1. Land Glaciers Landcover Fire
Issues and remarks
(synthesis after presentations and discussion)

2. URD’s / PSD’s
URD‘s:
Clear differentiation between URD and PSD is feasible for terrestrial ECV‘s
Should be developed further, later in phase 1.
Demo dataset is proposed to
Tool for re-itteration with community; „Do we match expectations?“
Show users practically result of URD/PSD exercise
Get feedback and clarify potential missunderstandings (e.g. accuracy definition)

3. CCI merit
Qualitative statement on comparison of current state of the art products and CCI products are existing for all projects.
No single place for user to see additional merit.
Proposed to make a conscise summary in workshop report in form that can be given to public (« What is CCI and what is merit of products »)
Action: Each ECV to provide one sentence describing this

4. Consistency
Joint assessment of different ECV‘s is considered to be useful (e.g. Fire/Aerosol/GHG)
ECV users of data between ECV projects must communicate their needs/expectations clearly what would be needed for such an exercise (user only workshop? / CMUG)
Ask the wider user community

5. Consistency Table incomplete!
Consistency with Aerosol is considered to be most important at the current stage by Land ECV‘s
Rec: Golden year needed

6. Data processing
Terrestrial variables somehow unique in terms of spatial resolution
Inconsistencies in data pre-processing recognized
Need for a common L1 pre-processing (geometric and atmos. correction) is emphazized  mid term
[A]: L2 comparison
[A]: agree on common projection

7. Consistency / implementation
Near term: different to achieve consistency in the current phase
Mid term:
What is best approach to achieve consistency?
Example: ozone for ATCOR; better to use ozone product or use ECMWF ozone incorporating ozone CCI data?
Development of a strategy needed

8. AOB Need for a common data portal is expressed
Longterm data provision unclear