salinity and nutrient data. The resulting programme was perhaps less than a geochemist would
have wished for but was an example of concentrating on the specific goals of WOCE. In the
event, a major survey of CO 2 in the oceans was
developed under the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme’s (IGBP) Joint Global
Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) with measurements on
WOCE cruises (Wallace, Chapter 6.3).
From the start, it was recognized that the scale
of the experiment and the likely level of resources
would leave little room for redundancy in the
observations if the objectives were to be achieved.
This fact in itself led to a continuous critical evaluation of the data requirements of each component
of the experiment. In retrospect this can be most
clearly seen in Volume 2 of the Implementation
Plan, in which the achievement of the scientific
plans was linked to a series of largely non-redundant observations. At the time, there was some
discussion whether Volume 2 was a useful part of
the implementation plan, but it has served as a
valuable tool in identifying critical observations.
George Needler, Director of the WOCE International Planning Office (IPO) for the important initial
4 years from 1985, led the writing of the Implementation Plan. The Plan was prepared over several
months in early 1987 and engaged the resources of
the IPO, SSG members (and other colleagues drafted
in). Volume 1 gave the detailed description of the
observations to be made, parameter by parameter,
while Volume 2 linked the observations to the
scientific objectives. An advantage of the presentation adopted in the Plan is that it is easier to identify
the critical observations and to classify others,
which, though important in some regional or other
scientific context, as less important.
1.3.4.1 The Intergovernmental WOCE Panel
(IWP)
During the planning phase, CCCO was a constant
source of support, taking on much of the responsibility for keeping WMO, IOC and ICSU in touch
with the experiment and resolving bureaucratic
issues that arose. The implementation of the Law
of the Sea and, in particular, the components of it
relating to access to the Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZ), was of concern. Dynamically important
boundary currents lay within such regions and
there were a number of instances where access was
difficult to negotiate or in some cases refused.
It remains to be seen what impact this lack of
access had on the data set and whether future
programmes need be concerned.
Soon after the 1988 WOCE Conference, the
IOC established the Intergovernmental WOCE
Panel (IWP) to assist the WOCE community in
meeting the scientific, managerial, implementation
and resource needs of WOCE as defined by the
SSG. The IWP’s objectives were similar to those of
the Panel that had been established by WMO for
TOGA. At its three sessions between 1990 and
1995, IWP provided nations with another opportunity to make commitments to WOCE. Even
though the scientific community through the
efforts of CCCO and JSC and their sponsors and
subsidiary bodies worked diligently to accommodate all potential WOCE participants, some
nations still wanted coordination of their WOCE
activities at the intergovernmental level. Each IWP
meeting ‘uncovered’ some new resources and
tended to force nations to be specific about their
participation. Access to EEZs was discussed and,
in at least one case, the IOC was successful in providing the mechanism through which rights were
obtained. The IWP still exists and could be utilized
if needed during the final phase of WOCE.
1.3.4.2 The data-sharing model developed by
WOCE
Prior to WOCE, the principal international mechanism in place for exchange of data from research
activities was that through the World Data Centre
system. This had been created, in support of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY), in 1958.
Oceanography in particular had benefited through
a long-term collaboration between national data
centres to the extent that there was at least a major
archive of hydrographic data. However there
were, and are, major problems with that system
when applied to specific programmes:
¥ submissions to the archive were delayed by
many years;
¥ data were of varied and often unknown quality;
¥ only a small number of, mainly hydrographic,
parameters were collected systematically; and
¥ national centres, with only a few exceptions, had
not been committed to active data management
for a project.
Roger Revelle (personal communication, 1982)
commented that data management was one of the
1.3 The Origins, Development and Conduct of WOCE
39
Thompson, Crease and Gould
have wished for but was an example of concentrating on the specific goals of WOCE. In the
event, a major survey of CO 2 in the oceans was
developed under the International GeosphereBiosphere Programme’s (IGBP) Joint Global
Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) with measurements on
WOCE cruises (Wallace, Chapter 6.3).
From the start, it was recognized that the scale
of the experiment and the likely level of resources
would leave little room for redundancy in the
observations if the objectives were to be achieved.
This fact in itself led to a continuous critical evaluation of the data requirements of each component
of the experiment. In retrospect this can be most
clearly seen in Volume 2 of the Implementation
Plan, in which the achievement of the scientific
plans was linked to a series of largely non-redundant observations. At the time, there was some
discussion whether Volume 2 was a useful part of
the implementation plan, but it has served as a
valuable tool in identifying critical observations.
George Needler, Director of the WOCE International Planning Office (IPO) for the important initial
4 years from 1985, led the writing of the Implementation Plan. The Plan was prepared over several
months in early 1987 and engaged the resources of
the IPO, SSG members (and other colleagues drafted
in). Volume 1 gave the detailed description of the
observations to be made, parameter by parameter,
while Volume 2 linked the observations to the
scientific objectives. An advantage of the presentation adopted in the Plan is that it is easier to identify
the critical observations and to classify others,
which, though important in some regional or other
scientific context, as less important.
1.3.4.1 The Intergovernmental WOCE Panel
(IWP)
During the planning phase, CCCO was a constant
source of support, taking on much of the responsibility for keeping WMO, IOC and ICSU in touch
with the experiment and resolving bureaucratic
issues that arose. The implementation of the Law
of the Sea and, in particular, the components of it
relating to access to the Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZ), was of concern. Dynamically important
boundary currents lay within such regions and
there were a number of instances where access was
difficult to negotiate or in some cases refused.
It remains to be seen what impact this lack of
access had on the data set and whether future
programmes need be concerned.
Soon after the 1988 WOCE Conference, the
IOC established the Intergovernmental WOCE
Panel (IWP) to assist the WOCE community in
meeting the scientific, managerial, implementation
and resource needs of WOCE as defined by the
SSG. The IWP’s objectives were similar to those of
the Panel that had been established by WMO for
TOGA. At its three sessions between 1990 and
1995, IWP provided nations with another opportunity to make commitments to WOCE. Even
though the scientific community through the
efforts of CCCO and JSC and their sponsors and
subsidiary bodies worked diligently to accommodate all potential WOCE participants, some
nations still wanted coordination of their WOCE
activities at the intergovernmental level. Each IWP
meeting ‘uncovered’ some new resources and
tended to force nations to be specific about their
participation. Access to EEZs was discussed and,
in at least one case, the IOC was successful in providing the mechanism through which rights were
obtained. The IWP still exists and could be utilized
if needed during the final phase of WOCE.
1.3.4.2 The data-sharing model developed by
WOCE
Prior to WOCE, the principal international mechanism in place for exchange of data from research
activities was that through the World Data Centre
system. This had been created, in support of the
International Geophysical Year (IGY), in 1958.
Oceanography in particular had benefited through
a long-term collaboration between national data
centres to the extent that there was at least a major
archive of hydrographic data. However there
were, and are, major problems with that system
when applied to specific programmes:
¥ submissions to the archive were delayed by
many years;
¥ data were of varied and often unknown quality;
¥ only a small number of, mainly hydrographic,
parameters were collected systematically; and
¥ national centres, with only a few exceptions, had
not been committed to active data management
for a project.
Roger Revelle (personal communication, 1982)
commented that data management was one of the
1.3 The Origins, Development and Conduct of WOCE
39
Thompson, Crease and Gould