Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth
Observing System (SIOS)
WP2 – Legal and Governance Structure:
D2.3 Workshop of national representatives on
legal and governance structure
Lead contractor for D2.3:
Other contributing contractors:
Lead authors:
Contributing authors:
D2.3 Due date:
Delivery Date:
Research Council of Norway (RCN)
AWI, CNR, NPI, UNIS, IGFPAS, NERC, UIB
G. Hansen (RCN), K. Refsnes (RCN)
SIOS Policy Board and SIOS-PP SteeringBoard
month 14 (1 December 2011)
20 March 2012
1st SIOS-PP Policy Board Meeting
7 February, 2012, 12:00 – 8 February, 2012, 14:00
Venue: Soria Moria Hotel, Oslo, Norway
Chair: Kari Balke Øiseth, Director General, Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Participants: see Appendix 1.
Minutes
Topic PB-1. Welcome and short presentation of the participants
DG Kari Balke Øiseth welcomed the participants of the 1st SIOS-PP Policy Board meeting.
She underlined the great interest of the Norwegian government in the SIOS project, but also
the dependence of the project’s success on international participation. She also emphasized
that all documents to be presented at the meeting have been prepared by RCN as the SIOS-PP
coordinator, not by the Ministry.
There were no comments to the agenda.
Topic PB-2. Introduction on SIOS and current status of the SIOS-PP project
Georg Hansen gave a comprehensive presentation of the background, development and current
status of the SIOS initiative in general and the SIOS Preparatory Phase (SIOS-PP) project. A
document describing these aspects was sent out in advance.
Questions about the scientific profile (key topics), including proposed infrastructure were
postponed to topic PB-6. A question regarding possible criteria for SIOS labelling of
instrumentation were also postponed, to topics PB-4 and PB-6.
Topic PB-3. Status of national arctic policy and investment plans, and role of SIOS herein
All national representatives had, in advance, been asked to give short information about the
above topics. The individual presentations are accessible at the internal project website. The
following text only summarizes important points.
Berit Nereng, on behalf of the Norwegian Ministry for Education and Research, underlined
the importance of SIOS in the Norwegian roadmap for infrastructure and its placement in the
National Financing Initiative for Research Infrastructure. She also presented the government’s
expectations on SIOS, with a focus on increased research cooperation and open access to
infrastructure and data.
Dick van der Kroef, NWO (Netherlands), informed about the Dutch Polar Programme and the
Dutch Roadmap on Big Facilities. Applications to the latter programme require minimum
costs of 10 mill. Euro. No SIOS-related application has been received, most probably because
the Arctic research community is too small. A possible Dutch participation in SIOS will
therefore have to be funded via the Polar programme, which only has limited resources (< 1
mill. Euro/year).
Dongmin Jin, KOPRI, presented, on behalf of KOPRI Director Hong Kum Lee, recent
developments in Korea’s Arctic research strategy. Assuming a close relationship between
Arctic conditions and weather conditions in Eastern Asia, Arctic research has received
increasing attention in recent years; this development will continue. SIOS/Svalbard will be
one of several focus areas in the Arctic, addressing atmosphere, terrestrial and ecosystem
research. The SIOS gap analysis is actively used to initiate new cooperation projects with,
e.g., Italy and Norway. The envisaged contribution to the SIOS core unit is minor compared
to other activities and thus not a hinder for participation in SIOS.
Jacek Gierlinski, Polish Ministry of Science and Education, underlined the long history of
Polish research in the Arctic and Poland’s active role in bringing the Arctic into EU’s research
policy. Poland has a national roadmap on infrastructure comprising 33 projects, among those
one on Polar research (PolarPOL), with SIOS as its international branch. Poland could
envisage investments of approximately 2 mill. Euro in the SIOS project; contributions to the
SIOS operational budget will have to be 10% of the current operational budget of Polish
infrastructure in the Arctic at maximum.
Alan Rodger, on behalf of UK Policy Board member Nick Owens, expressed the great interest
of the UK in Arctic research, but informed at the same time on great budget related problems,
including severe cuts. UK contributions would therefore rather focus on existing
infrastructure, including the Ny-Ålesund station (Harland House), 2 research aircrafts and a
research vessel (“James Clark Ross”) which has capacity for taking on board more research
activities. He also introduced the Artic Research Programme 2011-2016 which has a total
frame of ca. 16 mill. Euro.
Joachim Harms, Projektträger Jülich – Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung,
introduced the German funding structure which is based on two pillars: project support
through DFG and basic funding of institutes, e.g., in the Helmholtz Association of research
institutes. Generally, participation in projects like SIOS will have to be initiated by
scientists/institutions. Major additional investments could be envisaged in the frame of
agreements between BMBF, German institutes and international partners.
Kazuyuki Shiraishi, Director of NIPR, Japan, first gave an overview over Japanese Arctic
research in recent decades and especially activities in Rabben Station, Ny-Ålesund, since
1991. A new Arctic research programme, including the establishment of a consortium for
Arctic environmental research, has been started up recently with an annual budget of
approximately 6 mill. Euro/year. Dr. Shiraishi also presented upgrades and new
infrastructures envisaged for Japanese activities in Svalbard, focusing on atmospheric and
terrestrial ecosystem research.
Beichen Zhang, representing Polar Research Institute of China on behalf of its director, also
underlined the increasing interest in China in Arctic research issues triggered by climate and
weather anomalies in recent years. He could not give any promises regarding funding of the
SIOS core unit, as such investments and operational costs first have to be applied for, either
via the Yellow River Station or on a project basis from NSF or Ministry of Science and
Technology (MOST).
Oleg Ditrich, on behalf of the Czech Policy Board member Josef Elster, presented the Czech
research activities in recent years. He informed that a new Czech station will be established
probably in Ny-Ålesund. The Czech Republic does not have an ESFRI Roadmap and an
overarching Arctic research programme, but direct governmental support to institutions active
in the Arctic.
Yves Frenot, Director of the French Polar Institute, gave an overview over the structure, the
activity profile and the resources of IPEV. The share of Arctic activities has increased from
21% in 2010 to 30% in 2012. SIOS could be a perfect tool to further strengthen this
increasing level of activities in the Arctic supported by the government. He strongly
advocated the use of existing infrastructure, especially Corbel Station, the new clean air
station outside Ny-Ålesund that recently has been refurbished and fitted with renewable
energy sources.
Magnus Friberg, Vetenskapsrådet, Sweden, introduced the Swedish Roadmap on
Infrastructure which is updated on an annual basis. Currently, SIOS is not on the roadmap.
Yet, Sweden has a number of concrete proposals on upgrading infrastructure on Svalbard,
both related to SIOS and ICOS. He underlined that all Swedish engagement, including
contribution to the SIOS OC has to be backed by the scientific community.
Enrico Brugnoli, director DTA-CNR, presented Italy’s new Strategic Arctic Project which
would have a profound link to and influence on SIOS. It comprises a strengthening of current
activities as well as the establishment of new activities in solar terrestrial, atmospheric,
marine, terrestrial ecosystem and geological/geophysical research. The main basis for
activities is and will be the Kongsfjord area and Ny-Ålesund, but it is envisaged to extend the
geographical activity radius. The Italian SIOS consortium comprises CNR, INGV and 6
universities. At a national level ESFRI initiatives with relevance for the Arctic are strongly
coordinated (SIOS, EMSO, ICOS, EPOS).
Rahul Mohan, NCAOR, India, gave an overview over Indian activities in the Arctic which
started in 2007 and cover a wide field of disciplines. The Indian activities will be confined to
the Kongsfjord/Ny-Ålesund region, strengthened by a MoU with the Norwegian Polar
Institute. The programme is planned for 2012-2017 with a financial frame of ca. $ 20 mill.
Vladimir Masloboev, Vice President of Kola Science Center of RAS, gave a presentation of
the most recent developments which are the basis for Russian research in Svalbard, with a
focus on sustainable development and Svalbard’s role as an international meeting platform.
This was followed by an overview over Russian and especially RAS’ research installations on
the archipelago. He strongly recommended to use SIOS for a better exploitation and
coordination of already existing infrastructure and an improved Norwegian-Russian
cooperation as an important element in SIOS.
Kirsti Kauristie, FMI, presented on behalf of the Finnish member of the Policy Board, an
overview over the Finnish roadmap for infrastructures. Currently, SIOS is not on the
roadmap, which however is updated every 3 years. She gave several examples of Finnish
participation in international activities on Svalbard, mainly on atmosphere, but also future
possibilities regarding, e.g., measurement technology. With respect to supersites, Finland will,
though, focus on Lapland where similar infrastructure has been established. Thus, it will
require some efforts to bring SIOS on the Finnish roadmap.
Topic PB-4. Draft proposal of a SIOS governance structure including observation platforms,
(Deliverable D2.2), presentation and discussion
Karin Refsnes gave a short introduction on the first draft for the structure and governance
model of a future SIOS infrastructure.
Core elements of the draft are:
- The SIOS infrastructure as a whole will comprise both a coordinating core unit and a
multitude of observational infrastructure.
- The SIOS legal entity is proposed to be limited to the core unit, but with the option of
an extension by observational and logistical elements.
- All existing and probably most new observational infrastructure will be linked to the
legal entity via suitable agreements, e.g., Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs).
- The basic funding model for the SIOS legal entity should be equal shares for all
participating countries, irrespective economic-financial potential.
- The most important governance body of the infrastructure will be a Governing Board
where all participating countries are represented. In case of many partner countries a
supplementing Executive Board will be established.
- Voting rights have to be developed which reflect both the contribution to the core unit
and observational infrastructure contributions.
- All research institutions linked to or owning observational infrastructure will be
formally represented through a General Assembly which will have an important role
in developing a dynamic science plan for the SIOS infrastructure and its
implementation in the infrastructure.
In the following discussion no principal objections were put forth to these proposals.
Moments to be considered in further work:
- The future SIOS legal entity should not own scientific infrastructure itself, but one can
keep this option open, in case the SIOS member states at some time come to the
conclusion that it might be necessary.
- The term “MoU” should be reserved for the agreements between the SIOS legal entity
and the operators/owners of observational infrastructure;
- Criteria for the selection of officially labeled SIOS observational infrastructure have to
be carefully defined;
- Any new agreements related to SIOS have to be harmonized with existing bi- and
multilateral agreements between research stations;
- In the frame of the investment plan one should have a special focus on upgrading or
renewal of existing infrastructure;
- There may be the need to distinguish between core scientific infrastructure (with
stronger binding agreements) and more peripheric infrastructure;
- Financial conditions to access SIOS should not be made too challenging (low
minimum accession fee);
- The valuation of scientific infrastructure provided by the countries/future SIOS
partners with respect to voting rights needs to be worked on. At the same time the
system should not be made too complicated.
Topic PB-5. Inventory and analysis of legal structure options for SIOS (Deliverable 2.1),
presentation and discussion
(Michael Klages, AWI, Member of SIOS-PP Steering Board)
Kari Balke Øiseth opened this topic with a statement on the Norwegian government’s position
regarding the “European Research Infrastructure Consortium” (ERIC) legal tool developed by
the European Union for future ESFRI infrastructures. Norway in principle welcomes this tool,
but wishes to have the same status as EU member countries on voting rights, before the
regulation can be included in Norwegian legislation. In the first instance this was rejected by
EU; negotiations are continuing.
Michael Klages, AWI, presented the content of Deliverable 2.1 “Inventory and Analysis of
Legal Structure Options”. The main conclusion of this document was that the ERIC model
indeed would be the best option for the SIOS legal structure, not least because related
environmental ESFRI project tend to this solution. Alternatives to this model are:
- A multilateral agreement set, including a “Special Purpose Vehicle” (SPV) which has
the status of a legal entity;
- A national (shareholder) company under Norwegian law (aksjeselskap; AS).
In the short discussion there was agreement that one should be open to both ERIC and
alternative options. It was pointed out that in fact alternative models have been proposed and
are used in ESFRI projects that have reached the implementation phase (PRACE, FAIR,
XFEL). Work on the detailed content of a future agreement can start without a decision on the
tool, since the ERIC tool is highly flexible.
Topic PB-6. Presentation of the gap analysis and the draft investment plan - new scientific
infrastructure and upgrade of existing infrastructure – discussion on how to set priorities
Georg Hansen gave a short introduction on the SIOS Gap Analysis process which was
completed in July 2011 and resulted in a description of scientific key topics, existing
observational infrastructure and proposed new infrastructure. He pointed out the clear
overweight of existing infrastructure over new proposals and the lack of an adequate
mechanism to quality-assure and assign these proposals to participating countries. He also
presented a first proposal for a structure of the observation platforms. Cynan Ellis-Evans,
NERC, Member of SIOS-PP Steering Board, followed up by describing the overarching
guidelines for investment prioritizations which were worked out by Kim Holmén and himself
on behalf of the SIOS Steering Board.
The following discussion provided feedback to be considered in the future work:
- The proposed organization of observational infrastructure in platforms is rather
traditional; the focus should rather be on integrational/interdisciplinary models;
- There needs to be a clear definition of long-term measurements as the backbone of
SIOS;
- But: also short-term process-oriented observations should be explicitly included, e.g.,
in the prioritization document;
- Earth System Models should be actively involved in the definition of the SIOS
observation programme;
- The harmonization of the SIOS and the national Arctic strategies is a great challenge;
bilateral or limited multi-lateral processes have proven more successful in the past;
-
An important criterion for SIOS should be the implementation of year-round
observations contrasting to seasonal observations which currently dominate;
Additional observation sites need to be included in SIOS; this requires new,
environmentally friendly technical approaches.
The chair concluded that the Steering Board must continue the work to clarify the aim
and scope of SIOS
Topic PB-7. Information about first cost estimates of general infrastructure - SIOS
Operational Centre/Knowledge Centre
On behalf of Ragnhild Rønneberg, UNIS, Karin Refsnes presented a first overview over the
potential tasks to be covered by the future SIOS core unit, the SIOS Operational Centre (SIOS
OC), and a crude estimate of the minimum financial resources needed to operate such an
organization. As the SIOS OC is intended to be located in the Svalbard Science Park and will
mainly be a service centre, the establishment of it will not require large financial resources;
the only unknown in this assumption is the hard- and software needed to accomplish the
envisaged data management. Estimates were given for a minimum staff of 8 persons and a
larger option of 16 persons.
Few comments were made on this presentation. However, it was questioned whether 8
persons really were needed from the very start of the project. It was also proposed to hire in
staff from partner institutions on a short-term basis (maximum 1 year). This was responded to
by stating that in any case there needs to be a basic staff hired on a long-term basis in order to
secure continuity in the vital functions of a new self-going organization. One possibility to
combine the two views would be to partially hire on-site staff with similar working tasks, e.g.,
from Svalbard Science Forum.
Topic PB-8. Environmental framework conditions and their influence on SIOS
Kim Holmén, Norwegian Polar Institute and member of the SIOS-PP Steering Board,
presented the basic principles of environmental legislation in Svalbard which date back to the
Spitsbergen Treaty from 1920, and their consequences for research activities on and around
Svalbard today. The Svalbard Environmental Act from 2002 sets very strict limitations to new
large research infrastructure establishments outside the existing settlements and especially in
the protected areas (about 65% of the Svalbard landmasses). A further concretization will
come via the Management Plan for East Svalbard which is currently being worked out. It will
necessitate the development of new observation and monitoring techniques with a virtually
non-existing environmental footprint.
Topic PB-9. A.O.B
- Potential visits of the coordinator for bilateral discussions
- Next Policy Board meeting
It was agreed that one should arrange the next Policy Board meeting in late 2012, preferably
back-to-back with the 3rd SIOS-PP General Assembly. The secretariat offered to visit partner
countries for bilateral consultations; this will be decided on after request.
Appendix 1. Participants of the 1st SIOS Policy Board Meeting 7-8 February, 2012 Soria Moria Hotel Oslo
Surname
Title
E-mail
Affiliation
Acronym
Country
Berthinussen
Brugnoli
David
Ditrich
Ellis-Evans
Enomoto
Eriksen
Frenot
Friberg
Gierlinski
Glowacki
First
name
Ingrid
Enrico
Christine
Oleg
Cynan
Hiroyuki
Odd Ivar
Yves
Magnus
Jacek
Piotr
Mrs
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RCN
CNR
IPEV
USB
BAS
NIPR
RCN
IPEV
VR
NAUKA
IGF-PAS
Norway
Italy
France
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Japan
Norway
France
Sweden
Poland
Poland
Hambro
Hansen
Harms
Christian
Georg
Joachim
Mr
Mr
Mr
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
RCN
RCN
BMBF
Norway
Norway
Germany
Holmén
Haaland
Kim
Live
Mr
Mrs
[email protected]
[email protected]
NPI
KD
Norway
Norway
Jin
Kauristie
Klages
Dongmin
Kirsti
Michael
Mr
Mrs
Mr
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
KOPRI
FMI
AWI
Korea
Finland
Germany
Masloboev
Vladimir
Mr
[email protected]
KSC-RAS
Russia
Mohan
Rahul
Mr
[email protected]
NCAOR
India
Nereng
Berit
Mrs
[email protected]
KD
Norway
Refsnes
Rodger
Shiraishi
Karin
Alan
Kazuyuki
Mrs
Mr
Mr
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Research Council of Norway
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Institut Polaire Francais Paul Emile Victor
University of South Bohemia
British Antarctic Survey
National Institute of Polar Research
Research Council of Norway
Institut Polaire Francais Paul Emile Victor
Vetenskapsrådet
Ministry of Science and Higher Education
Institute of Geophysics – Polish Academy of
Sciences
Research Council of Norway
Research Council of Norway
Projektträger Jülich - Bundesministerium für
Bildung und Wissenschaft
Norwegian Polar Institute
Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research
Korea Polar Research Institute
Finnish Meteorological Institute
Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und
Meeresforschung
Kola Science Center – Russian Academy of
Sciences
National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean
Research
Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research
Research Council of Norway
British Antarctic Survey
National Institute of Polar Research
RCN
BAS
NIPR
Norway
United Kingdom
Japan
Van der Kroef
Vitale
Westphal
Zhang
Øiseth
Dick
Vito
Elisabeth
Beichen
Kari Balke
Mr
Mr
Mrs
Mr
Mrs
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
NWO Earth and Life Sciences
Conzilio Nazionale delle Ricerche
Research Council of Norway
Polar Research Institute of China
Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research
NWO
CNR
RCN
PRIC
KD
Netherlands
Italy
Norway
China
Norway