tropical cyclones; UNEP Regional Seas Programmes). This activity is already under way but can be developed further.
●Establish links and recommendations to non-scientific organizations that can assist in implementing GLOSS (International Ports and Harbor Association; IALA; etc.). This is for the following reasons: (i) ports typically have some kind of sea-level measurement in place and many GLOSS gauges are located in harbors – hence there could be a better synergy effect; (ii) many ports are establishing environmental monitoring systems and sea-level observations could be integrated with this activity; (iii) the amount of money that goes into harbor expansion/reconstruction and associated infrastructure is often significant; (iv) foreign aid agencies are also supporting harbor construction expansion/projects.
●Work with the space agencies. They need calibration. They have money.
●Technology development – is there anything GLOSS can do to spur development of cheaper data collection platforms, particular in the light of the Coastal GOOS Strategic Design Plan calling for a GLOSS+ network and increased station sharing?
ANNEX 1. Results of the fund raising campaign 2000 as of 1 March 2001
The table below provides a summary of the contributions so far. As of this date we have not received answers from all countries and space agencies that were approached for support.
IOC Member States / Contribution (direct or in kind)Argentina / 1)Offer of development of training material in Spanish
2)Offer of internship program
Chile / 1)Offered five used Metercraft tide gauges
2)Offered to host a GLOSS training course
France
French IOC committee
CNES / $ 7,200 to promote training
$ 7,000 (50,000 FF) for ALT-CAL
Ireland / Aims at establishing a national tide gauge network in the 2000-2006 time frame.
Israel / 1)Upgrade of software package to process sea level data
2)Offer to host sea-level training course in 2001/2002
Japan
Japan Coast Guard / Mentioned that they carry out a four month training course in physical oceanography (incl. Sea-level analysis) for eight foreign scientists or officers.
Spain
Instituto Espanol de Oceanographia / Not able to contribute
United Kingdom
NERC / $ 10,000/year (this is a continuation of previous support)
USA
NOAA / $ 20,000 (It is the intention of NOAA to provide this support over the long term, dependent on future budget appropriations)
ANNEX II. Bilateral and multilateral funding agencies
This annex presents a selection of possible funding sources for GLOSS activities.
Australia
AusAid
Austria
Austrian Development Coordination
Belgium
Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
Canada
Canadian International Development Aid
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT)
Denmark
Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)
Finland
Department for International Development Co-operation (Global Finland)
France
Cooperation Ministere de la Cooperation
Le Groupe de l'agence francaise de Développement (AFD)
Agence de la Francophonie
Germany
Bundesministerium fur wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ)
Deutsche Stiftung fur Internationale Entwicklung (DSE)
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
Deutsches Institut fur Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)
Holland
Ministry of Foreign affairs
Island
Icelandic International Development Agency
Ireland
Department of Foreign Affairs
Italy
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Japan
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Luxemborg
Lux-Development
New Zealand
New Zealand Official Development Aid
Norway
Norwegian Agency for Development Corporation (Norad)
Portugal
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Spain
Agency for International Cooperation (AECI)
Sweden
Swedish International Development Corporation Agency (SIDA)
Switzerland
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
Swiss Centre for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management (SKAT)
United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DFID)
Foreign and Commenwealth Office (FCO)
International Development Committee (IDC)
British Council
Commenwealth Development Corporation (CDC)
USA
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
World Bank
Assian Development Bank
InterAmerican Develpoment Bank
African Development Bank
Islamic Development Bank
Global Environmental Facility
United Nations Foundation (The Turner Fund)
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
OPEC Fund for International Development
European Union
Commission's International Co-operation Programme (INCO-DEV)
Development Directorate-General
Interfund South Africa
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP)
International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research (IGFA)