Remedy 1: Undertake short-term cross-network governance improvements
Remedy 2: Longer-term rationalisation of observational network governance
Non-satellite data sources identified as “reference” and “baseline” quality within GAIA-CLIM have greatly dispersed governance structures. There are numerous national, regional, and global networks, which aim to measure GAIA-CLIM target ECVs to a high standard. This dispersed governance leads to decisions, which, although sensible on an individual network basis, are sub-optimal on a more holistic basis.
This fractured governance both results from but also augments a diversity in historical and present-day funding support, authority, and observational program priorities. Inevitable deleterious results accrue from a fractured governance and support mechanism, which include:
- Geographical dispersal of capabilities
- Unintended and undesirable competition between otherwise synergistic activities
- Different networks take different approaches to data acquisition (measurement practices), data processing and serving, which reduces both accessibility to and comparability of the resulting data.
As such, many of the remaining gaps identified within the GAIA-CLIM GAID are symptoms of the effects of G6.01 remaining unaddressed (see prior section). Although the gap has been identified and articulated here solely for GAIA-CLIM target ECVs, it is symptomatic of broader issues that pervade the governance of all but perhaps for a small handful of non-satellite observational assets and programs. The norm is for multiple parties to be interested in measuring given ECVs and other variables. These parties inevitably undertake a diverse range of approaches, which reduces their comparability and interoperability.
The G6.01 gap is an effect multiplier on many of the gaps identified in the GAID. As such, its resolution would facilitate resolution of numerous other gaps. Solely a handful of important dependencies are noted here.
The gap identified in G6.02 arises as a result of G6.01. One of the key benefits of resolution of G6.01 would be the potential to rationalise dispersed observational assets.
The resolution to G6.03 will be simpler if a more unified governance of non-satellite measurement networks is achieved and the data is provided from these networks in a more unified manner.
The data policy landscape is a direct result of the fractured governance of observational assets identified in the current gap. Resolving the current gap would aid steps to address the issues detailed in G5.01.
Current governance of high-quality measurement programs is highly fractured. Numerous networks exist at national, regional, and global levels that have been set up and funded under a variety of governance models. This fractured management of observational capabilities can lead to, amongst others: redundancies, spatiotemporal gaps, varied data policies and formats, varied data processing choices, and fractured provision of data. The gap thus contributes to various other more specific gaps identified in the gaps-assessment process undertaken within GAIA-CLIM.