1. Review of Candidate GEO Initiative “Geohazard Supersites and Natural Laboratories 2.0”
Prepared by:
Review Team Lead: Jonathon Ross – CEOS Delegation (Alternate)
Review Team Member: Prof. Heiko Balzter – UK Delegation (Principal)
Review Team Member: Hyun-Ok Kim – ROK Delegation (Principal)

2. Context
GSNL connects researchers and practitioners around the globe to advance and apply geophysical scientific research for “geohazard assessment in support of Disaster Risk Reduction”.
GSNL focusses on a specific set of ‘Supersites’:
Permanent Supersites (ongoing programme of study)
Event Supersites (intense study after an ‘event’)
GSNL 1.0 has been in operation for 5 years and there has been positive feedback from:
The researchers involved
Those contributing data (e.g. space agencies)
The beneficiaries of the research and products: the institutions responsible for the management of the ‘hazards’

5. Objectives of 2.0
Enable the global scientific community open, full and easy access to a variety of space- and ground-based data, focusing over selected, high risk areas of the world: the Supersites and the Natural Laboratories.
Promote advancements in geohazard science over the selected sites.
Report scientific results relevant to geohazard assessment to authoritative bodies and other DRR stakeholders, supporting informed decision-making in Disaster Risk Management activities;
Innovate technologies, processes, and communication models, enhancing data sharing, global scientific collaboration, and capacity building in geohazard science.

6. What happens in 2.0?
Consolidate the GSNL 2.0 concept and increase the number of scientists involved in active research at each Supersite.
Establish relationships with the regional GEO initiatives to stimulate their community to contribute to GSNL
Note: Presently there are two Supersites in the Americas but none in Africa.
Capacity building will be emphasised. The supersites will increasingly promote the involvement of local scientists in international research
Explore development funding opportunities, in close coordination with GEO-DARMA and agencies including the World Bank.
Inclusion of a more ‘user driven’ angle - end-users able to propose specific priority objectives to the global scientific community.

7. Review Process Draft submission prepared by GSNL team
Initial review drafted by review team to identify issues/questions
Teleconference to discuss issues/questions with Chair of the GSNL Scientific Advisory Committee, Stefano Salvi, and the following other members of GSNL leadership:
Giuseppi Puglisi
Florian Haslinger
Falk Amelung
Massimo Cocco
Final review drafted by review team
Final submission prepared by GSNL team

8. Initial thoughts
Meets the requirements for an Initiative as set out in the Strategic Plan.
The scope is well defined and bounded:
Specific supersites, with criteria for accepting supersites;
Geohazards (rather than just ‘all hazards),
Evidence of ‘convening’ power is strong:
Players along the supply chain (from data providers to end users in civil protection) included.
Mobilizes resources by tapping in to existing programmes.
Good ‘mandates’:
Excellent links to national mandates (through those responsible for managing the hazards per national policy).
Historically not linked to a formal ‘international’ mandate.

9. Initial thoughts Integration of satellite and in-situ data:
Provision of in-situ data is a condition of a supersite.
Evidence this is working – in-situ providers know they will ‘get something back’.
‘Feedback loop’
Through regular evaluations including the users.
Creates evidence of success.
Scalable model, balancing:
Global governance and coordination – enabling the efforts in one area to benefit others.
Ability to ‘scale up’ and add superites.

10. Gaps in initial proposal
How addressed
Data management practices (specifically assuring compliance with the DMPs).
A reference document on the compliance to DMP for each Supersite will be prepared, and Supersite coordinators will implement actions for alignment to DMP.
Lack of detail on specific products and services to be created (deliverables are of a more generic nature, rather than specific scientific products and results to be delivered to supersites).
A list of the typical ‘target’ products is now clearly outlined in the document.
Evaluation relative to the ultimate objective (impact on DRR outcomes).
This is now addressed, however (not surprisingly) the team not the challenges with this (which are absolutely not unique to this initiative). Strong engagement with end users in the review process gives as good a chance as any to gather useful information on this.
Explaining the linkages with other GEO activities, e.g. GEO-DARMA, regional initiatives like AfriGEOSS and AmeriGEOSS.
Now clearly described in the proposal:
Explore development funding opportunities, in close coordination with GEO-DARMA and agencies including the World Bank.
Establish relationships with the regional GEO initiatives to stimulate their community to contribute to GSNL.

11. Transition to Flagship
There is a general policy mandate coming from the Sendai Framework that supports this type of activity.
The nature of the GSNL Initiative makes it an excellent ‘Incubator’ for future Flagships.
Recommended that team monitor potential opportunities to establish a mandate for a spin-off Flagship, e.g.
If there is a sudden political focus on volcanic activity it may be possible to ‘scale up’ from services and sites proven through the Initiative.

12. Opportunities
May be helpful to identify a ‘target’ future set of supersites, linked to policy drivers that may be identified through e.g. GEO-DARMA, where efforts to build coalitions are underway.
Continue to promote establishment of a ‘SE Asia Natural Laboratory’.
GEOSEC advice and support on mobilizing resources from international development programmes.

13. Recommendation
The review team recommends that the GEO Programme Board propose “Geohazard Supersites and Natural Laboratories 2.0” for inclusion in the GEO Work Programme.