1. GEO Implementation Boards Considerations and Lessons Learned (Document 8) Max Craglia (EC) Co-chair of the Infrastructure Implementation Board (IIB) On behalf of IDIB, IIB, SBIB

2. Transition of governing structures 4 > 3 > 1 2005: Architecture and Data, Capacity Building, Science & Technology, User Interface. 2011: Institutions and Development Implementation Board (IDIB), Infrastructure Implementation Board (IIB), Societal Benefits Implementation Board (SBIB) 2015: Programme Board A few reflections and recommendations for the future based on the experience developed over the last 10 years by the previous structures.

3. Challenges and Lessons Learned: IDIB General: The GEO approach works because the goals are shared and after 10 years people are still involved and willing to contribute Coordination across the many tasks, boards, and working groups is a challenge, particularly in a voluntary-best-effort initiative. Need to focus on measureable results and have clear measures of what are good, bad or average results Keeping people involved in the GEO activities and in coordination is crucial. This requires also giving recognition to the few that are really active rather than just a name on a list. Extending the GEO community is crucial. This requires providing useful data, information, services, best practices, and support to advance policy and practice in the GEO member countries (e.g. on data sharing and management).

4. Challenges and Lessons Learned: IIB Developing and maintaining a GEO System of Systems relying on voluntary best-effort and in-kind resources is a formidable challenge because of the cultural and disciplinary diversity in the GEO community, rapid technological change, and organisational practices and investments that are autonomous and moving at different speeds. Yet it moves! It is far from perfect but it works if you accept diversity and build upon it rather than impose top down one size-fit-all solutions. Most urgent improvement is making the GEOSS infrastructure more relevant by closing gap between policy and scientific demand of GEO initiatives, flagships and global initiatives like SDGs and the supply of data and services through GEOSS.

5. Challenges and Lessons Learned: SBIB Sustaining the commitment by volunteers to participate in activities of the Board and to remain fully engaged with the SBAs, which also have different working styles, some more active than others. A lot of time and effort was taken in target assessment given the wide range of tasks under this Board. Limited follow up of assessments, lack of mechanisms to track progress and feedback from EXCOM made sustained commitment more challenging Difficulty in communicating the severity of the lack of funding as cause of delay, and difficulty in finding resources to support activities. Engaging GEO members and national structures in supporting SBAs is a challenge. Better connections needed between GEO principals and scientific experts from their countries working on different GEO tasks, or related activities in home institutions. SBAs that have only a few priority projects had more success in delivering high profile results (e.g. GEOBON)

6. Recommendations for the next decade: IDIB Keep the engagement during the transition to the next decade More attention to cross-cutting activities (e.g through WGs on science and technology, user engagement, and capacity building) Some key factors for success: –Keep people motivated, provide recognition of effort, mentor new participants, engage new communities, capture and spread success stories, identify measureable targets and follow-up on recommendations made.

7. Recommendations for the next decade: IIB Governance of GCI and its evolution crucial for sustainability of GEOSS. Need to avoid fragmentation particularly during transition period between different key foundational tasks. Increase collaboration and joint activities between technology and data providers on the one hand and data and scientific and policy-making users on the other. Sustain operations of GCI as a public good and promote GEOSS architecture principles of openness, effectiveness, flexibility, sustainability, and reliability as basis for evolution of GCI, and interoperability with other initiatives and global and regional level. Implementation of data sharing and data management principles and practices are crucial to develop reliable products and services based on GEOSS.

8. Recommendations for the next decade: SBIB Develop stronger GEO national coordination mechanisms and structures to involve more national communities into GEO, mobilize resources, and help address societal needs. Promote improved engagement and recognition of national and individual efforts Support cross-cutting themes such as climate and weather-related work that may lose visibility in new programme as well as the SDGs. Have clear and measureable targets against which progress can be made. Ensure continuity between the SBIB (and other Boards) and the new PB.

9. Conclusions GEO works because it is a voluntary effort and there is enormous good will in the GEO community. Coordination is and will remain a major challenge, and all the more difficult during this transition period in which new structures have to be established and need to find their working patterns. Leveraging past experience is important as much as extending the reach to new communities and resources. Targets have to be measurable and achievable. Having a high level of ambition is good but needs to be matched by realistic assessment of resources in order to be credible. Stronger links with national GEOs is needed to mobilize resources and achieve the societal benefits which are the primary mission of GEO.

10. 10 Thank you!