WMO President S Letter, Ref. SG/DSG/P.Ras-P.Tcs, 23 July 2012

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION 2012 PRA-PTC-III/INF.1 ______

JOINT MEETING OF PRESIDENTS OF REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PRESIDENTS OF (27.X.2012) TECHNICAL COMMISSIONS

Third 2012 meeting

GENEVA, 28 October 2012 ENGLISH ONLY

Salle B

Compendium of the Responses to the Survey on Perspectives on Improving Interaction between Regional Associations and Technical Commissions of WMO

______WMO President’s letter, ref. SG/DSG/P.RAs-P.TCs, 23 July 2012

1. Please indicate what steps, in your view, RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation at various levels of interaction (There is no restriction on the number of words you may choose to use).

(i) Constituent Body Level

(ii) Management Group Level

(iii) Working Group/Task Team

(iv) Expert Level etc.

2. Provide a case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA coordination with a clear indication of the elements that made it successful (using the working levels above)

(ii) Management Group

(iii) Working Group/Expert Level etc.

3. What key recommendation(s) would you propose to enhance cooperation between TCs and RAs for:

a. Planning b. Implementation

4. Following the adoption of Resolution 2.4/1 (EC-64), "Review of the Role and Responsibilities of Regional Associations", in which EC requested the EC Working Group on WMO Strategic and Operational Plans (EC-WG/SOP) to review the provisions relating to the functions, roles and responsibilities of RAs, kindly reflect on the Terms of Reference (ToRs), roles and responsibilities of Regional Associations and indicate what you would wish to propose to EC- WG/SOP, in this regard, for their consideration. (Note: The "WMO Convention and General Regulations" defines the current roles and responsibilities of RAs.)

Roles:

Responsibilities:

______

1 RA I (Africa)

1. Please indicate what steps, in your view, RAs and TCs should take to enhance co-operation at various levels of interaction (There is no restriction on the number of words you may choose to use)

(i) Constituent Body Level Il est indispensable que les relations entre les RAS et TCs soient renforcées pour un meilleur fonctionnement des structures de l OMM. Les rencontres périodiques entre les présidents des ces organes a l occasion des congres et sessions du conseil exécutif est une excellente idée. Il ne faut pas que les contacts se limitent a ces periodes. D autres concertations sont necessaires. Il saurait été utile qu a l occasion des foras que ces organes puissent se rencontrer ( exemple : session de la conference en charge de la meteo en afrique. Forum des usagers en afrique etc.

(ii) Management Group Level au niveau du management groupe. Les membres du EC de la region I sont membres des groupes consultatifs au niveau du Conseil executif egalement charges du suivi du fonctionnement des groupes de travail. Etant donne que les chairs des groupes de travail sont membres du Groupe de gestion donc ils peuvent servir de liens entre les RAs et les TCs.

(iii) Working Group/Task Team. Chaque groupe de travail est pratiquement affilie a une commission technique. De ce fait, les présidents des TCs pourront travailler directement avec les responsables des groupes de travail et ou avec les equipes speciales.

(iv) Expert Level etc les experts des etats membres dans les differentes commissions auraient pu contribuer au renforcement des relations entre les TCs et les RAs. Malheureusement pendant les sessions des commissions techniques, la participation des experts est tres limitee. Des contraintes liees aux moyens de participation et des procedures administratives (obtention des visas) empechent et la presence de nombreux experts. Dans certains pays, les moyens de communications comme l internet est un frein.

2. Provide a case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA co-ordination with a clear indication of the elements that made it successful (using the working levels above) (i) Constituent Body Level

(ii)Management Group

(iii) Working Group/ Expert Level etc …

3. What key recommendation(s) would you propose to enhance co-operation between TCs and RAs for: a. Planning; b. Implementation?

______

2 RA II (Asia)

1. The necessary steps for RAs and TCs to enhance cooperation at various levels of interaction:

(i) At the level of the constituent body.

It is necessary to take steps for closer interaction between RAs and TCs especially on hydrology and climatology, in connection with the implementation of the GFCS. As far as possible, there is need to conduct joint meetings of the Presidents RAs and TCs to identify urgent needs on climate and hydrological services for each region. It is necessary to ensure the principle of geographical balance and regional representation in the working, structure of the Technical Commissions.

(iii) At the level of Working Group/Task Team

It is necessary that at least one representative of the representative of the region take part in each TC working group. This is especially important for the regions with large area, which have different conditions of formation of climate and water resources (monsoons, melting glaciers and snow cover, etc.) and also different· conditions of water-related disasters (long-term droughts, floods, etc), which we believe will contribute to the successful implementation of the GFCS.

(iv) At the level of experts, etc.

Technical Commissions should involve experts from the regions, taking into account recommendations of the Regional Associations, according to different climate zones.

2. Case studies or examples of successful coordination:

The Network of Regional Climate Centers in RA II is a good example of successful coordination and cooperation between TCs and RAs, especially in light of implementation of the GFCS. The elements leading to success include:

(i) Planned and successful management by Congress and Executive Council.

(ii) Well-developed Terms of Reference of RAs and TCs, where RA promotes regional cooperation and coordination, and TC is responsible for technical aspects.

(iii) Expert Groups of TCs and Working Groups of RAs are fully involved in the planning, testing and implementation. Expert Groups contribute to the best performance in the process of development of the RCC network.

3. Key recommendations for enhancing cooperation of TCs and RAs:

The technical expertise of TCs will facilitate the best implementation of Regional Action/Implementation Plans in the Region. The preparation of recommendations by TCs in the development and implementation of the Regional Action/Implementation Plans will contribute not only to better coordination between the TCs and RAs but also mostly to the best implementation.

4. Proposals for consideration of the responsibilities and roles of the RAs.

The following points can be included:

- Promotion of international initiatives and programmes that provide support in the implementation of GFCS. - Promotion of regional and sub-regional projects and programmes with the participation of WMO.

______

3 RA III (South America)

1. Please indicate what steps, in your view, RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation at various levels of interaction.

i) Constituent Body Level:

The technical commissions should have at least one member from each of the regional associations in some of their working groups. The expert concerned should be invited under the terms of Rule 19 of the General Regulations, with the costs of attending the meetings of such committees paid for.

This would be a way of informing the technical committees about which activities on that particular subject are underway in the region, while providing the regional associations with feedback concerning the ideas and projects implemented by the technical committees, as this information is neither received or known at present.

ii) Management Group Level:

The information should be analysed in the management groups of the regional associations to allow the various working groups, task forces or committees (focal points) in the regions to keep abreast of the subjects of each technical committee and to interrelate with each other.

iii) Working Group/Task Team:

We suggest that all experts who are part of a working group of any technical commission should also participate in the respective working group at regional association level or should be clearly identified in order for them to receive and send information concerning tasks being performing at both levels.

We would also suggest that such experts be appointed in consultation with the Permanent Representative of their country and that an updated record be kept of the makeup of these working groups in Publication No 5.

iv) Expert Level etc.

If an expert is invited to attend a meeting of a technical commission, a copy of the invitation should also be sent to the PR of the country to which the expert belongs and to the President of the regional association, to allow the expert concerned to receive instructions concerning their participation and draft the respective report of the meeting attended.

2. Provide a case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA coordination with a clear indication of the elements that made it successful (using the working levels above).

i) Constituent Body Level:

In this regard, we could mention the Basic Systems and Hydrology Commissions where, particularly in the first body, its current chairman participates in meetings of regional associations on an ongoing basis and maintains constant smooth communication with the presidents of regional associations and with the offices or departments of the Secretariat.

ii) Management Group Level:

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the management groups of the regional associations have defined working groups or task forces that deal fundamentally with issues of the Technical and Hydrology Commmittee.

iii) Working Group/Expert Level etc.

Generally speaking, there are working groups, task forces, or at least one focal point that

4 address all issues related to the technical commissions at this level.

a. Planning:

The working groups that deal with matters concerning various technical committees require a detailed knowledge of such planning so that it can be considered at regional level and to allow them to provide information for planning and subsequent implementation.

b. Implementation:

Both bodies are currently working in relative isolation, with no mutual knowledge of what is happening in the sectors.

Furthermore, the offices and departments of the WMO Secretariat, which should be trying to unify and publicize these planning and implementation tasks and inform people of the levels attained, the disadvantages presented and the results achieved, appear to be falling down in this area. At both levels, the technical commissions should use the WMO regional offices more often to achieve seamless communication with the members of the various working groups of the regions and their respective permanent representatives.

4. Mandate of the Regional Associations:

Considering Resolution 2.4/1 (EC-64) - "Review of the Role and Responsibilities of Regional Associations", in which the Executive Council asked its WMO Working Group on Strategic and Operational Planning to review the provisions concerning the functions, roles and responsibilities of regional associations, to reflect on the mandate, role and responsibilities of regional associations and state what proposals it wishes to present to the working group for consideration in this connection. (NB: The WMO Convention and General Regulations define the current role and responsibilities of the regional associations).

TORs (Mandate):

We do not feel that there is a need to introduce any new functions or responsibilities, and since paragraph d (v) of the current text states that RAs can perform any other function entrusted to Congress, without needing to enter into detail on the various activities, perhaps we could add "and/or the Executive Council".

We suggest that the regional associations should be a reference for the basic needs to be met by the technical committees through their various activities or projects.

Responsibilities:

Enhancing relations in terms of communicating and coordinating activities between the regional associations’ working groups and the technical commissions.

______

5 RA IV (North America, Central America and the Caribbean)

1. Please indicate what steps, in your view, RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation at various levels of interaction (There is no restriction on the number of words you may choose to use).

• NETWORKING-Sharing information to increase efficiency of body. • COOPERATION-Sharing of resources to enable wider participation. • COORDINATION-To modify activities to provide better services to constituents. • COLLABORATION-Partnering in joint meetings. • Management Group should consider input to the SOP WG review of the Terms of Reference of the Constituent Bodies and Operational Plans of Technical Commissions to ensure it enables the above-mentioned efforts.

• Crafting a rolling work-plan • Collaboration on the organization of work shop, subject to availability of resources. • Ideas on modalities on linkages with the institutional arrangements under WMO.

(iii) Working Group/Task Team

• Networking on technical guidelines • Methods of assessments

(iv) Expert Level etc.

• Share best practices and experiences. • Create a forum to discuss now how to implement programmes

2. Provide a case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA coordination with a clear indication of the elements that made it successful (using the working levels above)

(i) Constituent Body Level:

Co-ordination between Presidents of CAeM, CBS and President of RA IV on Quality Management System Training to meet the deadline set by ICAO and WIGOS.

(ii) Management Group

Partnered in joint WIGOS meeting between RA III and RA IV in Costa Rica to prepare agenda for a successful outcome.

(iii) Working Group/Expert Level etc.

• Selected experts shared best practices. • Human resource were identified to assist member states.

a. Planning - a two day joint meeting by members of Management Groups of Region IV and TC

6 b. Implementation - schedule meetings of the Presidents (i.e. RA and TC Presidents) together to ensure these meetings are aligned with and contributing to the planning cycle.

4. Following the adoption of Resolution 2.4/1 (EC-64), “Review of the Role and Responsibilities of Regional Associations”, in which EC requested the EC Working Group on WMO Strategic and Operational Plans (EC-WG/SOP) to review the provisions relating to the functions, roles and responsibilities of RAs, kindly reflect on the Terms of Reference (ToRs), roles and responsibilities of Regional Associations and indicate what you would wish to propose to EC-WG/SOP, in this regard, for their consideration. (Note: The “WMO Convention and General Regulations” defines the current roles and responsibilities of RAs)

TORs: RAs should identify regional needs and priorities, which are then taken into account in the TC work planning. Both RAs and TCs should be developing operational plans to implement the WMO Strategic Plan, and should be ensuring appropriate RA-TC consultation in order to strive for alignment of RA and TC plans.

______

7 RA V (South-West Pacific)

1. What Steps i. Constituent Body level

Regular meeting of President RAs and meeting of the President TCs shall be attended by the counterpart member, i.e. the PRA meeting is also attended by PTC and vice versa. there should be a mechanism to review TC programme by RA and vice versa. There should be a clear roles stated in TOR of both TC and RA.

Recognizing the increased role of RA (ref. to WMO Congress and EC Meetings) to monitor, review WMO programs etc., there is a need of adequate secretarial support in the regions. Besides, the responsibility of RAs to implement their action plans in accordance with RAs SOPs as well as its evaluation require full time staffs dedicated to this task. This could be in the form of relocating part of WMO Secretariat to the Regions, to support the increasing role (and tasks) of Regional Associations.

ii. Management Group level

RA MG will propose the Strategic Operating Plan according to priorities the regional needs and priorities which aligned with the WMO Strategic Operating Plan. The SOPs should be informed to the WMO TCs to be used as references. Then the TC will propose plan of action to be aligned with the Management Group of RA Strategic Operating Plan. To smooth interaction during PRA-PTC Meeting, MG Groups of TC and RA should be involved.

iii. Working Group/Task Team

Working Groups will set up their TORs and its Action Plans on the basis of Regional priorities formulated by Management Groups. The TC pilot projects which is derived from their global policy programs (e.g. standardization of procedure; recommendations, etc.) adjusted to the Regional Action Plans.

To accommodate Regional Action Plans implementation, the TCs allocate program resources for the next budget cycle. Working Group / Task Team member should be actively communicate with related TC in arranging the program.

iv. Expert level etc

Expert in RA WG should be also in the structure of WMO TC considering the regional balance of representative. During the WMO TC session, each region shall propose the RA WG team as the candidate for the structure in WMO TC.

2. Case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA coordination

i. Constituent Body Level

ii. Management Group

iii. Working Group/Expert level

8 Case of CHy and WG-Hydrology in RA V. This seems to be an ideal example, since by structural design each RA has a WG on Hydrology, and the PRAs have Hydrological Advisor plus their own National Hydrological Advisor. Participation of hydrology experts, in national, regional and global level (at TC) in developing programs, and meetings, was already fruitfully enabled and streamlined, through onsite meeting and virtual meetings.

4. Key recommendation would you propose to enhance cooperation between TCs and RAs

a. Planning

Togetherness in developing the strategic operating plan of both constituent bodies from the initiation phase.

b. Implementation

Regional balance of disbursement of programme according to the needs and priorities of each region.

5. Review of the Role and Responsibilities of RA

TORs: Clear role and function of RA as the executing body of WMO programme, or just the coordinating body. These role and function should be clearly stated in the RA TORs, and later formalized in the form of a Congress decision. With a clear TOR then RA should be responsible to a regular budget allocated to its programme. Should there is an adequate secretarial support in the Region, this makes it possible for RA to take an execution role.

Roles: Should be expanded to include the implementing role of RA

Responsibilities: Each RA should be given responsibilities as measured by the regional key performance indicator and as agreed by the streaming of the programme from the TC in that particular region. Without a clear measure there will be no clear responsibilities at all.

______

9 RA VI (Europe)

Q1. Indicate what steps RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation at various levels and interaction

As an overarching principle, the cooperation and coordination between the TCs and RAs would be significantly improved by enhanced information flow. This should take the form of web accessible updates on actions and progress and facilitated discussions on topics of interest.

(i) Constituent Body Level:

The improved interaction is strongly dependent on a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of the Constituent Bodies in a well defined Integrated Planning and Implementation Process. This process should be requirements driven (rather than, technology driven), where the requirements come from Members through a well established mechanisms for analysis and prioritization of the Member’s needs for improved services provided to society and economic sectors.

The RAs as constituent bodies where Members are represented by the PRs (i.e., Governments) are best positioned to be the main body to identify national needs and priorities, group those on a sub- regional and regional basis with due consideration of regional commonalities with regard to economic conditions, technological level of development, climate conditions, language, etc.

The requirements and priorities identified by RAs should be submitted to the appropriate TCs to be studied at expert level with the view to find effective, efficient and affordable technical solutions. TCs, on the other hand, are best positioned to study and keep abreast of the technology development in order to ensure solutions that are adequate and long-lasting. TCs build their networks of experts designated by Members that help refining the requirements or offer the use of new technology. However, solutions based on technology may not be appropriate for all Members and if defined as “requirements” may impose financial and capacity burden to developing Members.

This process should be developed as a permanent consultation process between the RAs and TCs with respective procedures. E.g., the requirements identify by the RAs should be directed to respective TCs with a clear request following General regulations 163 (b). However, the way these requests are recorded “in the general summary of the abridged final report of the session” may not be the best way of conveying this important information. This could be improved by producing an annex to the session report containing all requests addressed to TCs with a better description of the requirement and the respective rationale, as well as, the priority given by the RA.

The consultation process should indicate that the RAs guide the work of the TCs and that the TCs should have a process of reporting back to the EC who guides the EC WG on SOP. In this way the priorities would be incorporated in the Strategic Plan of WMO. The TCs must, of course, through their expertise check the validity of the recommendations of the RAs to find effective, efficient and affordable technical solutions. TCs, on the other hand, are best positioned to study and keep abreast of the technology development in order to ensure solutions that are adequate and long- lasting."

Another important role of the RAs is to set requirements for the establishment of regional centres and facilities: RSMCs, RTCs, RCCs, RICs, etc. This should be done in close coordination with the TCs concerned. RAs and TCs should have joined responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of the regional central/facilities, including proposals for discontinuation of such facilities when considered no longer necessary, or not performing.

TC’s sessions should have a standard agenda item: Review of requirements of the Regions (it is already covered in General regulations 191 (7), but is not always the case in reality).

Building on the success of the trial joint PTC/PRA meeting during 2012, an annual conjoint meeting of sufficient length focussing on the WMO priorities should be held. This should replace the current separate annual meetings but would be in addition to the short catch up meetings held during EC and Congress.

The PTC/PRA would use this opportunity to meet both separately and together and provide update information on high priority issues within their sphere of influence, particularly those with a cross cutting nature and also discuss progress on major activities.

The outcome of this meeting should be a set of agreed actions that can be monitored and reported back at subsequent meetings.

Technical Commissions and Regional Associations should explore the possibility of holding their sessions jointly to discuss matters of mutual technical interest, e.g. CIMO and CBS could hold a joint technical conference during their intersession period; or CAgM could hold a workshop with a regional focus, responding to a user need identified by the regional association

PRA/PTC meetings should become a major mechanism for coordinating programmes and projects. Currently, most of the time of the PRA/PTC meeting is spent on discussing coordination mechanism, rather than real coordination of work plans, joined initiatives, etc. Thus, the agenda of the PRA/PTC meetings should be changed and focused on concrete issues where both RAs and TCs should act upon in their respective roles and responsibility. It should be better if such agenda is focused on one issue at a time, e.g., PRA/PTC coordination meeting on WIS/WIGOS, or, PRA/PTC coordination meeting on Aviation, or, PRA/PTC coordination meeting on DRR.

The RAs should as an output from their regular sessions come up with clear indications of the priorities for their region with the help of input from their NMHSs. There could also be outlined suggestions for how the Association sees that WMO could help in implementing the priorities. There is also a need to have more frequent sessions than the current 4-year cycle in order to engage Members in the regional planning and implementation process and ensure that the work of the Association and its subsidiary bodies is properly organized and monitored. One session should be immediately after Congress and then the second one year before Congress to be able to give input to the overall planning process of WMO.

The Technical Commissions should adjust their working structure in accordance with the input from the Regional Associations, who declare which are the priorities for the different regions and which guide the input to the WMO overall Strategic Planning process. WMO wide Operational Plan guides then the work of the TCs based on the input from the regions. Congress then decides which TCs are needed and which could carry out their work as a WGs.

(ii) Management Group level

RA: The Management Group of the Association is helping the President in his responsibilities for the overall Management of the Association and so also for how to organize the work in the region during the inter-session period to be able to gain results during that period. The MG meets at least once a year, if needed more often. The MG suggests for the Association a working structure, which WGs or TT are needed during the period, to fulfill the goals drawn up for the region during the inter- session period. The MG could in the future take a more leading role in guiding and monitoring the work of the Association

At this level, the respective MGs should coordinate concrete issues identified by their respective bodies. E.g., a RA’s MG should try to transform the requirements agreed by its last session into a concrete action list for each of the envisaged TCs. This list should be communicated to the MG of the respective TC as soon as possible after the RA’s session.

TC: The MG of the Commissions should help the Presidents to guide their commissions in the inter- session period. The basic question is, however, as the commissions (according to the WMO General regulations) consist of technical experts, whether the commissions should have the same WMO constituent body profile level as Regional Associations (e.g. at numerous segments it could perhaps have a WG or TT role, with specific tasks established by Congress, to study and make recommendations to Congress and the Executive Council on any subject within the purpose of the Organization);

11 On the TC side, the MG should notify respective RA’s MG on the actions planned on the requirements and other issues that had been addressed to the TC.

In order to allow the MGs of both TCs and RAs to make effective decisions based on a full understanding of the needs and requirements, consideration should be given to facilitating the participation of other related TCs and RAs in the discussions.

When possible, the MGs should try to interact between themselves via telecons or Webex / video conference to coordinate issues and actions and ensure that efficient use is made of funding.. E.g., during a RA’s MG meeting, if particular issue requires an urgent action by TC X, the Chair of the MG of TC X should be invited to join the meeting through electronic means.

(iii) WG/TT level

A key responsibility of the Chair of a Working Group is to keep a wide view of the challenges faced and the needs and requirements of the various stakeholders. So for example the Chair of a Working Group within a Technical Commission charged with the development of a particular solution to a technical issue will need to have an understanding of the implications for those Regions affected. This understanding can come through the experts within the Working Group or through communication with a wider group of stakeholders.

This is a very natural level of coordination and collaboration since in most cases the members of the WGs/TTs of the RAs are also members of TC’s Expert teams or OPAGs, etc. This level of coordination should be used for a concrete and detailed planning of tasks in order to:

 Achieve consistency of deliverables of RA’s and TC’s work plans;  Avoid duplication;  Share resources;

The common structure of RAs with established WGs or TTs in accordance with the needs of the region, works well as long as the tasks are limited both in time and content. The main issue is how to collect all the priorities of the regions to get them into the WMO Wide Operating Plan and so into the work-plans of the WGs of the TCs/or the WGs only if the TC are not established at Congress.

(iv) Expert level

The role of the expert is to represent both their technical area of expertise and the Region they are from. So they can be a key source of information on user requirements for the benefit of the Working Group chair, and in turn for the MG of the particular TC or RA. Experts should be encouraged to make use of all forms of communication, including particular emphasis on electronic communications such as Webex and social media, in order to gain a wide overview of the issues.

RAs, where the PRs are represented, should be used to get commitment for the availability of experts to do international work on the RA’s subsidiary bodies bur also, on the TC’s bodies. It is a common problem that sometimes designated experts are not given enough time or resources (including financial) to conduct additional work to support RA’s and TC’s work programmes. Thus, RA sessions should formulate the commitment for supporting the subsidiary bodies with appropriate experts in the form of a resolution.

Indication of steps

It is crucial that to enhance structure and performance of RAs, and its relation towards TCs with the enhanced assistance of the WMO Secretariat, particularly Regional / Sub-regional Offices. In this process RAs should put more emphasis on the mapping of regional needs and collection of regional views to summarize the RA knowledge base available and concrete actions required.

1) RAs prioritize their activities e.g. through the Operating Plan 2) RAs establish WGs / TTs to address these priority activities 3) WGs / TTs report to the MG that monitors activities 4) RA define regional focal points for prioritized activities (e.g. chairs of WGs / TTs)

12 5) Regional focal points are invited to participate in relevant WG activities / sessions of TCs 6) WMO programmes establish regional contact points to facilitate coordination with Regional / Sub-regional Offices and PRAs 7) Regular PRA/PTC meetings and continuous communication on the Constituent Body, Management Group and Expert Group level - form a strong basis for cooperation and coordination

Q2: Case studies or examples

i) Constituent Body level and other levels, as necessary

General comment: it is vital to identify common RA / TC interest and related RA / TC activities and / or key experts / focal points.

A. WIS Implementation in RA VI

This is a good case study of integrated planning and implementation process involving RA VI, CBS and Secretariat.

1. Background: Principles of WIS implementation are already discussed on the global scale (Congress, TCs). Implementation is in the process to be organized through RAs together with NMHSs. CBS has established manuals and guidelines and developed a global implementation plan which facilitated the development of regional implementation plans and training events. 2. Requirements: RA VI Members spelled out the need for two GISCs in RA VI. Since there were three candidates in Western Europe, they decided to form a Virtual GISC (VGISC). Thus the configuration agreed by the RA VI is: GISC Moscow and the VGISC combining Offenbach, Toulouse and Exeter. 3. CBS received the requirement by RA VI and included the two GISCs in the global list. 4. Technical Solutions: CBS developed the standard and recommended practices for WIS which have been approved by Congress as Doc. 1060, Manual on WIS (Annex VII to the WMO Technical Regulations), as well as guidance material to facilitate implementation. 5. RA VI supporting implementation action: a. The RA VI Management Group (MG) has identified WIS implementation as a high priority activity of the Region and established a WIS Implementation Task Team under the Working group of technology Development and Implementation (WG-TDI). The main task of the TT was to develop actions to ensure / develop harmonized and synchronized regional WIS implementation plan. A major task in this regard was to identify Members with capacity development needs and to propose respective actions. b. Chairs of WG-TDI and WIS-DI were directly involved in relevant CBS sessions and WG activities c. RA VI in cooperation with CBS and the Secretariat (ROE and OBS Department) organized a WIS Implementation Workshop for RA VI members aimed at raising awareness of the necessary implementation action and developing a Regional Implementation Plan. d. Based on the inputs from Members received at the Workshop, RA VI TT-WIS, assisted by the Secretariat, developed the RA VI Regional WIS Implementation Plan that will guide the implementation done by the Members and make sure that the established target dates are met. 6. The result of this series of collaborative actions by the RA VI and CBS is that the RA VI Members are well informed about the mechanisms of WIS implementation; national actions are clarified and where necessary, assisted by the responsible GISCs; the implementation process is on-going with an ambitious target of achieving at least 80% of WIS implementation in RA VI by the end of 2013.

Similar approach is on the way to be used for WIGOS and for the implementation of the WMO Strategy for Service Delivery.

13 B. Development and implementation of the RCC-network within Region VI.

The steps for success were as follows: a) RA VI captured and articulated the need for Members to receive improved data and products to support their delivery of climate services. b) Number of Members of the RA VI, following consultation with the relevant TCs (CBS and CCl) indicated that they were prepared to fulfill the roles of particular elements/nodes within the RCC-network. c) Coordinating centres and other Members worked closely with the experts within CBS and CCl to ensure that they met the requirements and were then endorsed. d) RAVI RCC-network is now delivering products for the benefit of RA VI Members.

B. Working Group/Expert level Organizing the use of RA inputs into TC activities, or organizing RA experts to consult TC experts should be their usual practice. Good example of such practice has been put in action at the 15th CBS, Jakarta, 2012, where the OPAG Expert Teams in their ToRs incorporated relation to RAs linking mostly to RAs requirements and implementation.

A number of the WGs within the TCs are cross commission in their nature and although they look at specific issues from slightly different perspectives there is sufficient common ground for them to meet conjointly. This approach should be pursued and implemented wherever possible.

Q3: What key recommendation(s) would you propose to enhance cooperation between TCs and RAs for a. Planning, b. Implementation

a. Planning: The planning cycle of both the RAs and TCs needs to be adjusted. The RAs need to convene one year before Congress to give input to the WMO strategic planning process of the needs in the regions. The needs will be prioritized by e.g the Bureau together with the Presidents of the RAs and possible the TCs. The priorities will form the base for the WMO Strategic Plan, which then will guide the RAs for the following period.

b. Implementation: The RAs also need to convene soon after Congress to constitute themselves and form the needed working structure of the region taking into account the decisions of Congress of which TCs will continue to carry out their work for the following four year period. The SP will then guide the work of the TCs (or WGs or TTs), which will convene soon after Congress.

As a matter of fact, Planning and Implementation need to be regarded as the two sides of the same coin. There should be no planning without respective implementation, and no implementation outside of the plan. The main implementers are the Members, thus, any decision calling for regional or global implementation should be SMART.

Members and, respectively, the Regions, have as a main goal, on one hand, to constantly develop and improve their services, and, on the other hand, to maintain and sustain the achieved level of service sometimes under very harsh economic conditions. Thus, the regional planning is somewhat conservative. The introduction of new services that require significant funding is not easy and should be planned well in advance. In a requirement driven planning process, RAs should be able to prioritize and put the emphasis on those new requirements that are essential, compliant with the main mandate of the NMHSs, and expected to bring tangible socio-economic benefits. While some Members of a Region may be in the position to advance faster their uptake of scientific and technological developments, the task of the RA should be to make sure that all Members, regardless of their development level, should be able to provide an adequate level of service, in particular, those services related to safety and security of life and

14 livelihood. The planning should include actions to gradually reduce the capability gap between the developed and developing parts of the Region through assistance to individual Members and establishing of regional facilities.

The TCs, in addressing the requirements raised by Members through the RAs, should work on technical solutions that are both modern and affordable. A very important role of the TCs is, once consensus is achieved on certain technical solution, to develop clear guidance on its implementation. That should include:  Technical regulations: standards and recommended practices addressing institutional requirements, international and national regulatory aspects, systems’ architecture, stakeholders’ responsibilities, etc. It should be noted that without such regulations, implementation is practically impossible.  Guidance material: to explain and detail the regulations, describe possible technological and procedural options, examples and best practices. Once the TCs develop and Congress approves the regulatory framework, the RAs step in with regional implementation plans. In most occasions, RAs and TCs act together in the capacity development efforts, organization of training events, etc.

Here are some hints for the enhancement of cooperation between TCs and RAs for planning and implementation:  Communication of the draft and final RA WG Operational Plans with TCs  Individual contacts between WG TT Leaders and TC thematic areas  Joint meetings between WMO Secretariat, RA WG, RA focal points (e.g. Regional Hydrological Advisors) and TC thematic coordinators  Identify topics of common interest and discuss relevant approaches and contents  Prepare new TC Operational Plans  Exchange of information on important regional events (RA VI Hydrology Forum) to TCs and delivery of RA reports to TCs  As stated earlier, the key mechanism for enhancing cooperation between TCs and RAs is the improvement of communication and information flow. This can be through technical methods such as Webex and email, but primarily through the continuation of the joint PTC/PRA meetings with sufficient time allocated to discuss high priority matters of concern to all Members.

Hints in addition  Arrangement of RA meetings in connection with TC sessions (at an early state to allow input in TC sessions)  Observing of TC priority issues in RA WG meeting agenda  Agreement on TC activity outputs that will be utilized/included in RA WG Operational Plans  Agreement on RA WG outputs that will be utilized/included in TC Operational Plans  Taking care of the fact that RA and TC Work Programmes have (in most cases) different timing forms a major challenge for better coordination and integration

Q4: Following Res 2.4/1 with the request to EC-WG/SOP to review the provisions relating to functions, roles and responsibilities, indicate proposal to EC-WG/SOP for their consideration regarding RAs

The Convention and General regulations do not define TORs of the RAs but their functions. This is important and seems to be done by purpose, since the regional bodies are permanent inter-governmental associations of Members on a geographical principle. Thus, the current

15 definition of the functions in Article 18 of the Convention is very general and sometime creates a bit of confusion regarding the exact role of the RAs in the WMO processes and activities. The role and responsibility of the RAs is further described in the Regional Programme document adopted by CG-XVI. In addition, concrete responsibilities of the RAs are included in different parts of the Technical regulations and relate to establishment and oversight of different regional requirements and facilities.

In order to provide better understanding of the role and responsibilities of the RAs, the President of RA VI, on behalf of the Management Group, proposed in June 2012 to amend the Annex II to the General Regulations in order to provide more specific definition of the role and responsibility of the RAs. Such definition should spell out explicitly the major role the RAs play in:

 Identification of the requirements at national, sub-regional and regional level; requirements related to: monitoring networks; services; capacity development;

 Harmonized and synchronized implementation of WMO standards and recommended practices, strategies and policies established by Congress;

 Regional Strategic Planning; coordination and monitoring of implementation activities;

 Establishment of Regional Facilities (RSMCs, RCCs, RICs, WIS centres, RTCs, etc).

The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the definition of the WMO Integrated Planning and Implementation Process with its main components:

Step 1: Identification of Requirements – primary role of Members through RAs Step 2: Development of Technical Solutions – primary role of TCs Step 3: Implementation by Members assisted by RAs and TCs

It was also proposed to review the TORs of the Technical Commissions provided in Annex III to the General Regulations and align their role and responsibilities with those of the RAs to ensure full consistency, avoid duplications and facilitate the complementarities of the activities of the constituent bodies

RA WGs and TTs / TC ETs ToRs should support stronger  integration of RA WG and TC strategic goals and Operational Plans  alignment of RA and TC (work) structures to allow more efficient collaboration

All RAs should adapt a similar working culture (in respect to TCs) in order to form a strong and dynamic counterpart to the TC level

In performing RA / TC roles  RAs should act as the ‘voice of Members’ as they are composed of all the Members within that region. In this regard the RAs should be closely involved with identifying and prioritizing the needs of Members and articulating this to the wider WMO community.  Technical commissions are then in the role of ‘expert advisers’ bringing insight into the technical solutions available to address the needs of Members, including an assessment of the challenges that could be faced

16  In many cases the solutions will be implemented by Members themselves and so the RA has a role in producing an implementation plan and monitoring its progress, reporting on successes and barriers to the PTC / PRAs.

______

17 Commission for Basic Systems (CBS)

1. Steps to enhance cooperation between RAs and TCs: (note, I have raised some points which go beyond cooperation but which could affect how TCs and RAs operate)

(i) Constituent Body level I assume we are talking about CB sessions here since the MGs and working groups are discussed elsewhere. Ideally, if good collaboration is occurring at the other levels this is not an issue except maybe for the structure of the TCs and RAs. However, the CB sessions are inter- governmental and where binding decisions can be made and where also where the most important recommendations are made. These decisions and recommendations often have significant impact for other CBs. This is especially true for CBS. For the TCs it is essential that requirements and priorities from RAs and other TCs are brought forward. Usually, this happens through collaboration at lower levels, through Members input or through the Executive Council and its working groups. I believe this has happened reasonably well for the TCs but nonetheless could be improved on. All TC members after all are also are part of an RA. I also believe that at times RAs work on an issue independently from a TC that may be more appropriate place to address it. Often they are approaching it from a regional perspective and may not be aware the TC can help. RAs representatives are drawn from PRs and often their direct support staff and may be somewhat disconnected from technical issues. TCs on the other hand are closer to the technical experts and may be disconnected somewhat from RA or Member priorities. This is where I believe we can do a better job of ensuring cross connections between working groups. We can also look at the process of creating operating plans to ensure RA identified needs and priorities are also addressed. However, we must also keep in mind the global overarching responsibilities of TCs which benefit all RAs and Members. Joint sessions have challenges from the perspective of length, effectiveness, number of people from each Member that would have to attend and cost to any host, unless they are all held in Geneva. Where appropriate, CB officers or MG member could attend as needed, but there is no mechanism for this currently. As mentioned above. If collaboration is done effectively at lower levels then joint sessions are probably not needed. As for structure, there is certainly the potential for change. Care must be taken not to create a CB so broad that it losses effectiveness. Also, if the range of activity is too wide would Members be able to send representatives capable of covering every issue. Do we need an inter-governmental component in TC sessions? If not, then where would decisions be made having binding, resource or regulatory implications, perhaps EC. A strong mechanism for collaboration at this level is the ICG mechanism and this works well when there is a significant overarching issue to address such as now for WIGOS and previously for WIS. The ICG-WIGOS has brought RA involvement into it and this model should be continued when an ICG level mechanism is needed. TC engagement in EC working groups or task teams can often be a mechanism for identifying needs and priorities and stabling collaboration. (ii) Management Group Level We look very carefully at regional representation on the MG but also must ensure we have the best mangers for each of the technical domains. But because these are technical people and RA MGs are PRs there is virtually no cross population. CBS and CIMO have discussed having MG meetings that would include some joint time. We will pursue this in the future. There is potential here for cross MG coordination when developing operational plans. The issue here is disconnected planning cycles. (iii) Working Group/Task Team: (I include the OPAGs here) CBS strives for equitable RA representation across each OPAG. It would be ideal, if experts working in a particular area in an RA were also the same representative in a TC working group. Currently, this only happens trough the knowledge of the chairs, there is no mechanism for this.

18 Members do not always put forward the same people for TC and RA responsibilities. Perhaps this is because of potential workload or because they want to spread representation around. We should strive for increased cross-population of working groups. Some CBS activities such as the SWFDP are regionally or sub-regionally focused. This usually occurs where implementation or training activities are involved. This is an ideal place for TC/RA interaction and should be continued and strengthened. This is also an area where multiple TCs could work with RAs for particular purposes. A steering group mechanism like the SWFDP steering group or a mini-ICG could/should be utilized. (iv) Expert Level, etc. As mentioned above we should strive for increased cross-population of working groups. Also when particular issues arise individual experts should be invited into working groups of meeting where they can make specific contributions or address particular needs. This is done today but again I don’t believe it is used as much as it could be. Probably because RAs and TCs are not as aware of what and when the other body is addressing an issue that may have commonality. This goes back to better linkages in the planning process. 2. Successful examples: (i) Constituent Body Level ICGs Steering Groups such as for the SWFDP Appropriate officers and MG members attending other CB sessions (note this is at the Members cost). I have found this very affective to understand other CB needed and to develop cooperation mechanisms TC representation in EC working groups and task teams. (ii) Management Group Using MG members for TC representation in EC working groups and task teams. Cross engagement of MG members for specific issues. This has been used for WIGOS (iii) Working Group/Expert Level etc. RSMCs, RICs, RMICs and RCCs all are good implementations of between RAs and TCs. TCs have quite a few examples of joint teams. For instance, CBS has joint teams with CAeM, CCl, CAS and CIMO. SWFDP Regionally based training activities The work to set up a Marine services center for the Adriatic Sea, collaboration between JCOMM, RA-VI and CBS and will involve CIMO. The EGOS-IP team is an excellent example of bringing in experts across domains to address improving observing systems. This is primarily across TCs. Regional requirements processes. CB has started initiatives in RAs II, III, and IV to begin identifying regional information requirements. Through the Space Programme, a regional requirements gathering exercise for all regions has been kicked off for satellite data and products. I sent a letter initiating a “Procedure for Documenting Regional Requirements for Satellite Data Access and Exchange”. This is a first step and we plan to take what we learn from this Regional satellite oriented requirements identification effort and expand it to the full spectrum of needs. WIGOS implementation also is being pursued with a strong Regional focus as a key strategy for WIGOS implementation. We are working with each Region to development plans and identify activities. This can provide a model for other activities. 3. Key recommendations to enhance cooperation: a. Planning

19 Do a better job on coordinated operational planning across CBs as well as Programmes. Planning cycle disconnects will need to be addressed or at last how to work around these disconnects. Improve the mechanisms for the RAs to develop and provide prioritized requirements to TCs. These must be things that they are willing to make a commitment to work toward, not just a wish list. TAs can then address the technical issues and work with RAs on training and implementation. The MGs and focused steering or coordination groups are the key for success here. Continue and strengthen PTC and PRA interaction with joint meetings that include planning and tracking of activities. One of the biggest roadblocks to improved interaction has been the lack of joint time between these two groups. I really look forward to having a full day before the upcoming Extraordinary Congress. It is a start but frankly, a single day meeting in not enough. We must use it well and allow it to grow into a healthy vehicle for coordinating and planning. b. Implementation This is where joint groups or at least jointly coordinated activities between TCs and RAs can have the greatest impact. RAs should have the key responsibility here as well as ownership of regional networks, systems and centers. TCs need to provide the technical guidance, training, certification, standards and implementation assistance. 4. Roles and responsibilities of RAs: TORs: Develop one, I don’t believe any exist today. I believe only one set is needed that would apply to all RA’s. TORs should be high level and not focus on the differences that would exist within each RA when it comes to specific activities. Alternatively, clearly defined roles in the convention would serve the same purpose. Roles: Develop regional requirements and priorities. Identify regional implementation and system evolution needs Provide the consolidation and consensus setting function for Members. TCs can work toward assisting 6 bosses, 180 of them is chaos. Responsibilities: Own and manage the evolution of their regional systems with assistance from TCs

______

20 Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation (CIMO)

Subject: Perspectives on improving interaction between regional associations and WMO technical commissions Dear President of WMO, Dear David,

In response to your letter (ref: SG/DSG/P.RAs-P.TCs), I would like to provide you suggestions to improve collaboration between Regional Associations and Technical Commissions. First of all, I would like to present a few concrete points concerning the interactions between CIMO and RAs to help set the scene.

CIMO has relatively few direct contacts with RAs per se. This is mainly due to the fact that CIMO concentrates on developing guidance material and carrying out capacity building activities in contrast to other TCs that are more “operational” as they are coordinating observing networks and logically have much stronger links to the RAs. However, CIMO tries to address the concerns of all RAs by having representatives from all Regions in its Management Group (MG).

CIMO plans to contact all RAs approximately one year ahead of its forthcoming session to request information on their major requirement for guidance that are not presently covered in the CIMO Guide, to consider them in reviewing its structure and plans for the next inter-session period. One area requiring enhanced collaboration between CIMO and RAs is the monitoring of Regional Instrument Centres (RICs) and Regional Radiation Centres (RRCs). Indeed, the ToRs of RICs and RRCs are established by CIMO, while the RICs/RRCs are nominated by the RAs.

Though CIMO has been constantly trying to have a close link with the RICs and RRCs, this has proven to be difficult. In the worst cases, no contact could be established with them. It also seems that the RAs do not have close contact with some of these centres either and that they are not monitoring them on a regular basis. This gives a bit the impression that they were established by the RAs, but then forgotten by them and that CIMO does not have the proper linkages to access / liaise with them.

Regarding your precise questions, here are my general suggestions: 1. Steps that RAs and TCs could take to enhance collaboration: • TC Management Group members should try to attend the RA sessions of their respective Region to improve the link with the Regions. They should have regular contact with the members of the Region and convey relevant concerns/requirements, need for guidance, etc. to the relevant TC MG.

• Contact between the TC Expert Teams (ETs) and RA Working Groups (WGs) would be facilitated if the composition and contact details of all members of those groups would be provided on the WMO website and accessible from one location/webpage directing to the full composition of the WGs/ETs of each RA and TC. The ToRs of these groups should also be made easily accessible from that page.

• RAs and TCs should have stronger collaboration for the monitoring of centres established by the RAs (like RICs and RRCs).

2. Example of successful collaboration between TC and RA: • Successful collaboration happens between CIMO and RA-II for the conduction of Regional Pyrheliometer Comparison (RPC) in RA-II. The RRC attends the International Pyrheliometer Intercomparison (IPC) organized by CIMO. It then organizes itself a RPC for RA-II. For that it gets the support of some CIMO experts attending the RPC and helping reviewing the report of the intercomparison, which is finally published in the IOM report series. This good collaboration is mainly due to the fact that a RA-II RRC is active as would be expected from its ToRs. In counterpart, CIMO experts are keen to support their efforts through their expertise.

3. Recommendations to enhance cooperation between RAs and TCs. • RAs should be responsible for the implementation and monitoring of relevant programmes in their Region. The RA MGs should feel responsible to develop a regional consensus/view on the issues for which they need guidance for / support from the TCs.

21 • RAs should inform TCs on the topics they would like the TCs to address in priority well in advance of the relevant TC sessions, if they feel TCs do not cover their needs. This would enable the TCs to include relevant activities in their work plan taking into account the requirements of all RAs, as far as possible.

• The requirements of RAs are logically focused on the specificities of their Region, while TCs have a global mandate. Therefore, it will probably not be possible for TCs to address all requirements from RAs, especially in the difficult context of scarce resources (both human resources and financial).

• The monitoring of Centres established by the RAs should be clarified and should be the responsibility of the RA.

• RA should liaise with TCs to carry out the monitoring of the Centres they have established, should they need support to carry out this monitoring. They should report to/liaise with the relevant TC to ensure the TCs can follow-up in case of need. For example, in the case of RICs/RRCs, they should inform CIMO on the outcome of the monitoring so that CIMO could identify supporting measures to help strengthen these RICs/RRCs.

5. It is suggested that the TORs, Roles and Responsibilites of RAs should include the following:

• Establish specific Centres (RIC, RRC, RTCs, etc.) as needed by their Region, regularly monitor them and reconfirm these Centres on satisfactory performance and continued requirement.

• Regularly inform TCs on their requirements for support / guidance.

______

22 Commission for Hydrology (CHy)

1. Please indicate what steps, in your view, RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation at various levels of interaction.

(i) Constituent Body Level Although reports of RAs and TCs are published, it will be useful for the President of either an RA or a TC to write to each other and the other PTCs to exchange work plans, drawing attention to areas they wish to collaborate in as decided by either an RA Session or a TC Session. This direct engagement with each other could kick-start a very fruitful collaboration. The RAs and the TCs should seek inputs from each other prior to preparing their respective work plans. The joint PRA-PTC meetings should continue any time the opportunity presents such as during EC or Congress. All RA Sessions should re-establish Working Groups on Hydrology.

(ii) Management Group Level Each RA Management Group should include the Regional Hydrological Adviser in its membership. For the other TCs, the RA Management Group may, as much as possible, designate a member of the RA Management Group to be the liaison between the RA and the TCs. RAs and TCs should exchange detailed work plans and collaborate in common or similar topics in the execution of the work plans.

(iii) Working Group/Task Team Working Groups of RAs and TCs should work together on common or similar issues or topics.

(iv) Expert Level etc. There is the need to link up Open Panel Experts of the TCs and RAs and encourage them to work together on common or similar issues and topic,

2. Provide a case study or examples of successful PTC/PRA coordination with a clear indication of the elements that made it successful (using the working levels above).

(i) Constituent Body Level Most RAs do establish Working Groups on Hydrology to address hydrology and water resources issues and concerns in their Regions, which have served the Regions very well. Such Working Groups being subsidiary bodies of the RAs report to the RAs. The Working Groups also have the benefit of interacting with members and other experts of the Commission for Hydrology in execution of their work.

(ii) Management Group Level The Commission for Hydrology invites the Regional Hydrological Advisers to the Presidents of the RAs to its Advisory Working Group (Management Group) Meeting that drafts the work plan of the Commission. This way hydrology and water resources issues relevant to the RAs are brought on board and taken into account in drawing up the work plan of the Commission.

(iii) Working Group/ Expert Level etc. The RAs with Tropical Cyclone Committees do co-opt a member of CHy from their respective Regions onto the Committee to provide hydrological input to the deliberations and work of the Committee.

3. What key recommendation(s) would you propose to enhance cooperation between TCs and RAs for: a. Planning Establish a mechanism to seek views and inputs from each other in drawing up work plans for an intersessional period. b, Implementation Implement activities of common interest jointly to reduce overlaps, eliminate duplications and maximize resources.

5. Following the adoption Resolution 2.4/1 (EC-64). “Review of the Role and Responsibilities of Regional Associations”, in which EC requested the EC Working Group on WMO Strategic and Operating Plans (EC-WG/SOP) to review the provisions relating to the functions, roles

23 and responsibilities of RAs . Kindly reflect on the Terms of Reference ToRs), roles of Regional Associations and indicate what you would wish to propose to EC-WG/SOP, in this regard, for their consideration. (Note: The “WMO Convention and General Regulations” defines the current roles and responsibilities of RAs.)

ToRs, Roles and Responsibilities: The ToRs, Roles and Responsibilities as currently defined in the Basic Documents, the WMO Convention and General Regulations, are adequate and can address most if not all issues and challenges in the foreseeable future. The RAs should, through their own internal mechanisms, be able co-opt experts or form a specialist group, as and when necessary, to address emerging challenges in their respective Regions.

______

24 Commission for Atmospheric Sciences (CAS)

Some perspectives on improving interaction between Regional Associations and WMO Commission of Atmospheric Sciences.

In trying to get the best possible quantitative estimate of our present activities in the 6 WMO Regions, as a preamble to discuss this question, the staff of ARE, supporting the three programs of CAS, that is WWRP, THORPEX and GAW, have produced the attached (Annex A) spreadsheet. You will find at the end of the spreadsheet a quick resume of the different acronyms, and what they refer to.

The first thing that emerges from a quick inspection of the spreadsheet is that CAS is indeed heavily involved in all WMO Regions, and for all its programs. Of course the amount of observing infrastructure (for GAW) varies from one region to the other, as does the number of experts and scientists or technicians for the different committees and scientific advisory working groups. But overall, with the possible exception of RA-1, it is fair to say that there is a sizeable and globally diversified level of CAS activities in all regions. One should also keep in mind that the numbers referring to experts only represent a small fraction of the actual CAS related work force in any specific region: a single GAW central facility for example will involve tens of scientists and technicians, so that the total number of CAS coordinated or related science personnel for all regions is in the thousands. Many of these activities also involve capacity development and training, through workshops, seminars, special courses or summer schools, and graduate student mentoring and supervision. The GAWTEC training initiative, for example, has benefitted more that 200 early career scientists from all over the world. One then wonders where the perception of unsatisfactory interaction between CAS and regions comes from. Let us look in more details what these scientists do, and how they get to do it.

When it comes to CAS-regional interactions, the vast majority of initiatives are actually initiated within or by the regions themselves, and by any number of stakeholders, some from the academic research community, some from the public or even private sector, but most in some form or another will usually be clients, sponsors, partners, etc…, of regional NMHS’s). For example, the installation and recognition of a GAW station very often follows from a regional request to do so. All RDP’s (Research Demonstration Projects) or FDP’s (Forecast Demonstration Projects) implemented by the WWRP are bottom-up initiatives from the regions. Most GURME activities concerning air quality and megacities are also bottom-up initiatives from the regions. The same process was followed for the joint WWRP-GAW Sand and Dust Storm (SDS) program. The aerosols SAG receives much regional and local inputs for many of its activities (ie, volcanic dust is an example). THORPEX, although it is funded through a trust fund to which only 8 or 9 countries (out of a total of 189 WMO members!) have ever contributed over the last 7 years, has taken the initiative of setting up 5 THORPEX Regional Committees, in order to better address regional scientific concerns. The highly successful TIGGE project, not supported by WMO operational funds, and which benefits from the pro bono NWP output and support of 10 GPC’s to create its super ensemble, is nevertheless made available and is used by all WMO regions for research, and sometimes prototype operational operations. And there are demands from regions to consider applications within two SWFDP with LAM ensembles. And one could go on and on: the point here is that the vast majority of CAS activities, as they are delivered through the GAW, WWRP and THORPEX programs, are actually originated by regional initiatives. And they are reviewed and monitored by regionally balanced scientific steering committees, and approved by a regionally balanced CAS management group once a year and finally by regional involvement in the quadriennial CAS Sessions.

So: what then is so broken that it needs to be fixed? We believe that the real issue here is: 1) one of (mis)perception, perhaps based on a lack of communication, that is, that the regional structures recently put in place, either have not been informed of the vast array of activities occurring in their part of the globe, or, 2) for some reasons, having been informed, are not satisfied with their involvement in the decision making process. There is also of course 3) the third possibility that for some, there is no particular interest or they are not seen as a priority issue to be concerned with. Either way, to try and improve the communication aspect, CAS President has taken the initiative to write to each Regional President and identify a CAS regional contact point. As for the second point, CAS is certainly ready to discuss the issue further, although it would expect the regional structures to first clarify what improvements are necessary.. And for the third, no action is required.

25 One important point that needs to be made here is that CAS has, by its TOR’s, a global mission, which is often required for it to be in a position to provide the best technical advice to WMO members, hopefully leading to improved services. It therefore deals with a number of global issues, which transcend any particular regional priority such as: Ozone, GHG’s, reactive gases, fundamental science questions relating to data assimilation, predictability and modeling on an extended spectrum of time and space scales, forecast verification, and so on. And whilst there will be some activities where regional guidance will be appropriate, there are many others for which it will not.

So, finally, what does this Commission believe should be done: actually, as concerns our business, the major issue presently is the lack of vocal and otherwise visible or strong support by the regions, and their members, for CAS science activities, including those that they themselves initiated, in important WMO decision bodies, such as FINAC, EC or Congress. This may or may not be related to a communication problem, but there could be other reasons as well. But in the end, unless means can be found to restore a level of sustainability, which has been largely eroded away through more ten 10 successive years of flat budgeting, then the secondary issue of CAS-regional interaction will definitely be a non-issue!

26 ANNEX l T a s r s W E C t s n / r P X s A n A s e o G R i t e T E t P G G A n E C W P a E

e t A S - W s

W S C e R W

i P O W t a A C A i R H t W l A i S P G a T A c G W J O D a G

W F Algeria 1 2 Angola 1 Benin 1 Botswana 1 Burkina Faso 1 Burundi 1 Cameroon 1 Cape Verde 1 1 Central African Republic 1 Chad 1 Comoros 1 Congo 1 Côte d'Ivoire 1 1 DRCongo 1 Djibouti 1 Egypt 1 6 Eritrea 1 3 Ethiopia 1 Gabon 1 Gambia 1 Ghana 1 1 1 Guinea 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 Kenya 1 2 1 Lesotho 1 Liberia 1 Libya 1 Madagascar 1 Malawi 1 Mali 1 Mauritania 1 Mauritius 1 Morocco 1 1 1 Mozambique 1 Namibia 1 1 Niger 1 Nigeria 1 1 1 Rwanda 1 Sao Tome and Principe 1 Senegal 1 1 Seychelles 1 1 Sierra Leone 1 Somalia 1 South Africa 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 Sudan 1 Swaziland 1 Togo 1 Tunisia 1 Uganda 1

27 l T a s r s W E C t s n / r P X s A n A s e o G R i t e T E t P G G A n E C W P a E

e t A S - W s

W S C e R W

W F UR Tanzania 1 Zambia 1 Zimbabwe 1 RA 1 2 0 1 1 22 3 1 4 0 Afghanistan 2 Bahrain 2 Bangladesh 2 Bhutan 2 Cambodia 2 China 2 3 1 10 11 2 2 DPRKorea 2 India 2 2 17 5 1 Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 1 Iraq 2 Japan 2 9 1 1 5 17 9 4 2 Kazakhstan 2 8 Kuwait 2 Kyrgyzstan 2 1 Lao PDR 2 Maldives 2 Mongolia 2 1 Myanmar 2 Nepal 2 1 Oman 2 Pakistan 2 1 Qatar 2 Republic of Korea 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 Saudi Arabia 2 1 Sri Lanka 2 Tajikistan 2 Thailand 2 1 2 2 Turkmenistan 2 United Arab Emirates 2 1 Uzbekistan 2 Viet Nam 2 1 1 Yemen 2 HK, China 2 3 Macao, China 2 1 RA 2 15 1 2 6 68 35 1 9 5 Argentina 3 1 2 12 1 Bolivia 3 Brazil 3 8 3 1 1 Chile 3 1 3 Colombia 3 2 Ecuador 3 1 Guyana 3 Paraguay 3 1 Peru 3 1 Suriname 3 1 Uruguay 3 2 Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 3

e t A S - W s

W S C e R W

W F RA 3 1 0 1 2 31 3 1 1 1 Antigua and Barbuda 4 Bahamas 4 Barbados 4 1 Belize 4 Canada 4 10 1 1 39 5 1 4 1 Costa Rica 4 1 Cuba 4 2 Dominica 4 Dominican Republic 4 El Salvador 4 Guatemala 4 Haiti 4 Honduras 4 Jamaica 4 Mexico 4 1 Nicaragua 4 Panama 4 3 Saint Lucia 4 Trinidad and Tobago 4 United States of 16 4 America 2 4 14 108 29 2 17 2 BCT 4 Curacao & St Maarten 4 RA 4 26 3 4 15 155 34 3 21 3 Australia 5 5 1 17 12 1 3 1 Brunei Darussalam 5 1 Cook Islands 5 Fiji 5 1 Indonesia 5 2 1 Kiribati 5 1 Malaysia 5 4 1 FSMicronesia 5 New Zealand 5 5 1 Niue 5 Papua New Guinea 5 1 Philippines 5 1 1 Samoa 5 Singapore 5 1 1 Solomon Islands 5 Tonga 5 Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of 5 Vanuatu 5 French Polynesia 5 New Caledonia 5 RA 5 5 0 0 1 33 18 1 3 1 Albania 6 Armenia 6 1 Austria 6 5 3 Azerbaijan 6 Belarus 6 2

e t A S - W s

W S C e R W

W F Belgium 6 4 Bosnia and 6 Herzegovina Bulgaria 6 7 Croatia 6 Cyprus 6 Czech Republic 6 1 1 4 Denmark 6 1 10 Estonia 6 Finland 6 1 1 11 1 France 6 3 1 1 13 3 1 5 1 Georgia 6 Germany 6 17 3 14 22 3 5 Greece 6 5 Hungary 6 3 Iceland 6 3 Ireland 6 2 Israel 6 1 1 Italy 6 2 14 1 1 Jordan 6 Latvia 6 5 Lebanon 6 Lithuania 6 2 Luxembourg 6 1 Malta 6 1 Monaco 6 Montenegro 6 Netherlands, The 6 2 1 5 1 1 Norway 6 3 2 1 10 1 Poland 6 8 Portugal 6 9 Republic of Moldova 6 1 Romania 6 2 Russian Federation 6 1 1 1 1 43 1 2 Serbia 6 2 Slovakia 6 5 Slovenia 6 4 Spain 6 1 1 20 Sweden 6 24 Switzerland 6 6 2 3 12 11 1 2 Syrian Arab Republic 6 Macedonia 6 Turkey 6 2 Ukraine 6 6 Great Britain/UK 6 4 2 1 32 4 1 8 1 RA 6 42 9 10 30 300 19 2 25 2 MEMBER STATES

TERRITORIES other Pacific Islands 3 Marshall Islands 1

30 l T a s r s W E t n / r P X s A n s e o R i t e T E t C G s G n E C W P a A

e t G A W s R

P W S C A e R W

i P O E t S - a A C i

R H t W l i S G G a T A W c W J A D a A G P W F G Nauru O 1 ORGANIZATIONS CGMS 1 ECMWF 3 1 4 1 EUMETSAT 1 ICLR 1 ICSU/IRDR 1

1) GAW SAGs

- Ozone

- Aerosol

- Aerosol AOD

- Precipitation Chemistry

- Greenhouse Gases

- Reactive Gases

- GURME

2) GAW ETs

- ET on World Data Centers

- ET on Near-Real-Time data delivery

3) OPAG-EPAC

4) GAW Central Facilities (each institution is counted as many times as many Central Facilities it runs, e.g. NOAA is counted as CCL for CO2, CCL for CH4, CCL for N2O etc) - Central Calibration Laboratories

- World Calibration Centers

- Regional Calibration Centers

- World Data Centers (excluded, as the managers of WDC are in the WDC-ET)

- Quality Assurance/Scientific Activity Centre

5) GAW stations (full operational only)

31 6) WWRP WGs/ET

WG Nowcasting

JWG Verification

WG SERA

WG Tropical Meteorology

WG Mesoscale

ET Weather Modification

7) JSC WWRP

8) THORPEX

9) Monsoon Data Archive Centers

and TIGGE Data Centers

______

32 Commission for Aeronautical Meteorology (CAeM)

1 (i) Constituent body: (1) Annual 3/4-day (exact length depending on scope of desired meeting outcomes) PTC/PRA conjoint meeting to include plenary and parallel sessions to replace the current annual separate PTC and PRA meetings. Should also continue to hold the much shorter (usually an hour) PTC/PRA conjoint catch-ups during ECs and Congress. Organization of these meetings should be such that they are result-oriented focussing on the WMO priorities. PTCs and PRAs should be expected to brief the meeting on high-priority cross-cutting issues facing them and to present proposals and questions for the other TCs and/or RAs to address these issues together. (2) Explore the pros and cons of holding joint sessions of synergetic TCs. (3) A more strategic view should also be taken of individual PTC and PRA representation at sessions, with WMO financial support, given consideration of high priorities and inter-dependencies. (4) RA session TECOs should, where possible, be held conjointly, focus on WMO priorities and directly involve the relevant TCs in organisation and delivery.

(ii) Management Group: (1) All TC and RA MG meetings should include relevant input from the other TCs and RAs with consideration given to inviting MG representation (or conjoint meetings) from other relevant TCs and RAs if the inter-dependencies and priorities are high enough. (2) The current mechanism of having an Implementation Coordination Team (ICT) within the MG of some TCs may be continued provided that the ICT is capable of interfacing with the relevant bodies, especially the RAs, on implementation issues.

(iii) and (iv) WG/TT and Expert Level: (1) Needs to be better coordinated at the MG level with consideration given to the enhanced use of telecons, inter-dependency meeting inputs, greater sharing, advertising and regular updating of information using web-based means. (2) TC experts should be expected to gather information and report on implementation status and issues from his/her own RA. (3) Setting up of Task Team (TT) on specific theme related to TC within RAs (e.g. TT on Aviation) should be further promoted to serve as an interface between the TC concerned (through the ICT if present, see (ii) above) and the RAs, especially to monitor and advise on implementation issues related to the specific theme.

2 (i) Constituent body: The ½-day joint PTC/PRA conjoint meeting in February 2012 clearly demonstrated the value of getting the 14 presidents together to agree on priorities, whether they be strategic or implementation related. The only 2 negative elements of this meeting were that it was clearly much too short and duplicated many of the issues that had alreday been discussed in the preceding and separate PTC and PRA meetings.

(ii) Management Group: (1) The 2-day conjoint RAIII–RAIV TECO in Costa Rica early 2011 which focussed on the priority regional issues of WIS, WIGOS, aviation and capacity development was also attended by the CBS president and the CAeM VP. The opportunity to deliver coordinated messages and to receive feedback and questions from 2 RAs in one go proved a highly successful and efficient way of exchanging information. (2) The recent collection of inputs to the CAeM benchmarking survey of through the PRAs appears to be working well at least for a couple of RAs (II and VI) and could prove to be an effective way for TCs to collect information from the regions to monitor Members’ implementation status and to identify implementation issues.

(iii) Working Group/Expert Level: The RAIV TT on Aviation has been working closely with CAeM ET on Education, Training and Competency over the past couple of years resulting in a much more focussed approach to the issue of QMS and personnel classification issues within the region. Even so, there is still a need to further improve the communication between the PRA, TT and the TC concerned (i.e. the P/RAIV, RAIV TT on Aviation and CAeM for the case in point) so that implementation status and issues (QMS implementation in RAIV for the case in point) could be brought to early attention by the respective PRA and PTC.

3 See answers to 1. and 2. above

33 4 To be clear, the ‘WMO Convention and General Regulations’ talk to the ‘function’ of the RAs and do not currently include any specific TORs whereas the TCs do! These ‘functions’ do not make reference to what the RAs are supposed to do relates to the work of other bodies e.g. the TCs. In particular, the RAs do not currently play any specific roles/responsibilities on: (1) determination of requirements of WMO members (which currently appears to be a specific TOR of CAS (TOR (a) of CAS states “To determine the requirements of WMO Members, including …”) in cooperation with TCs, (2) development of regional operating plan in line with WMO strategic plan and priorities; (3) monitoring of status of Members’ implementation of the regional operating plan; (4) identification of improvement proposals to be pursued or problems to be addressed in the region. These elements are suggested to be considered in developing TORs for RAs.

For reference, in terms of CAeM, TOR ‘H’ states, ‘To review existing and emerging user requirements, in cooperation with regional associations, and to develop and update associated regulatory documentation and effective cost recovery mechanisms related to the provision of aeronautical meteorological services in collaboration with the International Civil Aviation Organization.’

Also, the CAeM MG report from the Montreal meeting in October 2011 recorded the following: ‘CAeM- XIV established an Implementation Coordination Team (ICT) to proactively liaise with the regional associations, WMO bodies and relevant experts. It has though still proved difficult to achieve a 2-way communication process with the regional associations which has impacted on, (i) the commission’s ability to understand and respond to regional needs including the role of other sub-regional groups e.g. SPREP, MASA and CIS and; (ii) to monitor and evaluate the regional implementation of the CAeM Operating Plan. The MG suggested that an improved understanding of the regional associations’ Terms of Reference could help in addressing this issue. It was also suggested that one way to improve coordination and the effective implementation of priority activities would be to hold conjoint annual PTC and PRA meetings.’

______

34 Commission for Agricultural Meteorology (CAgM)

1. What steps RAs & TCs should take to enhance cooperation i) Constitutional body level - Modification of ToRs and Re-organization of CAgM structures in order to meet recent pending issues and urgent requirements, especially for GFCS, WIGOS, WIS implementations - Modification of ToRs of RA Working Groups or Task Teams on Agrometeorology to routinely survey regional members to identify agrometeorological experts/staff and training needs in each region and rely this information to CAgM and WMO Secretariat

ii) Management group level - Designation of a regional coordinator within the Management Group of CAgM in each RA, considering most critical regional issues in mind, to strengthen current one Coordinator system.

iii) Working group level - Joint meetings/symposia/workshops/training/projects with RAs including regional/national scientific societies or related entities.

iv) Expert level - Chairs of AgMet WG in RAs, if exist, are invited to OPAG/ICT group as ex-officio as a focal point to CAgM while representing his/her RA, and - Invitation of regional Experts to joint CAgM occasions and scientific society meetings convened in own regions

2. Case studies of successful examples i) Constitutional body level - Mutual participations in partners’ high level occasions CAgM Congress – Presidents of RA VI and CBS in CAgM-XV, 2010) - Personal communications between Presidents RA VI, RA V, etc. on future collaborations between CAgM and RAs

ii) Management group level - Informal high official meetings during joint events with RAs and (sub-)regional entities - Each member of CAgM MG is representing its RA in the following global initiatives from CAgM Global Federation of AgroMeteorological Societies (GFAMS) Global and regional CREAMs (Center of Research, Excellence in AgroMeteorology) WAMIS II (currently 3 servers, soon expected to other RAs – Brazil, Australia, S. Africa or more)

iii) Working group level - Joint symposia in Regions with ET meetings (RA VI, Slovakia 2011 : RA II, Japan 2012 : Brazil 2012, Russia 2012 : USA 2012 ) - iv) Expert level - Participation to regional activities/meetings representing CAgM or together with Secretariat: - Operational Agrometeorological Services in SAARC and other RA II Countries (20-21 April 2012). A RA-II Agromet Sub-Task meeting was proposed just after this meeting but could not meet due to logistical reasons.

35 3. Key recommendations a) Planning - Systematic integrated virtuous cycle of Capacity Development is under its implementation by CAgM, - Particularly giving high priority in human resource enhancement in the field of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

b) Implementation - Through several Global initiatives proposed by CAgM including Governance and Outreach as well as the following subjects : Global CREAM (Education/Training), GFAMS(AgMet Society), AgMet Outlooks, AgMet pilot projects and WAMIS next phase - GCREAM, GFAMS, and collaborations on phenology have reached good agreements in its implementation so far, while still under discussions on pilot project candidates

4. RA ToR, Roles, Responsibilities - Need more interaction between RAs and TCs (See 1 above) - TCs are willing to provide scientific/technical advice/supports to RAs in order to facilitate their operational services - Through identifications of region specific urgent requirements, establishment of research projects, development of practical applications and possibly operations services.

______

36 Joint WMO/IOC Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM)

Comments in response to WMO letter SG/DSG/P.RAs-P.TCs of 23 July 2012-08-03 Thank you for your letter dated 30 June 2012 where you requested us to provide input to strategies for Africa to address weather and climate related challenges faced by Africa. In preparation of this document, we relied mostly on the former co-president, Dr Peter Dexter (copresident of JCOMM, 2005-2012, Secretariat responsible for Commission for Marine Meteorology (CMM) / Joint Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), (1985-2004), as well as secretariat to provide all the detail requested by WMO as both JCOMM co-presidents has just been appointed and has subsequently little experience of the various TC and RA functions.

The interests and programme activities of CMM/JCOMM are by their nature not well adapted to the land-based geopolitical groupings which comprise the WMO Regional Associations (RAs). The work of JCOMM is largely global, and when regionally focused, this focus is on ocean basins and marginal seas, and not the RAs. In this respect, JCOMM work is more likely to correspond to the interests of the IOC Regional Subsidiary Bodies and GOOS Regional Alliances than the RAs, and we must not forget that the IOC regions are of equal concern to JCOMM, if not to its predecessor CMM.

(i) Constituent Body: Mutual representation at constituent body sessions has never happened during the tenure of the former co-president, except for occasional participation by PRAs in JCOMM sessions (e.g. PRA VI in Yeosu), however, this is usually in another capacity. Such representation would be of little value, and impractical. At the level required / sought by WMO, interaction should be largely in programme planning, for which see also (ii) below and item 3. What the TCs require is clear statements by all the RAs of their practical and achievable requirements for marine/ocean data, products and services, within the context of the WMO Strategic plan and their individual programmes. This then gives JCOMM / Technical Commissions (TCs) the chance to address various topics they require.

(ii) Management: CMM/JCOMM has tried in the past to implement a policy of inviting RAs representation on the Management Committee. This proved expensive and of no practical value, and we would strongly recommend not to do this again. The Management Committee is responsible for developing programme plans and overseeing their implementation between formal Commission sessions. In this capacity it is the body to address the requirements put forward by the RAs, bearing in mind that the presentation of such requirements should correspond more or less with the planning cycle of Congress/EC.

(iii) Working Groups / Task Teams / Expert level: Some of the JCOMM subsidiary teams have regional components, the DBCP being the prime example. This provides us with a mechanism to address regionally oriented technical and implementation issues. However, for this to work for the RAs, they would have to establish appropriate subsidiary bodies themselves, something which has almost never happened in the marine/ocean field. An alternative would be for the JCOMM regional groups to interact with the RA working groups on the WWW. JCOMM would strongly recommend regional groups to interact with the RA. Most JCOMM regional work is undertaken through projects, such as CIFDP and wave/storm surge forecasting. For the latter, we have always had productive relationships with the regional tropical cyclone bodies, especially the Tropical Cyclone Committee of RA V, and the Typhoon Committee of RA II. No doubt this will and should continue into the future and JCOMM would strong recommend other RA’s to follow the example of RA V and RA II.

2. Examples of successful coordination There are no examples of which we are aware, of successful direct coordination between JCOMM and the RAs at any formal level. However, there are examples of JCOMM support to regional activities, which eventually translated to RA support (not always successful):

37 (i) SEACAMP: In the early 1990s, CMM initiated a project to establish a South-East Asian Centre for Atmospheric and Marine Prediction. We had a couple of planning meetings, a project document written, a funding proposal prepared and submitted to ASEAN, and eventually an embryo centre established in Singapore. However, SEACAMP never really developed – it overlapped RA V and RA II, and never got full buy-in from the RAs and the NMHS concerned. Geographically, it was more aligned with IOC/WESTPAC, and has now partially morphed into South-East Asian GOOS.

(ii) DBCP regional action groups: These are a success from a JCOMM/DBCP perspective, but since they all overlap several RAs, we never got any real buy-in at that level. They also overlap the IOC regions, so no help there. But they work!

(ii) TC committees and waves and surges: These are one of the few examples of successful JCOMM/RA coordination and cooperation. The best examples are with the Tropical Cyclone Committee of RA V, and the Typhoon Committee of RA II, which have worked closely with JCOMM, through the respective Secretariats and JCOMM ETs, to implement training workshops on wave and storm surge forecasting. There has also been cooperation in setting up the Storm Surge Watch scheme. We are not so familiar with other RA cyclone committees (RA I for Indian Ocean, RA II for Indian Ocean, RA IV for Caribbean), but suspect similar success. We will obviously continue this.

(iii) Marine services centre for the Adriatic: While the former co-president was in the Secretariat, he responded to a request from Croatia for help in developing their marine centre in Split, eventually aimed at it becoming a centre for the whole Adriatic Sea. We organized a consultant to advise them, and helped organize a couple of planning meetings. Things are moving ahead, and the proposal is now recognized at the level of RA VI (it helps that the PR, Ivan Cacic, is also president of RA VI), and also listed as a JCOMMsupporting DCPC under WIGOS/WIS. A good example of bottom-up development and cooperation.

3. Recommendations for planning and implementation Improved linkages between Pilot/demonstration activities (largely championed by TCs) and fielding/broad implementations should be championed by RAs. Programme planning, and to a lesser extent implementation, is the obvious area for enhancing coordination. JCOMM is ready to assist the RAs provided we know what they want. This will involve the RAs developing, individually, consolidated requirements for marine data and services, which are not just a long wish list, but actually practical and achievable, and if possible directly linked with the ongoing/planned activities of the Commission that are in line with WMO priorities. These should be done within the context of the overall WMO planning cycle, but early enough to allow JCOMM and the other TCs to include them in their own strategies and operating plans. This should all take place at the Management Committee level, since the constituent body sessions are never aligned with the planning cycle. It would then provide the TCs with a realistic way to interact with the RAs. We further recommend that TCs and RAs meet for as a consolidated group to set up these requirements. The RAs should take the lead by presenting their requirements to TCs for deliberation.

They should further meet annually prior to each EC/Congress and evaluate their progress since the last meeting ensuring that it is not another talk shop and report as such to EC/Congress annually.

4. Roles and responsibilities of RAs (i) ToRs: We have not seen the EC Resolution referred to, so cannot comment.

(ii) Roles: Primarily role should be in setting appropriate regional requirements, for JCOMM in ocean and coastal observations, services and service delivery to identified regional users. A secondary role could be in assisting the broader programmes in implementation at a regional level. This obviously applies best to things like the WWW, but can also work for JCOMM, as witness the DBCP Action Groups.

(iii) Responsibilities:

38 It is our understanding that RAs is the direct link with the NMHSs, which in most case the main players/implementers of the programme. RA as a group of regional Members could provide a direct interaction on how each Member can participate in the programme activities, adding to the development of the requirements as described in “Roles”. With limited resources and ever growing additional requirements, JCOMM is fully committed to work with RA’s and we thank you for providing us the opportunity to provide our input in improving interaction between RAs and TCs

______

39 Commission for Climatology (CCl)

This is CCl’s response to the questionnaire. I consulted with everyone on the CCl Management Group prior to writing this. So it incorporates insights from many of our team. Where I didn’t have anything particularly insightful to add, I just left that section blank. Sorry for the formatting, the document I was sent was a scanned in image. If we had been sent a Word file or even a normal pdf, I could have edited it and maintained the formatting. Please consider that in future interactions. Regards, Tom Peterson

Enhancing RA and TC Cooperation

1. What steps RAs and TCs should take to enhance cooperation (i) Constituent Body level

Action Item #40 from our last CCl Management Group meeting reads in part “Invite chairs of climate working groups of Regional Associations to participate in part of the next meeting of the CCl MG.” This was suggested by Kiyoharu Takano (CCl OPACE III co-chair) and agreed to by the entire MG. I don’t know whether that will actually produce worthwhile results but we intend to try. CCl makes sure we have at least one member of our Management Group from each Region. It might help interactions if RAs invited the CCl MG member from their region to some of their meetings. (iii) Working Group/Task Team

CCl makes sure we have at least one member of our Management Group from each Region. So one possible way to improve interactions is for RAs to put their Region’s CCl MG member onto relevant climate related working groups. See response to 2iii below.

(iv) Expert Level, etc.

2. Case study of successful examples (and unsuccessful examples also as we need to learn from the mistakes of others because we won’t live long enough to make them all ourselves): (i) Constituent Body Level (ii) Management Group (iii) Working Group/Expert Level etc. Ten years ago, CCl set up four Implementation and Coordination Teams (ICT), one for each OPAG. These ICT accomplished nothing. So four years later I tried to abolish them but didn’t quite succeed. Instead we set up one ICT with membership to include representatives from each RA’s team on climate matters – I don’t recall exactly what those RA teams were called. But I do clearly recall that this ICT accomplished absolutely nothing in four years. RCCs appear to CCl to be excellent and successful interactions between RAs and TCs. Rodney Martinez, CCl’s OPACE IV co-chair, reports that he has excellent relations with RA II, partly due to serving as a member of the RA Working Group on Climate Services and partly due to other meetings he attends. How much of this is in response to his role in CCl and how much is due to his role at CIIFEN, I can’t say. But whatever the reason, it does seem to help the communication between the RA and CCl. Indeed, as I understand it, communications on climate matters in general has improved greatly in South America.

3. Key recommendations a. Planning b. Implementation

40 4. RA TORs, Roles, Responsibilities: TORs: Despite this question, no link to the RA TORs was sent. Furthermore, I could not find the RA TORs using a Google search and the person I asked at WMO to send me the TORs or pass me on to someone who could never responded. So I don’t know what the TORs are. But it seems to me that they probably should not be altered. The core goal is not to strengthen the link between the RAs and TCs for the link’s sake, but rather to improve the link as a means of helping the RA’s achieve one or more of their TORs. How a TOR should be accomplished is not generally specified in the TOR. Therefore, I see no need to change the TORs.

Roles: Responsibilities:

______