13th SRNWP Meeting
12 October 2006, Zurich (Switzerland)
Lists of Decisions and Minutes
Decisions concerning the choice of the SRNWP Projects
1. Three topics have been selected as SRNWP Projects that
should accompany the SRNWP Programme, with a dedicated financing for each
Project. They are:
- Interoperability
- Model Verification
- European multi-model LAM EPS
2. For each Project, a "Redaction Committee"
will be formed for the preparation of the corresponding Project Proposal. Each
Consortium communicates to the Programme Manager till the end October 2006 the
name of its representative for each of the 3 Redaction Committees.
3. When the names of the Consortium representatives
are known, the Programme Manager will contact the members of each Redaction
Committee for the organisation of the work.
Decisions concerning the new governance
1. The Lead Centres are dissolved and replaced by
Working Groups (WG) centred on NWP topics.
2. The SRNWP Workshops are maintained and their
organisation goes under the responsibility of the WG. Each WG will have the
responsibility to organise workshops on the field of its competence when it
judges it appropriate. The rule "a workshop every two years" is
abandoned.
3. The EWGLAM Meetings remain annual. They follow the
format defined at the 27th EWGLAM Meeting (2005 in Ljubljana). The idea to
organise together with Academia "European Conferences on dynamical
meteorology and NWP" is abandoned.
4. A "SRNWP Advisory Committee" will be
created to better represent the Consortia in the Programme and to support the
Programme Manager in his work.
5. A "Programme Redaction Committee" will be
formed for the preparation of the Programme Proposal. Each Consortium
communicates to the Programme Manager till the end October 2006 the name of its
2 representatives.
6. When the names of the Consortium representatives are known, the Programme Manager will contact the members of the Programme Redaction Committee for the organisation of the work.
---------------------------------------------------
Minutes of the Meeting
Participation
- 56
participants from 25 European NMS.
- The EUMETNET CO, Jean-Pierre Chalon, participated to the meeting and explained how the financing of Programmes and Projects works by EUMETNET.
The entry page for the "List of Participants" is to be found under http://srnwp.cscs.ch/Annual_Meetings/2006/entrypage2006.htm
Aim of the
Meeting
The aim of the Meeting was to take important decisions concerning the goals and the governance of the third phase of the EUMETNET SRNWP Programme starting January the 1st, 2008.
Goals for the 3rd phase of the Programme: Projects
chosen
New for the third phase of the Programme will be the submission to Council of Projects on precise topics which should accompany the Programme with a dedicated financing for each Project.
The comments written and circulated as reactions to the draft Programme Proposal distributed by the Programme Manager contained a wealth of proposals where the Programme should be active.
All these proposals have been summarized by the Programme Manager in its presentation.
Discussion of
the goals
The proposals received could be classified in 5 chapters:
- Enhancement of the operational cooperation
- Enhancement of the scientific cooperation
- European multi-model LAM EPS
- Diffusion of the NWP knowledge
- Training and education activities in NWP
See slides 11-16 of the Manager's presentation http://srnwp.cscs.ch/Annual_Meetings/2006/MainPresentation.htm
Enhancement of the operational cooperation
Numerous proposals have been made under this heading in the comments received. During the meeting it became immediately clear that the priority must be given to the interoperability.
Under the general term "interoperability" we must understand primarily the definition or the harmonization of standards for the input and output of the
- data assimilation schemes (this implies agreement on formats for the observations)
- models
- post-processing packages (at least for the input in order to allow exchange of postprocessing programmes).
Interoperability was also the most prominent theme identified for collaboration at the First Vision Workshop (15-17 March 2006). This underlines the absolute necessity to become active in this field if we want to significantly increase collaboration.
We should also add to our choice "interoperability" the proposals made under the same theme at the Vision Workshop:
- A more general use of ECMWF software in the operational suites of the NMS
- A common approach to the framework for running NWP systems (cf. PRISM for example).
Enhancement of the scientific cooperation
Among the several propositions made, common model verification and model comparison stood in the fore front.
The wish to compare our main LAM models (HIRLAM, ALADIN, Local Model and Unified Model) has been already expressed by our Directors in the ICWED Meetings as well as in EUMETNET Council Meetings. But this was considered in the past as a ticklish issue, although it was accepted that model comparison could bring much for model improvement.
The Vision Workshop has also recognized the importance of model verification and has proposed to "Initiate a project to enable us to work closer on verification of models and user benefits".
European multi-model LAM EPS
As for the two propositions above, the Assembly has chosen as third proposition a theme which has also been selected at the Vision Workshop: European multi model LAM EPS.
It is hoped that the result of this Project will be the European contribution to TIGGE-LAM, a future component of the THORPEX initiative.
Diffusion of the NWP knowledge
All the comments received as well as the remarks made during the meeting stipulated that this activity - which is the main activity of the present programme - should continue.
The wish has been expressed that the liaison role of the Programme should be reinforced - particularly with the ECMWF - and extended to the climate community.
But it has been decided not to make a dedicated Project of this activity as it will remain the basic activity of the NWP Programme.
Training and Education Activities in NWP
It has been considered important that the SRNWP Programme becomes active in this field: activity in training and education was proposed in all the comments and has been stressed again during the meeting. Several ideas have been suggested, for example the organisation of summer schools for the NMS and Academia.
Although considered as important, it has been decided not to make a dedicated EUMETNET Project of this activity. But inside SRNWP, a small WG should be formed to deal with this topic.
Submission of
the Project Proposals
For each of the following Project
- interoperability
- common model
verification and model comparison
- European
multi model LAM EPS
a Project Proposal stipulating among other things
- the objectives of the Project
- the deliverables and their benefits for the users
- the milestones
- the budget
- the Responsible Member
- the participating NMS in case of a group
has to be written down and submitted to the EUMETNET Council.
The three Project Proposals must be sent to the
EUMETNET Secretariat end of April 2007 at the latest if the Projects, after acceptance
by Council, are going to start at the beginning of 2008.
It has been
decided at the meeting to form a small "Redaction Committee" for each
Project.
Constitution of
the Redaction Committees for the Projects
Number
of persons
At the meeting, we agreed on 2 persons per Consortium.
We have 5 Consortia. This would give 10 persons plus the help of the Programme Manager for each Redaction Committee.
As there is a steadily growing number of meetings and workshops where Consortia have to be represented and as the travelling budgets are in the NMS everywhere very tight, I think that one person per Consortium is sufficient. This would give for each of the 3 Projects a group of 5 persons for the formulation of the Proposal, with the Programme Manager helping to format the Proposals according to the EUMETNET practice.
Choice of the persons (opinions of the Programme Manager)
Although not discussed at the meeting, allow me the following remarks, knowing that the choice of the Consortium Representatives is of the sole responsibility of the Consortia.
Redaction Committee for Interoperability
In my view, the persons responsible of the maintenance and operation of the model reference versions would be very suitable for this work.
Redaction Committee for Common model
verification
As we hope to use common verification schemes not only for biases and rmse, very experience scientists in verification with an interest for new and unconventional methods should be chosen.
Redaction Committee for the European
multi-model LAM EPS
Most of the LAM EPS specialists will participate at the ALADIN-HIRLAM LAM EPS Workshop of Vienna (13-14 Nov. 2006). At this meeting, we should discuss the European participation to TIGGE-LAM. It would be efficient if the "redactors" could be chosen among the participants to this meeting: they would have the latest information and we could organise the first meeting of this Redaction Committee in Vienna after the ALADIN-HIRLAM Workshop.
The names of the Consortium Representatives have to be communicated to the SRNWP Programme Manager till the 31st of October 2006.
After, reception of the names, the Programme Manager will liaise with the 3 groups in order to organise the work.
It has been said at the meeting that a first report will be provided at the end the year.
New Governance for the 3rd phase of the SRNWP
Programme
At the meeting, we discussed the future role of the
- Lead Centres
- SRNWP Workshops
- EWGLAM Meetings
- Advisory Committee
Replacement of the
Lead Centres (LC) by Working Groups (WG)
Three functions or duties have been defined for the Lead Centres when they have been created in 1999:
1. Organise every two years a workshop
on their topic of responsibility
This function has been entirely fulfilled.
2. Inform regularly the other NMS on the
state of the art in their topic of responsibility
This function has been only partially fulfilled.
It was foreseen that the LC would report at the annual EWGLAM/SRNWP meetings. But because of agenda constraints, only 15 minutes could generally be put at the disposal of a LC for its report.
These reports were very divers, from very short to comprehensive. Many LC have simply reported on their activity of workshop organisers.
A thorough fulfilment of such a function necessitates resources: it is necessary to spend time studying the literature as well as to participate to conferences and workshops also outside Europe. This function is not at all supported financially by the Programme.
3. Act as consultant for the NMS in
their topic of responsibility
This function has never been activated.
The reason for this is that in the last 6-8 years, the collaboration between the NMS inside the Consortia has steadily increased. Thus the interlocutor that a NMS would primarily consult for a scientific problem was, and still is, its Consortium.
In view of the experiences made in the past and considering that it will not be possible for EUMETNET to support financially the NMS hosting a Lead Centre, the Assembly decided to replace the Lead Centres by Working Groups centred on NWP topics.
Unfortunately, we had no time at the meeting to define the number of Working Groups we would like to have and the fields they should cover.
In order to save time and be ready for January 2008, we suggest mentioning in the Programme Proposal only a limited number of WG, as it will always be possible later for the Advisory Committee to modify this choice. The "Programme Redaction Committee" will make a first choice mirroring the topics of the Consortia Working Groups or Project Teams.
Functions of
the Working Groups
- Existence of Working Groups made of specialists in a specific field will permit to much more easily find out what the possibilities of cooperation between Consortia in each particular field would be.
- It will be the responsibility of the WG to organise SRNWP Workshops in their field. The rule "a workshop every two years" is abandoned. Each WG will decide when it is appropriate to organise a workshop.
- It will be the responsibility of the Chairperson of each WG to present each year at the EWGLAM Meeting the state-of-the-art in the field of competence of his/her WG.
- As there will be at least one representative of each Consortium in each Working Group, the function of consultancy for the NMS is implicitly fulfilled.
SRNWP Workshops
The SRNWP Workshops are an important activity of the Programme.
These workshops are of a high scientific level and well attended as this can be seen from the workshop reports in the Programme web site.
For each of the following topics
- variational methods in data assimilation
- non-hydrostatic modeling
- numerical techniques
- soil processes and assimilation of soil and surface variables
- statistical and physical adaptation of model results
- verification of high resolution model results
- short-range ensemble prediction systems
we have as a rule that a workshop should be organised every two years.
Two of these workshops are characterised by a regular participation of scientists outside Europe (mainly from Canada, USA and Japan):
- workshops on non-hydrostatic modeling
- workshops on variational methods in data assimilation.
It has been decided to keep the SRNWP Workshops in existence. The responsibility to organise them goes to the WG. Each WG will have the duty to organise workshops in the field of its competence when it judges it appropriate. The rule "a workshop every two years" is abandoned.
EWGLAM Meeting
It has been decided to keep the EWGLAM Meeting annually, following the format defined at the 27th EWGLAM Meeting (2005 in Ljubljana) and applied for the time this year with great success at the Zurich Meeting.
The idea to organise together with the Academia "European Conferences on dynamical meteorology and NWP" is abandoned.
SRNWP Advisory
Committee (AC)
This point gave rise to the longest discussion when the Assembly discussed the different aspects of the new governance. A vote took place and the set-up of a SRNWP Advisory Committee has been accepted by 20 votes again 2. The Advisory Committee will allow a better representation of the Consortia in the Programme and a better support of the activity of the Programme Manager.
Constitution of the SRNWP Advisory Committee
It appeared clearly that to constitute it with one Representative per SRNWP Member (27 NMS!) would give far too large a group. The Advisory Committee has to be centred on the Consortia even when the latter have no legal existence in EUMETNET (only the NMS are legal Members).
We had unfortunately no time to discuss the size of the AC: either a very small group in the sense of a "daily management group" or a larger group that would concentrate its work on the important questions only. There has also been no time to discuss the rule or the formula to be used for the representation of the Consortia in the AC. The factors to be considered could or maybe should be the number of Members of the Consortia and its overall financial contribution. The "Programme Redaction Committee" will study the question.
Contacts with
the Academia
In his draft Programme Proposal the Programme Manager has raised the issue of the low degree of collaboration between the SRNWP Programme and the Academia. Quote: "In Europe, the collaboration of the NMS with Academia should be intensified. This was also the wish of the NWP Vision Meeting of March 2006 at the ECMWF which has passed a recommendation in order to develop better working relationship with Academia".
As the idea of common European Conferences on NWP will not be followed, it has been proposed at the meeting that the contact in NWP between the NMS and the Academia should be realised through the Working Groups. The WG members will know in their field of research their colleagues of the Universities. A good starting point for an enhanced collaboration would be to open the SRNWP Workshops to the relevant specialists working at Universities.
Preparation of
the Programme Proposal and Programme Decision for the EUMETNET Council
The present phase of the SRNWP Programme ends the 31st of December 2007.
The Programme Proposal and the Programme Decision have to be sent to the EUMETNET Secretariat the 30th of April 2007 at the latest.
We can presently forget about the Programme Decision which can be considered as a summary of the Programme Proposal and can be rapidly prepared if the Programme Proposal treats accurately all the relevant issues.
It has been decided at the meeting to form a "Programme Redaction Committee" for the preparation of the Programme Proposal. We agreed on 3 persons per Consortium. This would give of group of 15 persons, 16 with the Programme Manager. This is too large a group. Two representatives per Consortium would give together 11 persons. This would be more than enough.
The review of the present report by the Local Organizer of the Zurich Meeting is cordially acknowledged.
For the report:
Jean Quiby
SRNWP Programme Manager