remote sensing and environmental treatiessedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties/rs_treaties.pdf ·...

Remote Sensing and Environmental Treaties

The Workshop on Remote Sensing and Environmental Treaties was sponsored by theSocioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) of the Center for International EarthScience Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University. Co-sponsors include theEnvironmental Change and Security Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center forScholars, IUCN-The World Conservation Union and MEDIAS-FRANCE. The Workshop onRemote Sensing and Environmental Treaties home page can be found at:http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties

The Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) was established in 1989as an independent non-governmental organization to provide information that would helpscientists, decision-makers, and the public better understand their changing world. In 1998,CIESIN relocated from its original home in Michigan to become part of Columbia University’s EarthInstitute. From its offices at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, NewYork, CIESIN continues to focus on applying state-of-the-art information technology to pressinginterdisciplinary problems at the intersection of human and environmental systems.

Report edited by Alex de Sherbinin, CIESIN. Work supported by the U.S. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Goddard Space Flight Center under contract NAS5-98162. The views expressed in thisreport are not necessarily those of CIESIN, Columbia University, NASA, or the co-sponsors.

CIESIN at Columbia UniversityP.O. Box 100069 Route 9W

Palisades, NY 10960 USATel. +1-845-365-8988Fax +1-845-365-8922

Web: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu

IUCN-The World Conservation UnionUS Multilateral Office

1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20009Tel. +1-202-387-4826Fax +1-202-478-0061

Web: http://www.iucn.org/places/usa/

Environmental Change and Security ProjectWoodrow Wilson International Center

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20523

Tel. +1-202-691-4130Fax +1-202-691-4184

Web: http://ecsp.si.edu/

MEDIAS-FRANCECNES – Bpi 2102

18 avenue Edouard-Berlin31401 Toulouse cedex 4 France

Tel. +33-561-28-26-67Fax +33-561-28-29-05

Web: http://medias.meteo.fr

Remote Sensing and Environmental Treaties:

Building More Effective Linkages

Report of a Workshop

December 4-5, 2000

Woodrow Wilson International Center

Washington, DC

Sponsored by the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center

Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)

Columbia University

In association with:

Environmental Change and Security Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center

IUCN-The World Conservation Union

MEDIAS-FRANCE

March 2001

Acknowledgements

The Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) of the Center for International Earth ScienceInformation Network (CIESIN) would like to acknowledge the assistance of the workshop organizingcommittee.

Co-Chairs:

Dr. Robert C. Harriss, Director and Senior Scientist, Environmental and Social Impacts Group, NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research

Dr. Oran Young, Director, Institute on International Environmental Governance and Institute of ArcticStudies, Dartmouth College

Members:

Dr. Tony Buscalacchi, Laboratory for Hydrospheric Processes, NASA/Goddard Space Flight CenterDr. David L. Downie, School of Public and International Affairs, Columbia UniversityDr. Jack Estes, Remote Sensing Research Unit, Dept. of Geography, UC Santa BarbaraDr. Ron Mitchell, Institute for International Studies, Stanford UniversityDr. M.J. Peterson, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, AmherstDr. Kal Raustiala, School of Law, University of California - Los AngelesDr. Christopher Small, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia UniversityDr. June Thormodsgard, Science and Applications Branch, EROS Data Center, USGSMr. Woody Turner, NASA HeadquartersDr. David Victor, Council on Foreign RelationsDr. Shira B. Yoffe, Dept of Geography, Oregon State University

This report is available on the web at http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties


Table of Contents ______________________________________________

Abbreviations and Acronyms 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 9

II. PLENARY PRESENTATIONS 11

II.1 Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) 11

II.2 Panel on Remote Sensing for Environmental Governance 12

II.3 Keynote by the Assistant Secretary of State for OES 15

II.4 Closing Panel: Conclusions and Next Steps 17

III. BREAKOUT GROUPS 20

III.1 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Breakout Group 20

III.2 Atmosphere and Climate Change Breakout Group 21

III.3 Institutional and Remote Sensing Instrument Design Breakout Group 22

ANNEX 1. WORKSHOP AGENDA 24

ANNEX 2. PARTICIPANT LIST 26

ANNEX 3. QUESTIONS FOR BREAKOUT GROUPS TO CONSIDER 29

6


AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

CCD Convention to Combat Desertification (1994)

CEOS Committee on Earth Observation Satellites

CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (1973)

EC European Commission

FCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)

GHGs Greenhouse Gases

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

GOOS Global Ocean Observing System

GTOS Global Terrestrial Observing System

IGOS Integrated Global Observing Strategy

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN The World Conservation Union

LRTAP Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (1979)

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973/78)

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement

Montreal Protocol Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987)

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OESBureau for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs ofthe U.S. Department of State

Ramsar Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971)

RS Remote sensing

SAI Space Applications Institute of the EC’s Joint Research Centre

SEDAC Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center of CIESIN

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (1994)

Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985)

WAO World Agricultural Outlook

World Heritage Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage

Abbreviations & Acronyms _____________________________________

7


Executive Summary ____________________________________________

The workshop on Remote Sensing and Environ-mental Treaties was organized by CIESIN’s Socio-economic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)to address the growing needs for data and informa-tion to support the negotiation and implementationof multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).Specifically, the workshop sought to explore thepotential for enhancing the effectiveness of MEAsthrough the appropriate application of remote sens-ing data and technology. The workshop convened68 professionals from the remote sensing commu-nity and MEA constituencies, including environ-mental NGO representatives, environmentallawyers, political scientists, and officials of the USState Department, for two days of lively discus-sions in plenary and breakout groups.

The rapid growth in the number of environmentaltreaties since the 1972 Stockholm Conference onthe Environment has been an encouraging sign ofinternational commitment to protecting the envi-ronment. Today, more than 240 global and re-gional environmental agreements address almostevery conceivable aspect of the Earth’s biophysi-cal systems. This proliferation of MEAs has pro-duced a new demand for environmental data andfor better understanding of the socioeconomic pro-cesses and government policies that affect the en-vironment. Remotely sensed data are critical tounderstanding Earth systems and human impactson those systems, and can ultimately contribute tothe design of improved policy instruments.

Conclusions

Remote sensing creates demand for better envi-ronmental law. Remote sensing is an unparal-leled source of information that conveyenvironmental changes in a visually compellingway. As a result, it is extremely useful for raisingawareness and developing the political supportnecessary to strengthen MEAs and environmentallaws at the national level.

Remote sensing data provide a synoptic view ofmany environmental trends. Remotely sensedimagery can provide both snapshots and data overtime that address environmental issues at global,regional and national scales. It can provide these inconsistent formats and in ways that complementnational-level data collection efforts, which are of-

ten under-resourced and inconsistent from countryto country.

Remote sensing can contribute to global assess-ments in support of MEAs. Remote sensing pro-vides timely information on a large and growingnumber of environmental issues such asland-use/land-cover change, carbon-monoxideplumes, and the carbon density of ecosystems,which can significantly contribute to global envi-ronmental assessments in support of MEAs (e.g.,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeand the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).

Remote sensing has the potential to contributeto compliance verification. However, for this tohappen, developments need to occur in at leastthree areas:

1. The perception of environmental issues:Sovereignty concerns have taken precedenceover enforcement of treaty provisions, andtherefore contracting parties have tradition-ally been unwilling to accept external verifi-cation. Until global or regional threats fromenvironmental change are perceived to sig-nificantly affect national interests, states areunlikely to accept strict enforcement oftreaties by third parties.

2. The technology: Many treaty-specific re-mote sensing applications are still experi-mental; these applications need to be furtherrefined before they will have the credibilitynecessary for use in compliance verification.

3. Data access: Issues such as guaranteed ac-cess to data by all parties, documentation ofmethodologies, and long-term data archivingneed to be addressed.

Recommendations

Remote sensing instruments. There is a need todevelop a coordinated suite of environmental mon-itoring instruments with long-term data continuityat appropriate spatial, spectral, and temporal reso-lutions. Some satellites, such as Landsat, alreadyprovide crucial data, and the continuity of the pro-gram needs to be maintained. Data archiving ser-vices should be developed in parallel. For MEAapplications to become operational, the price ofland-based remote sensing data would need to

8


more closely approximate that of meteorologicaldata, which have traditionally been available atlow cost on an open-access basis.

Institutional arrangements. An international in-stitution should be mobilized to promote coordina-tion at three levels: among space agencies, amongspace agencies and value-added companies, andamong these two groups and MEA constituencies.An existing institution, such as the Committee onEarth Observation Satellites (CEOS) or the Inte-grated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS), may beable to fill this role. This institution would alsoserve as a focal point for the development of thenext generation of operational satellite systems(see point above). Given that the costs of such asystem are likely to be beyond the means of anysingle country, a cooperative approach wouldserve to spread the costs among multiple provid-ers.

Awareness raising and training. MEAs constitu-encies, including secretariats and contracting par-

ties, need to be educated about the capabilities ofcurrent and future remote sensing instruments.They also need to receive training and capacitybuilding in the use of remote sensing data for envi-ronmental monitoring.

It was agreed that the workshop represented thefirst step in a dialogue between the remote sensingcommunity and MEA constituencies, and that fur-ther exchanges are needed. CIESIN will continueto foster that dialogue through the workshop website (sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties). Fur-thermore, in response to participants’ recommen-dations, CIESIN will summarize case studies oftreaty-specific remote sensing applications that canserve as a “state-of-the-art” in the field, and willalso consult with convention secretariats abouttheir remote sensing data needs. Reports on theseactivities, conference announcements, and infor-mation on the projects and programs of partner or-ganizations will be available at the website.

9


The workshop on Remote Sensing and Environ-mental Treaties was organized by CIESIN’s So-cioeconomic Data and Applications Center(SEDAC) to address the growing needs for dataand information to support the negotiation and im-plementation of multilateral environmental agree-ments (MEAs). More specifically, the workshopsought to explore the potential for enhancing theeffectiveness of MEAs through the appropriate ap-plication of remote sensing (RS) data and technol-ogy. The workshop convened 68 professionalsfrom the remote sensing community and MEAconstituencies – including environmental NGOrepresentatives, environmental lawyers, politicalscientists, and officials of the US State Department– for two days of lively discussions in plenary andbreakout groups (see Annex 1 for the workshopagenda, and Annex 2 for the list of participants).

The rapid growth in the number of environmentaltreaties since the 1972 Stockholm Conference onthe Environment has been an encouraging sign ofinternational commitment to protecting the envi-ronment. The Earth Summit in 1992 providedadded impetus to the establishment of multilateralenvironmental agreements (MEAs), with the for-mation of three major conventions: the Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention toCombat Desertification (CCD), and the UNFramework Convention on Climate Change(FCCC). Today, more than 240 global and re-gional environmental agreements address almostevery conceivable aspect of the Earth’s biophysi-cal systems.

The proliferation of MEAs has produced a new de-mand for environmental data and information, andfor better understanding of the socioeconomic pro-cesses and government policies that affect the en-vironment. This information contributes to thedesign of improved policy instruments. Remotelysensed data are critical to understanding Earth sys-tems and human impacts on those systems. Al-though not the only tool for gathering such data,remote sensing (RS) complements in situ monitor-ing in the following ways: it provides accurate, ob-jective and comparable data; it can providesnapshots of ecological regions of widely-varyingscales; and because it is sensed from space it canpresent a wide range of relevant data synoptically

and without directly infringing national sover-eignty.

MEAs are evolving, open processes, which arecontinually reviewing implementation and devel-oping new measures to improve effectiveness.Furthermore, there is no sign that the growth in thenumber of MEAs, especially at the regional level,will let up. Remote sensing can greatly contributeto the ongoing development and refinement ofMEAs by assisting in problem definition and cata-lyzing action. It can also be used by researchersseeking to understand or evaluate regime effec-tiveness, and assist contracting parties in nationalreporting processes and other assessments relatedto implementation.

There is growing interest in the application of re-mote sensing technology to MEAs on the part ofcontracting parties to these treaties, conventionsecretariats, scientists, donors and environmentalnon-governmental organizations (NGOs). This in-terest has been sparked in part by the tremendousgrowth in the suite of observational data productsthat are now available from numerous long-run-ning programs in the United States, Canada, Eu-rope and Japan, as well as from developingcountry programs (Brazil, China, and India) andcommercial satellite ventures. Efforts are underway on a small scale to test remote sensing appli-cations in relation to MEAs, for example to moni-tor carbon sequestration under the Kyoto Protocol,or to examine land cover changes in the context ofthe CCD.

Yet the demand for tailored applications is poten-tially much larger. Participants at the Interlinkagesconference in July 1999 called for a “harmoniza-tion of methodologies, procedures and formats forthe gathering and analysis of information requiredof the Parties to environmental… agreements,”and identified remote sensing as “an underutilizedresource that should be focused more explicitly onMEA monitoring and implementation.” Similarly,a report prepared for the Environmental Director-ate (DG-XII) of the European Commission calledfor “greater dialogue between suppliers of earthobservation data and services (principally spaceagencies and value-adding companies) and usersof such information (e.g., parties to a treaty)…inorder to make parties to treaties more aware of the

Introduction and Background __________________________________

10


detailed and tailored capabilities of satellite [earthobservation] data and to inform suppliers of users’requirements.”

CIESIN, in association with IUCN, MEDIASFrance and the Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter, organized the remote sensing and environ-mental treaties workshop in order to bring togetheractors from the aforementioned communities for atargeted and results-oriented discussion on the ap-plications of remote sensing to enhance the effec-tiveness environmental treaties. The workshop’sobjectives were as follows:

• To increase awareness among MEA constit-uencies of the capabilities of, and the rangeof potential applications for, remote sensingtechnologies;

• To increase awareness on the part of the re-mote sensing community of the informationneeds of the contracting parties to MEAs;

• To form a network of individuals and insti-tutions interested in expanding the applica-tion of remote sensing to MEAs; and

• To develop specific recommendations forthe more widespread application of remotesensing data in treaty development, imple-mentation, and monitoring.

This report provides a summary of the workshopdiscussions and results. Section II summarizes ple-nary presentations. Section III provides the princi-pal conclusions and recommendations from thethree breakout groups that addressed, respectively,biodiversity and ecosystem management, atmo-sphere and climate change, and institutional andremote sensing instrument design.

AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) imagery such as this is useful for global and regionalscale land cover change and environmental monitoring, and for selected meteorological and climatologicalapplications.

So

urc

e:U

SG

SE

RO

SD

ata

Cen

ter

web

site

.

11


II. Plenary Presentations _______________________________________

The workshop included four plenary sessions: apresentation on the European Commission’sGlobal Monitoring for Environment and Security(GMES) initiative; a panel on the application ofremote sensing to global environmental gover-nance; a keynote speech by Mr. David Sandalow,Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Inter-national Environmental and Scientific Affairs atthe U.S. Department of State; and a closing panel.

II.1 Global Monitoring for Environ-

ment and Security (GMES)

Dr. Jean Meyer-Roux, Deputy Director of theSpace Applications Institute (SAI), Joint ResearchCenter (Ispra, Italy), presented on this initiative,which is a collaborative effort between the Euro-pean national space agencies and SAI.

Background: Europe has strong interests in globalmonitoring. However, there is no precedent for op-erational monitoring of environment and securityissues in Europe. In order for this to occur, a com-mon vision and implementation plan is necessary.Information from space contributes strongly to the“global” and the “monitoring” parts of environ-ment and security issues. Current capabilities al-ready exist to provide information of this type.Through the efforts of European space agencies,Europe has developed cutting-edge space technol-ogy capable of providing precise information on awide range of global environmental parameters,from operational meteorology to terrestrial andmarine resource assessment. Recognizing this, theEuropean space agencies met in Baveno, Italy in1998 and 1999 and agreed on the need for a com-mon action. Since that time, there has been a driveto develop a response through growing co-opera-tion between different actors in Europe.

The objective of GMES is to elaborate Europe’sglobal monitoring role in the field of environmentand security, showing how information from spacecan provide part of this role. GMES seeks to cap-ture and focus existing industrial and political ef-forts, and thus to provide a common framework tobring activities together and develop commonownership of a strategy. The technical issues arebeing examined through three working groups,which examine support to a) Kyoto Protocol im-

plementation and other environmental treaties, b)natural disasters (especially floods and forestfires), and c) environmental stress, populationpressures and humanitarian aid.

In his comments, Dr. Meyer-Roux indicated thatGMES began in 1998 as a technically driven ini-tiative by the European space agencies. It hasevolved into a politically accepted concept. Whatthe GMES has succeeded in doing is federatinguser needs – that is, the needs of EU member gov-ernments and Norway – thereby providing a usefulforum for interaction between the EC, governmentagencies involved in disaster preparedness or envi-ronmental negotiations, and the European spaceagencies. The GMES matches and tests thoseneeds against the most appropriate technology.The arm of GMES that is most operational is thenatural disasters group, headquartered at the SAI,which routinely responds to requests for maps anddata related to floods and fires throughout Europe.The environmental treaties working group is con-ducting pilot analyses to see how remote sensingcan be used in support of the Kyoto Protocol andthe Convention to Combat Desertification. Moreinformation on GMES, including a sample set ofproduct brochures, can be obtained on the web athttp://gmes.sai.jrc.it.

In the question and answer period, FredericNordlund of the European Space Agency addedthat his agency’s two main priorities are naviga-tion by satellite utilizing the Galileo system, andGMES. Ronald Mitchell of Stanford Universityasked if Dr. Meyer-Roux felt that there was a needfor brokers between the technicians and those whouse the products. Meyer-Roux responded that wehave the tools (the RS technology) and the instru-ments (agreements between countries for environ-mental management), and that a system needs tobe in place to bring these two sides together. Thiscosts money, and that is what the GMES is inplace to do: to raise the political profile of envi-ronment and security issues so that the funds willbe in place to respond to them. He added that gen-erally we are not serious enough about the imple-mentation of environmental agreements. MargaretFinarelli of the International Space Universityasked if other aspects of security, such as militaryand intelligence operations, were being includedunder the GMES rubric. Meyer-Roux responded

12


that they were attempting to build consensus, andtherefore it was determined that it would be betterto leave those issues to one side. Marc Levy ofCIESIN inquired about how the GMES came tofocus on the rather narrow issue of technical spec-ifications to meet the requirements of specifictreaty texts, rather than taking a broader perspec-tive of putting management systems in place forthe environment. Meyer-Roux responded that ifthe GMES were to succeed, it needed to be seen

as operational from an early stage, and so thereforeit needed to be tailored to specific treaty require-ments. Finally, there was some discussion aboutthe private sector role in GMES. What Dr.Meyer-Roux emphasized was that if the public sec-tor is going to pay for these systems, they mustmeet public needs, but that there was still a role forspace industries in helping to meet the require-ments for GMES.

Illustration of a Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) analysis of land cover change from1993 to 1998 in Madagascar. The image at left is a SPOT image and the table at bottom right is called achange matrix. It shows the amount of land that was converted from one land cover type to another betweenthe two time periods. Such analysis is useful for assessing deforestation and, indirectly, biomass andbiodiversity loss.

II.2 Panel on Remote Sensing for

Environmental Governance

This panel was moderated by Dr. Gérard Begni ofMEDIAS-FRANCE, and included presentationsby Dr. Anthony Janetos of the World ResourcesInstitute (WRI), Mr. Woody Turner of NASAHeadquarters, Dr. Durwood Zaelke of the Centerfor International Environmental Law (CIEL), andDr. Marc Imhoff of NASA’s Goddard SpaceFlight Center.

Dr. Janetos led off by describing the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment. Just as the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change provides scien-tifically grounded assessment of the drivers, risks,

and potential impacts of climate change to theFramework Convention on Climate Change(FCCC), the Millennium Assessment is intended toprovide scientific guidance to the biodiversity re-lated conventions (CBD and Ramsar in particular).Dr. Janetos indicated that the Assessment is a pro-cess designed to improve the management of eco-systems and their contribution to humandevelopment by helping to bring the best availableinformation and knowledge on ecosystem goodsand services to bear on policy and management de-cisions. The Assessment consists of a global scien-tific assessment as well as catalytic regional,national, and local assessments and has the aim ofbuilding capacity at all levels to undertake inte-grated ecosystem assessments and to act on theirfindings. According to Dr. Janetos, the Assessment

So

urc

e:S

pac

eA

pp

lica

tio

ns

Inst

itu

te,

JRC

.

13


will provide information to, and strengthen the ca-pacity of, government agencies and NGOs, but itwill not set goals or advocate specific policies orpractices. He then reviewed a number of globalland cover data sets, including one describing per-cent tree cover by the Global Land Cover Facility.He showed some images of deforestation in Brazilillustrating the distinct herring-bone pattern of de-forestation along recently constructed roads.These data sets demonstrate current applicationsof RS for the monitoring of global ecosystems.

Although he believes that RS data can be of greatutility to global environmental governance,Janetos ended his talk with four cautions:

1. RS often provides only proxy measurementsfor the parameters we are really interestedin. If we would like to know about changesin land cover, particularly the change inarea from one form of cover to another, RSdoes a good job of providing this informa-tion. However, if we are interested inchanges in carbon density of specific eco-systems, the measures are not yet well de-veloped.

2. RS data cannot be used alone. They need tobe accompanied by selectiveground-truthing, which is time and labor in-tensive. Furthermore, they need to be in-cluded in models if they are going to haveany predictive power.

3. There are significant asymmetries in theutility and use of RS data between devel-oped and developing countries. The finan-cial barriers to RS data analysis aresignificant, and the availability of the ana-lytical techniques is often limited towell-funded developed country institutions.Training and capacity building for develop-ing countries has to be part of the equationif the data are going to be politically ac-cepted in negotiation or compliance pro-cesses.

4. There is no clear commitment on the part ofthe United States to maintain its RS capacityand data in the public domain. For the Mil-lennium Assessment, and for ecosystemmanagement applications more generally,there is a need for higher resolution datathan are currently available through the con-tinuously operating meteorological satel-lites, whose data (such as the 1 Km

resolution AVHRR) are in the publicdomain. However, there is no institutionalcommitment to keep the Landsat programoperational, and to ensure that the data arewidely and publicly available at a reasonablecost.

Mr. Turner’s presentation focused on theMeso-American Biological Corridor agreement,and the RS activities in support of the agreementbeing undertaken jointly between NASA and theCentral American Commission on Environmentand Development (CCAD). The biological corri-dor is a combination of protected areas and man-aged landscapes that forms a continuous wildlifemigration route from Panama to the Mexican oborder. This is an area of rich biodiversity. PartlyoOwing to its position between North and SouthAmerica, Central America possesses7 to 8 percentof the Earth’s species on less than one percent ofits surface area. The region has suffered fromarmed conflicts, and the ecosystems are understress from population growth, legal and illegallogging, slash and burn agriculture, and cattleranching. In the late 1990s, the CCAD approachedNASA for remote sensing technical support, and in1998 an MOU was signed. Turner emphasized thatthe impetus for the MOU came from the CentralAmerican side; NASA did not go into the regionlooking for an application for its technology, butrather, owing to the rapid rates of land coverchange in the region, the regional partners saw aneed for it.

The project includes land cover/land use mapping,and seeks to develop techniques for change detec-tion and metrics to measure fragmentation. NASAand project partners at the University of Maine aremapping forest distribution and status in order todevelop and test biomass estimates using radardata. Utilizing a mosaic of Japanese JERS radardata as the baseline for mapping, and adding digi-tal elevation data and optical remote sensing imag-ery for nine intensive study areas has allowed theproject to bring a variety of remote sensing assetsto bear on the challenge of understanding the statusof landscapes within the corridor. Field work is be-ing undertaken by Central American counterpartsto validate the data. So far the project has devel-oped a number of important data sets and a website for data dissemination (http://ghrc.msfc.nasa.gov/ccad/), and it has carried out three trainingworkshops for capacity building.

14


Turner emphasized that RS data had helped toraise the profile of deforestation in the first placeby alerting the public and decision makers to thescope of the problem. In 1988, a Landsat imagewas released showing the Mexican and Guatema-lan borders in the Petén region of Guatemala,with the Mexican side largely deforested and theGuatemalan side still largely under forest cover.The stark contrast at the border, clearly shown inthis image, prompted one of the first meetings indecades between the Mexican and Guatemalanpresidents to discuss management of border lands,and was probably a significant reason for the de-velopment of the Biological Corridor. In conclu-sion, Turner suggested that RS can:

• Change minds

• Build consensus

• Enhance understanding

• Enable monitoring over time

• Bring people together across boundaries toaddress common problems

• Provide a powerful tool for international co-operation

Dr. Zaelke of CIEL began his remarks by statingthat international and national environmental lawmaking is moving more slowly than the problemsthat the laws are seeking to address. Global envi-ronmental problems will get worse faster than thegeneral public thinks, and this rapid worsening ofenvironmental conditions will be accompanied bycalls for better environmental laws. Through its in-volvement in the Environmental Law InformationService (ELIS) and other programs, CIEL hopes tobe ready when the public and policy makersawaken to the need for better environmental laws

Landsat imagery depicting deforesation along the Mexican side of the border between Mexico andGuatemala raised concerns about the impact of land clearing on forest ecosystems, and provided some ofthe impetus for the development of the Meso-American Biological Corridor. This agreement among CentralAmerican states led to the creation of a biodiversity corridor running like a spine from Mexico to Panama,providing protected habitat for migrating species as well as economic opportunities through the sustainableuse of forest resources.

So

urc

e:N

AS

A.

15


and legislation. ELIS, for example, seeks to linkdigital earth science data to environmental law inan on-line information system (http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~elis/). With respect to interna-tional environmental law, Zaelke emphasized thatit is heavily dependent on good scientific informa-tion. To develop agreements such as CBD orFCCC, there needs to be an acceptance at the po-litical level that the scientific evidence points to asignificant environmental problem.

Over time agreements are being negotiated andimplemented more rapidly. The Law of the Seatook ten years to develop. Current agreements arebeing negotiated at a much faster pace. However,the agreements are still a long way from being en-tirely effective, and the secretariats are generallyweak, lacking sufficient funds or personnel tocarry out their missions. The agreements also needcontinuous monitoring. One development Zaelkewould like to see take place is the inclusion of lawin scenario building, such as that done by theStockholm Environment Institute or World Re-sources Institute. He feels that if the scenarios arerealistic enough, they could provide a strong mes-sage that greater strides are needed for improvinginternational environmental governance. Zaelke,like the previous speakers, emphasized the needfor capacity building among developing countries.He mentioned that many have difficulty simplywith managing the legal aspects of internationalenvironmental negotiations. If they are to benefitfrom the use of remote sensing in support of theseagreements, they will need training and financialassistance.

Dr. Imhoff of NASA Goddard Space Flight Cen-ter spoke about a number of new remote sensinginstruments that have either been recentlylaunched, or will be launched soon, and whichcould support the implementation of environmen-tal agreements. One such instrument is MOPPIT,which can trace carbon-monoxide emissions,which is proxy for a number of greenhouse gases.A video clip showed detection of plumes ofsmoke from agricultural land clearing in West Af-rica and Central and South America, and indus-trial emissions in Europe and the northeasternUnited States, as they are blown by winds overneighboring regions. Merging this kind of data ina GIS can provide a very powerful analytical tool.

Imhoff serves on the scientific committee of thePathfinder program at NASA, which seeks to de-velop small, quick turn-around sensors that can fillimportant scientific data gaps. Pathfinder solicitsproposals every three years, and he suggested thatif audience members had specific pilot projects thatcould help to meet MEA related needs, and that an-swer important science questions, they should con-tact him for details on the proposal process.Pathfinder contrasts with the Earth Observing Sys-tem (EOS), which develops large instruments cov-ering longer time periods, with far larger budgets.Imhoff indicated that NASA’s larger science pro-jects are developed in response to needs identifiedby the National Science Council, the NationalAcademy of Science, or the US Global Change Re-search Program. Instrument development is fairlyinteractive with the science community, but so farthe process has not involved wider MEA constitu-encies such as convention secretariats, contractingparties or environmental NGOs. What gets builtdepends in large part on what is technically, tech-nologically, and financially feasible.

II.3 Keynote Address by the Assis-

tant Secretary of State for OES

Mr. David B. Sandalow, Assistant Secretary ofState for Oceans and International Environmentaland Scientific Affairs (OES), spoke during a lunch-time plenary on the second day. His full remarkscan be found on the workshop web site.

Mr. Sandalow began by describing the work ofOES, which is the arm of the US State Departmentresponsible for monitoring and negotiating interna-tional agreements on environment, as well as civilscience and technology issues. It is not difficult todocument the proliferation of MEAs that has oc-curred in the past decade. OES’s portfolio includesover 180 international treaties and conventions onenvironment, science, technology and health. Sincethe 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro the num-ber of negotiations, agreements and treaties OESsupports has nearly tripled. Examples of the broadrange of environmental topics that OES addressesthrough these agreements, include: the 1946 Inter-national Whaling Commission, the 1975 RamsarConvention on Wetlands, the 1982 UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea, the 1987 Montreal Protocolto The Vienna Convention for the Protection of theOzone Layer, 1989 Basel Convention on the

16


Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste,the 1992 Convention for the Conservation of Ana-dromous Fish in the North Pacific Ocean, and the1994 UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

Given these treaty-related responsibilities, Mr.Sandalow indicated that he has a particular inter-est in the application of remote sensing as a tool todevelop and refine multilateral environmentalagreements. This interest also is consistent withthe State Department’s ongoing commitment toenhance the use of science and technology assetsin the formulation and implementation of U.S. for-eign policy. He mentioned that many understandhow this technology could play a role in the re-porting and inventory of carbon stocks called forby Article 3 (on human-induced land use changeand forestry) and Article 12 (on the Clean Devel-opment Mechanism) of the Kyoto Protocol to theUN Framework Convention on Climate Change.But few have fully explored how this same tech-nology could be used to monitor and enforce envi-ronmental treaties that attempt to reduceland-based sources of marine pollution,transboundary movement of hazardous wastes,and overexploitation of fisheries. Perhaps, hespeculated, in the not too distant future, govern-ments will be able to use remote sensing data toroutinely evaluate international regime effective-ness, verify national reporting practices, and as-sess treaty implementation.

With the rapid growth in the number of environ-mental treaties OES recognizes remote sensing asa potentially invaluable tool in developing, refin-ing, and monitoring many of these agreements.But, Sandalow cautioned that many challenges re-main. Both domestic and international policymakers need to clarify how this technology is tobe effectively harnessed. Sandalow agreed withthe authors of the workshop background paper(available on the workshop web site), which iden-tifies some difficult issues that need to be ad-dressed, such as:

• Demonstrating to the environmental diplo-matic community the potential benefits andrelevance of remote sensing tools.

• Identifying priority MEAs where remotesensing tools are already providing valueadded in either the development, implemen-tation or monitoring of agreements.

• Fostering an active dialogue between remotesensing scientists and the foreign policycommunity.

• Identifying international guidelines for thedevelopment of remote sensing procedures,standards and data formats for its integrationinto the negotiation and implementation ofenvironmental treaties.

He added that many of these questions will need tobe resolved before these technologies can be fullyincorporated into the OES diplomatic toolbox.

Sandalow concluded his speech by listing a num-ber of initiatives that OES is presently engaged inthat have a direct bearing on the topic of the remotesensing and environmental treaties workshop:

1. OES approached the National ResearchCouncil’s Space Studies Board in June 2000with a request to bring together experts fromgovernment, industry and academia to exam-ine the emerging role of remote sensing inforeign policy development and implementa-tion. A preliminary meeting was convenedon November 3, 2000 to discuss the scope ofthis study. It is his hope that the results of thestudy will identify some of the hurdles thattoday prevent us from realizing the full po-tential of remote sensing technologies.

2. OES is working with the UN’s Office ofOuter Space Affairs to fund and develop aseries of regional workshops in Africa, Asia,Latin America, and Eastern Europe for thepromotion of space applications for sustain-able development. These workshops willemphasize the synergy of satellite navigationinformation and geospatial techniques, tosupport a wide range of environmental appli-cations.

3. OES is participating in the organization of aworking group for the Sixth InternationalSpace Cooperation Workshop meeting in Se-ville, Spain, in March 2001. This group willdiscuss the “Contribution of Space Systemsto the Implementation and Verification of In-ternational Environmental Agreements.” Itis co-sponsored by the American Institute ofAeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) andthe Confederation of European AerospaceAssociation (CEAS).

17


4. OES is working with NOAA on initiativesto promote the effective use of existingspace technologies for the application andsharing of information to manage naturaland industrial disasters. Specifically, OESis working with the Committee for EarthObserving Satellites (CEOS) Disaster Man-agement Support Project. In addition, OEShas been an active participant in the devel-opment of the Global Disaster InformationNetwork (GDIN). Through GDIN, OES isengaged in an international effort to developregional disaster information networks thatfacilitate timely dissemination of the rightinformation in the right format to disastermanagers in order to save lives and prop-erty.

5. OES has joined the Civil Applications Com-mittee (CAC), an interagency committeethat coordinates and oversees federal civiluse of classified and unclassified informa-tion. The CAC facilitates imagery acquisi-tion, provides applications support servicesto Committee members and coordinates re-mote sensing research and development.This will provide further venues for theState Department to engage technical agen-cies with remote sensing expertise.

6. OES hosted the MEDEA workshop in No-vember 2000. MEDEA is a group of seniorscientists, created by the government in1994, to address the intersection of environ-mental science, national security and for-eign policy. The objective of this workshopwas to identify ways that MEDEA canbetter assist the Department of State withscientific issues; the discussion addressedhow remote sensing can support the Depart-ment of State on key environmental agree-ments.

7. OES is co-sponsoring, along with the Bu-reau of Intelligence and Research (INR), theNational Imagery & Mapping Agency andthe DCI Environmental and Societal IssuesCenter a one-day workshop on December15, 2000 entitled “Remote Sensing and En-vironmental Change: Implications for Di-plomacy.” The purpose is to educate andinform policymakers at the State Depart-ment and other agencies with whom OEScollaborates on the relevance of this tech-nology to environmental diplomacy.

II.4 Closing Panel: Conclusions and

Next Steps

This panel was moderated by Mr. Marc Levy ofCIESIN, and included presentations by Dr. KalRaustiala of the UCLA Law School, Ms. MargaretFinarelli of the International Space University, Dr.Robert Harriss of the National Center for Atmo-spheric Research (NCAR), and Dr. Oran Young ofDartmouth College.

Dr. Raustiala of UCLA began his presentation byemphasizing that the most important barriers to in-tegrating remote sensing data into MEAs are politi-cal and institutional. Though Mr. Sandalow statedthat the major barriers to RS use were primarily in-stitutional, Raustiala noted that there is evidencethat the political barriers are also quite high. ManyMEAs are not currently gathering, requesting orusing scientific data to any noticeable extent, and itis not clear that RS data will be treated any differ-ently. Reporting and review provisions are veryweak in most MEAs, and attempts to improvethem, and to make them more rigorous anddata-rich, have largely failed. Programs on the re-mote sensing side, such as the Committee on EarthObservation Satellites (CEOS), Integrated GlobalObserving Strategy (IGOS), Global Ocean Ob-serving System (GOOS), etc., are also not cur-rently well integrated with MEAs. The MontrealProtocol is a major exception to this general rule,insofar as scientific data is being used extensively,but the political commitment is quite high andhence this exception seems to prove the rule.

Therefore, Raustiala cautioned that we need to becareful in targeting the use of RS data in MEA pro-cesses and take into account the political context.He noted that although treaty compliance receivedconsiderable attention in breakout group discus-sions, compliance is one area where governmentsare very sensitive and, apart from certain casessuch as the Kyoto Protocol, the use of RS for com-pliance purposes is unlikely. And while the KyotoProtocol is politically very important, its future isnot clear. Biodiversity treaties might be a usefulgroup to emphasize, particularly because there isalready an interest in harmonization of the variousreporting requirements and because RS iswell-suited to terrestrial issues. Raustiala also sug-gested that there need to be more concrete pilotprojects, such as the MesoAmerican BiologicalCorridor initiative, which can demonstrate the util-

18


ity of RS data to MEA needs. In conjunction withclear lists of MEA provisions that are mappedonto relevant RS technology, such projects mayhelp persuade governments and other stakeholdersof the utility of RS for environmental cooperation.Finally, Raustiala suggested that RS could be use-ful for overall assessments of MEA effectiveness,which can then help in the development and re-finement of MEAs. Because assessments are sys-temic in nature, rather than focused on individualgovernments or actors, the use of RS in assess-ments may be politically more palatable.

Ms. Finarelli of the International Space Univer-sity spoke of two potential uses of RS data: a) toget environmental issues onto the public agenda,and b) to implement MEAs more effectively. Theworkshop primarily focused on the second, andthere was a general agreement that activities suchas the development of continuous data sets, insur-ing global public access to data, and training andeducation to increase the use of data are very ex-pensive. However, RS data could also be utilizedto pull MEAs in new directions and to increasepublic support. If more resources are to be allo-cated to MEAs, and MEAs are going to be stron-ger and more effective, there needs to be a stronglevel of commitment on the part of policy makersand the public to the environmental agenda. Thereneeds to be a long-term commitment to MEAs,but the US policy agencies responsible for them,such as the State Department, have limited re-sources to fund RS-related activities, and scien-tific agencies such as NASA have no directmandate to support MEAs. The near demise of theLandsat program illustrates the precariousness ofsustained funding for ongoing environmentalmonitoring and assessment.

Ms. Finarelli went on to say that the costs of RSare quite significant. It cost $10 million to developa full set of Landsat scenes for the coterminousU.S. for three different time periods. If such datasets are to be developed globally, the costs will besignificantly higher, and ensuring global access toavoid differential enforcement of environmentalagreements will be difficult. She distinguishedlow resolution meteorological data, which hasgenerally been produced for free and public ac-cess, with medium to high resolution land-baseddata, which due to a legacy of national securityconsiderations and the direct relevance of the datato valuation of natural resources, have generally

been available only at significantly higher cost. Inaddition, she stressed that there is a difference be-tween monitoring, on the one hand, and verifica-tion and enforcement, on the other. Verification isa political process. You need the political will toconfront a violation. In the case of the MontrealProtocol there was good public consensus on theproblem and what needed to be done, but withKyoto it is very different. So the question, accord-ing to Finarelli, is how can RS be used to promotepublic awareness and understanding of environ-mental problems, so that it will lead to bigger bud-gets for MEAs and the development of necessarydata resources in support of them?

Dr. Harriss of NCAR indicated that the panel onRS technologies and governance (see section II.2)had provided workshop participants with verygood exposure to the development of new RS tech-nologies at NASA, and that the breakout groupshad fostered a fruitful exchange. He then providedfour recommendations:

1. We need to look into existing and plannedoperational RS and resource informationsystems (as opposed to developmental RSsystems). An example of a successful opera-tional system that integrates RS (Landsat)data, weather model data, and human obser-vations is the US Department of Agricul-ture/NOAA World Agricultural Outlook(WAO) program, which monitors and fore-casts global agricultural yields. Also, theFamine Early Warning System (FEWS) usesAVHRR data in combination with weatherdata and ground-level observations to issuefamine alerts. The WAO and FEWS operateon small budgets but produce extremely use-ful results.

2. We need to carefully study what NOAA andthe Department of Defense are planning forin the future National Polar Observing EarthSatellite System (NPOESS). In this regard,the climate research community has beenvery assertive in making its voice heardwithin both these agencies.

3. We need to think deeply about what kind ofeducational tool kit is necessary for bridgingthe RS and international environmental pol-icy worlds. Training will be vital for the nextgeneration of leaders.

4. Advanced information technologies, espe-cially digital library and computer-assisted

19


simulation tools, are ideally suited to theproblem set addressed by the workshop. Inaddition, new Internet search capabilitiesare needed that are based on retrieval of allinformation for defined spatial coordinates.This will help national-level analysts to ob-tain digital Earth science information rele-vant to their specific geographic area ofinterest.

Dr. Oran Young of Dartmouth College had three“categories” of comments: the functions of RSdata in relationship to MEAs, organizational andstructural issues relating to the use of RS in con-nection with MEAs, and community building andnext steps. In the first, he suggested that we steeraway from issues of verification and complianceenforcement. Contracting parties will likely be ret-icent and possibly obstructionist. But, the system-atic monitoring of MEAs or ecosystems would bevery valuable. Part of the problem, according toYoung, is that we don’t understand the problem.RS data could be useful for identifying the mainproblems. We need to demonstrate in a dramaticway the potential of RS data to contribute to envi-ronmental monitoring.

In the second category, he indicated that the orga-nizational and institutional issues are significant.These are big issues where we need problem solv-ing, credibility, continuity and commitment. Thereneeds to be a dialogue between the two sides –e.g., IGOS (or an IGOS like remote sensing part-nership) and MEA constituencies – to talk about

the opportunities, but also the credibility issues,and to address issues of long-term continuity ofdata in support of MEAs. The Global Environmen-tal Facility, World Bank or perhaps a consortiumin the business community such as the World Busi-ness Council for Sustainable Development mightbe possible funding sources for this kind of initia-tive. Finally, in regards to community building,Young indicated that we need to get the right peo-ple together from the cutting-edge science-orientedagencies like NASA or the European, Japanese,Brazilian, and Indian space agencies, and the MEAcommunity on the other, and encourage them tohave a dialogue and to develop pilot projects. Hementioned two initiatives that are begging for data:the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and the In-ternational Coral Reef Initiative. Perhaps thesecould form the basis for pilot efforts.

The panel ended with a discussion of next steps.As a preliminary move to maintain the momentumfrom the workshop, it was agreed to maintain theworkshop web site as a ongoing, high profile “por-tal” or bulletin board where people involved in thiskind of activity can post information about whatthey are doing, and ideas can be exchanged. Othersuggestions included development of an on-linenews service. It was emphasized that it is very im-portant to engage the MEA community, and partic-ularly the secretariats and contracting parties,through these services.

20


A large portion of the workshop was dedicated todiscussions in three simultaneous breakout groupson the following topics:

Biodiversity and Ecosystem ManagementThis breakout group addressed a range of issuesrelated to biodiversity conservation and ecosystemmanagement in terrestrial and marine environ-ments. Specific topics included wetland and forestconservation, marine and coastal environmentalprotection, desertification, and endangered speciesprotection through habitat conservation. Thegroup looked at the CBD, Ramsar, CITES, WorldHeritage, CCD, MARPOL, and other marine-re-lated conventions.

Atmosphere and Climate ChangeThis breakout group addressed issues related to at-mospheric pollution, protection of the ozone layer,and climate change (especially mitigation strate-gies). The workshop focused on remote sensingapplications related to regional air pollution,ozone hole monitoring, remote monitoring of landsurface temperatures, and land-based carbon emis-sions and sequestration (sinks). The group lookedat the LRTAP, the Vienna Convention and Mon-treal Protocol, the FCCC and Kyoto Protocol,among others.

Institutional and RS Instrument DesignThis cross-cutting breakout group addressed as-pects of institutional design across the wide rangeof MEAs, and issues related to the design of thenext generation of instruments. It sought to ad-dress the following questions: How do we writenew international environmental laws in such away as to take advantage of RS data? How can po-

litical sensitivities be addressed so as to make theuse of RS imagery more palatable to ContractingParties for monitoring and compliance purposes?What opportunities are there to influence the de-sign of new RS instruments so that useful data thatare currently not available are produced in 5-10years time?

Each group was provided a list of questions toguide their discussions (see Annex 3), but was freeto diverge from that list. The following are summa-ries of their principal conclusions and recommen-dations.

III.1 Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Management Breakout Group

This group was co-chaired by Durwood Zaelke ofCIEL and Antoinette Wannebo of CIESIN. It re-viewed a range of issues in relation to the topicslisted above. In its report out, the group suggestedthat there is a need to transition from scientific orexperimental uses of RS to an operational mode.To do this, MEA constituencies will need to seethat the data are reliable, which entails a commit-ment to provision of standardized and “ready-to-use” data with 20-30 meter spatial resolutionand high temporal frequency. Transparency is criti-cal; all parties need to have uniform access to theraw data and the methodologies used to developthe processed data, or it is likely that the data willbe subject to dispute. The group endorsed the LandRemote Sensing Act of 1992 and similar resolu-tions addressing data collection, management, ac-cess and archiving (see Box).

III. Breakout Groups ____________________________________________

Selected Quotes from the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992

United States Congress

“The continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space are of major benefit instudying and understanding human impacts on the global environment, in managing the Earth’s natural

resources, in carrying out national security functions, and in planning and conducting many otheractivities of scientific, economic and social importance;” “The cost of Landsat data has impeded the use

of such data for scientific purposes, such as for global environmental change research as well as forother public sector applications;” and “It is in the best interest of the United States to maintain a

permanent comprehensive Government archive of global Landsat and other land remote sensingdata for long-term monitoring and study of the changing global environment.”

21


The group also recommended that better linkagesbe developed between the data providers and thedata users. They suggested a particular focus onthe needs of remote sensing users (MEAs), andthe ability of data providers to meet those needs(in terms of the spatial, spectral and temporal res-olution and cost issues). For MEAs that are cur-rently being negotiated, it is important to considerdata needs up front. For existing MEAs, it wasrecommended that an analysis be conducted of on-going uses of RS data. In line with these recom-mendations, the group proposed four action items:

A review of case studies and literature to docu-ment past successes and failures in the use of RSdirectly in relation to MEAs, or in applicationsthat are directly relevant to MEAs.The creation of a joint team of data providers andusers to study and apply remote sensing to meetspecific needs of a subset of MEAs. Researchquestions and key obstacles would be highlighted,and a matrix of MEAs and relevant data productswould be developed.Involvement by the joint team in ongoing activi-ties such as those of the Millennium EcosystemAssessment, Conservation International, and theRamsar Bureau.Active outreach to promote findings of this work-shop and the above activities at international agen-cies, MEA secretariats and among scientific andtechnical bodies advising environmental conven-tions.

III.2 Atmosphere and Climate

Change Breakout Group

This group was co-chaired by Craig Dobson of theUniversity of Michigan and Susan Subak, aAAAS Fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency. Although the group did address at-mospheric pollution and depletion of the ozonelayer to some extent, the central focus was on theissue of land-based carbon sinks and emissions asaddressed under the Kyoto Protocol.

The group gave a few examples of how RS hadbeen used in assessment and awareness raising.For example, the Tropospheric Ozone MappingSatellite (TOMS) was instrumental in creating thepublic awareness and outcry about the ozone holethat led to the Montreal Protocol, and continues tobe used to raise awareness of ozone depletion. RSimagery also has contributed to concern over de-

forestation and biomass burning, particularly inthe tropics. The IPCC indirectly made use of RSdata on deforestation and land cover (e.g. methanefrom rice paddies) when citing estimates ofland-based emissions and sequestration of carbon.Finally, RS has been used in FCCC pilot projectsin Costa Rica and Bolivia. Costa Rica has usedLandsat imagery of forest area to determinewhether landowners are eligible to take part in thecountry’s carbon sequestration incentive program.Remote sensing was used in Bolivia’s NoelKempff Project to develop a vegetation stratifica-tion map of the area, and work is ongoing to inves-tigate the potential application of high resolutionaerial videography and laser altimetry for annualmonitoring of selected logging concessions. Theonly direct application of RS data to an MEA thatthe group was aware of was one instance ofsyntetic aperture radar (SAR) data being used totrack an oil spills to a particular ship in theStraights of Malacca under the MARPOL conven-tion.

The group determined that RS has not been usedmore often because the data are often unavailablefor the needed times, or in the formats, that MEAsrequire. Sensors may not be turned on, data maynot be archived, or the data may simply have beenlost. Awareness of existing data among MEAs isprobably limited, and even where it is available,the motivation to use it may be small.

Should the Kyoto Protocol enter into effect, thegroup determined that there are several systemscurrently in place in either operational or experi-mental modes that could meet its data needs. First,there are coarse, moderate and fine resolution pas-sive optical systems that are sensitive to surfacechemistry (via pigmentation) and this data can beused to infer other surface conditions (i.e., landcover class). There are also experimental airborneLIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) systemsthat can measure canopy height; the most ad-vanced systems record the full wave return andcan also provide information on surface height andthe vertical distribution of vegetative material. Inaddition, there are microwave (radar) satellite sys-tems that can measure moisture and structure (forabove ground biomass). However, LIDAR and ra-dar systems were not on satellites for the Kyotobaseline period of 1990. A number of satellite ra-dar systems have been put into service by the in-ternational community (notably Japan, Europe and

22


Canada) during the 1990s, though none of theseare particularly well-suited for collecting data thatcan be used to estimate above-ground biomass ona global basis, nor have they been tasked to do so.

Experts in the breakout session agreed that manypractical obstacles exist to using these data toolsto generate accurate estimates of above-groundcarbon or even biomass stocks. These challengesinclude the potential cost of coordination, stan-dardization and conversion of optical, radar andLIDAR data through common empirical models toyield the quantities of interest. It must also benoted that the integration of these data requires ac-curate digital elevation models of topography thattoday are only locally available (though thisshould be remedied over the next year given therecent success of the NASA/NIMA Shuttle RadarTopography Mission). Finally, in most cases, re-mote sensing does not provide a single source so-lution to information needs; rather it serves toextend an ongoing and healthy program of in situobservations. Within this context, the promise ofremote sensing is to allow the development ofmore robust and efficient ground sampling strate-gies and to subsequently extrapolate from such insitu measurements in both space and time.

For Kyoto, there is a need for a number of GHGmeasurements that can be obtained wholly orpartly via RS. These include methane and nitrousoxide emissions, which are related to land coverfeatures such as inundated areas (rice paddies),soil moisture, and temperature. There is an interestin land cover type, height, and above ground bio-mass (woody vegetation). Existing RS technologymay be more readily used for estimating carbonsequestration on agricultural lands than in forestedareas because tillage practices and crop types canbe identified through optical imagery alone.

Land cover comes up repeatedly as a data require-ment, not just for the Kyoto Protocol, but for ahost of other MEAs. For example, among atmo-sphere-related MEAs, land use/land cover infor-mation can be helpful in estimating the quantityand spatial distribution of emissions of persistentorganic pollutants, acid rain precursors, and otherpollutants subject to agreements such as LRTAP.Among atmospheric MEAs, RS also offers theability to measure atmospheric concentrations ofGHGs, aerosols, particulates and other regionallyor globally important air pollutants through the air

column. Such measurements require side-lookingsensors.

In the future, it is possible to envisage a suite oftools that could support MEAs such as Kyoto. TheRS component would include a constellation of op-tical, LIDAR and radar instruments, flying roughlyin formation, that would collect data simulta-neously over the same land areas. These wouldneed to be operational, with a commitment tolong-term data provision. These would be linked,in turn, with in situ observations (forground-truthing), improved estimates of biomassstocks, and to models that would integrate the RSdata and provide some predictive capacity regard-ing future land-use changes and their relationshipto emissions and concentrations of GHGs.

In terms of institutional infrastructure, the grouprecommended that an IGOS-like international co-ordinating body address issues of scientific re-search, funding, infrastructure development,operations, and access to/archiving of RS data. Onthe MEA side there need to be reporting and com-pliance monitoring structures, and some coordina-tion among the MEAs to link data totreaty-specific applications.

III.3 Institutional and RS Instrument

Design Breakout Group

This breakout was co-chaired by Ronald Mitchellof Stanford University and Marc Imhoff of NASAGoddard Space Flight Center. The report out em-phasized that the group had independently come tomany of the same conclusions as the first twogroups. The group indicated that RS can functionin a number of modes. It can prompt new agree-ments, influence behavior under existing agree-ments, and evaluate past performance andeffectiveness. However, there are a number of sig-nificant problems. These include lack of consis-tency and standardization of data sets, lack ofinfrastructure for access to/use of data, and differ-ences in the goals between the collectors and usersof the data. There are also “disconnects” betweenproviders and users: the users don’t understand thecapacity of RS to meet certain information needs,and the creators don’t understand the needs ofMEA constituencies. Other major problems in-clude issues of sovereignty, the high costs of data,and lack of communication or “linkages” betweenthe two groups.

23


To address “linkage” issues, the breakout grouprecommended:

1. Annual meetings between MEA and RSpeople, including attendance of MEA repre-sentatives at major RS meetings;

2. More effective utilization of organizationssuch as CIESIN or the World ConservationMonitoring Centre;

3. Meetings such as those being organized byOES (see section II.3) and CIEL on DigitalEarth Applications in Environmental Law;

4. Integration of RS and socio-economic datasets; and

5. Exploring how scientific research needs canbe reconciled with requirements for opera-tional, ongoing monitoring.

The group recommended demonstration projects,and in particular it was suggested that the CleanDevelopment Mechanism pilot projects under wayin Costa Rica and Bolivia be evaluated. Productcreation, such as that underway through GMES orthe MesoAmerican Biological Corridor, could helpto sell MEAs on the capacity of RS to meet needs.This would generate demand for further applica-tions of the data. The group recommended the de-velopment of a matrix, such as that proposed bybreakout group 1, listing MEA needs and RS as-sets. Finally, there is need for a demonstration pro-ject on biodiversity and ecosystem managementthat would meet the collective needs of thebiodiversity conventions. In the area of training,the group recommended a summer workshopbringing together MEA representatives and RS ex-perts, and particularly drawing on environmentalprofessionals in developing countries.

A Radarsat Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image picks up an oil spill along the coast of Wales. The onlyknown instance of remote sensing imagery being used in a compliance verification mode was the case of anoil spill in the straights of Malacca near Singapore under the MARPOL convention.

So

urc

e:©

19

95

Can

adia

nS

pac

eA

gen

cy(C

SA

).


24

Day 1: December 4

8:30 Welcome, The Honorable Lee Hamilton, Director, Woodrow Wilson Center

8:35 Welcome and Introductions, Dr. Roberta Balstad Miller, Director, CIESIN

9:00 A Worked Example: Global Monitoring for Environment and Security – A EuropeanPerspectiveIntroduction: Dr. Oran Young, Director, Institute on International Environmental

Governance, Dartmouth College, and co-chair, workshop organizing committeePresenter: Dr. Jean Meyer-Roux, Deputy Director, Space Applications Institute, Joint

Research Centre, Italy

9:45 Discussion

10:00 Workshop Overview and Breakout Group InstructionsDr. Robert Harriss, Director, Environmental and Social Impacts Group, National Center forAtmospheric Research, and co-chair, workshop organizing committee

10:15 Question & Answer

10:30 Coffee Break

11:00 Parallel Breakout SessionsRemote sensing applications to assist in the negotiation, implementation and review oftreaties in the following areas:1. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management2. Atmosphere and Climate Change3. Institutional and Remote Sensing Instrument Design

12:30 Lunch

1:30 Parallel Breakout Sessions (Continued)

3:00 Coffee Break

3:30 Preliminary Progress Reports from Breakout Groups

4:00 Panel Discussion: Remote Sensing for Global Environmental GovernanceModerator: Dr. Gérard Begni, MEDIAS FranceDr. Anthony Janetos, Sr. Vice President, World Resources Institute, USADr. Marc Imhoff, Biospheric Sciences Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterMr. Woody Turner, Coordinator for Scientific Assessments and Biological Initiatives, Office

of Earth Science, NASA HeadquartersDr. Durwood Zaelke, President, Center for International Environmental Law

5:30 Wine and Cheese Reception

Annex 1. Workshop Agenda ____________________________________

25


Day 2: December 5

9:00 Parallel Breakout Sessions (continued)

12:00 Keynote: Remote Sensing and Environmental Agreements – A U.S. PerspectiveMr. David B. Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and InternationalEnvironmental and Scientific Affairs

1:00 Lunch

1:30 Reports of Breakout Groups to Plenary

3:00 Coffee Break

3:30 Closing PanelModerator: Mr. Marc Levy, CIESINDr. Kal Raustiala, Associate Professor of International Law and Politics, University of

California-Los Angeles Law SchoolMs. Margaret Finarelli, Vice President for North American Operations, International Space

UniversityDr. Oran Young, Director, Institute on International Environmental Governance, Dartmouth

College, USADr. Robert Harriss, Director, Environmental and Social Impacts Group, National Center for

Atmospheric Research

26


FirstName

Last Name Organization E-mail

Dr. Gerard AllengCenter for Energy andEnvironmental Policy

University ofDelaware

[email protected]

Dr. Krister Andersson CIPECIndianaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Gérard Begni MEDIAS [email protected]

Mr. Lars BromleyPop. and SustainableDev. Project

AAAS [email protected]

Dr. Anthony BusalacchiEarth System ScienceInterdisciplinary Center

University ofMaryland

[email protected]

Dr. Paul Carter Department of AgronomyPurdueUniversity

[email protected]

Ms. Leslie B. CharlesEarth Science Division,Office of External Rel.

NASA [email protected]

Dr. Galina Churkina Max-Plank [email protected]

Mr. Ric Cicone [email protected]

Ms. Jennifer Conje International ProgramsU.S. ForestService

[email protected]

Mr. Ken CousinsHarrison Program on theFuture Global Agenda


[email protected]

Mr. Geoffrey DabelkoEnvironmental Changeand Security Project

[email protected]

Ms. Theresa DeGeestHarrison Program on theFuture Global Agenda


[email protected]

Mr. Alexander de Sherbinin SEDAC/CIESINColumbiaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Craig Dobson College of EngineeringUniversity ofMichigan

[email protected]

Dr. Fernando Echavarria OES/SATDepartmentof State

[email protected]

Ms. Margaret FinarelliInternational SpaceUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Eugene FosnightUNEP-GRID USGS/EROS

Data [email protected]

Dr. Chandra Giri SEDAC [email protected]

Dr. Robert HarrissEnvironmental andSocial Impacts Group

NCAR [email protected]

Mr. Norbert HenningerWorld ResourcesInstitute

[email protected]

Dr. Marc ImhoffGoddard Space FlightCenter

[email protected]

Dr. Anthony JanetosWorld ResourcesInstitute

[email protected]

Dr. Terry KeatingOffice of Air andRadiation

[email protected]

Dr. Richard KempkaDucks Unlimited, Inc.

[email protected]

Annex 2. Participant List _______________________________________

27


FirstName


Dr. Fred KoontzWildlife PreservationTrust International

[email protected]

Mr. Raymond Lester, Jr. INR/GGIDepartmentof State

[email protected]

Mr. Marc Levy SEDAC/CIESINColumbiaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Francis LindsayGlobal Land CoverFacility


[email protected]

Ms. Elissa LynchIUCN-The WorldConservation Union

[email protected]

Mr. Ken MarkowitzCenter for InternationalEnvironmental Law

[email protected]

Dr. Daniel MartinoNational AgriculturalResearch Institute (INIA)

Uruguay [email protected]

Ms. Lisa Mastny Worldwatch [email protected]

Dr. William McConnellLUCC Program 1 ProjectOffice

IndianaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Jean Meyer-RouxSpace ApplicationsInstitute

JRC - [email protected]

Dr. Roberta Miller SEDAC/CIESINColumbiaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Ronald MitchellInternational

Policy Studies Program

StanfordUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Linda V. Moodie NOAA/[email protected]

Dr. Douglas MuchoneyCenter for AppliedBiodiversity Science

ConservationInternational

[email protected]

Dr. John MusinskyCenter for AppliedBiodiversity Science

ConservationInternational

[email protected]

Ms. Yasmine NaficyIndependent RemoteSensing Consultant

[email protected]

Mr. Frederic Nordlund European Space [email protected]

Mr. Brian OrlichNational IntelligenceMapping Agency

Dr. Tim PerrottGlobal Observation ofForest Cover Project

CCRS -Canada

[email protected]

Dr. Kal RaustialaSchool of Law andInstitute of the Env’t

[email protected]

Ms. Meredith ReevesCenter for InternationalEnvironmental Law

[email protected]

Mr. David RoeEnvironmental HealthProgram

Environmental Defense

[email protected]

Dr.Christopher

SmallLamont-Doherty EarthObservatory

ColumbiaUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Detlef SprinzPotsdam Institute forClimate Change Res.

[email protected]

28


FirstName


Dr. Susan SubakOffice of AtmosphericPrograms

EPA [email protected]

Ms. Clare TennerVerification Research,Training and Info. Centre

UnitedKingdom

[email protected]

Ms. June ThormodsgardScience and ApplicationBranch

USGS/EROSData Center

[email protected]

Dr. John TownshendGlobal Land CoverFacility


[email protected]

Mr. Woody Turner NASA [email protected]

Ms. Brennan VanDykeRegional Office for North

America

UNEP Brennan.VanDyke@ro

na.unep.org

Ms. Antoinette Wannebo SEDAC/CIESINColumbiaUniversity

[email protected]

Mr. John WaughIUCN-The WorldConservation Union

WashingtonOffice

[email protected]

Ms. Simona WexlerEnvironmental Changeand Security Project

WWIC [email protected]

Ms. Pamela WhitneyOffice of InternationalAffairs

[email protected]

Mr. Brad WilleyCenter for InternationalEnvironmental Law

[email protected]

Dr. Ray A. WilliamsonSpace Policy Institute,Elliott School

GeorgeWash. Univ.

[email protected]

Mr. Evan WolffEnvironmental ProtectionInternational

[email protected]

Mr. Robert WorrestGlobal ChangeResearch Info. Office

[email protected]

Ms. Shira YoffeDepartment ofGeography

Oregon StateUniversity

[email protected]

Dr. Oran YoungInst. for InternationalEnvironmentalGovernance

DartmouthCollege

[email protected]

29


Annex 3. Questions for Breakout Groups ______________________

What are examples of actual treaty-relevant appli-cations that are being undertaken at present, usingwhich instruments, and in which geographic ar-eas?

How appropriate are the current instruments andmeasurements to the principal monitoring or in-formation needs of the relevant MEAs?

What are the advantages of using RS vis-à-visother methods of information collection? (e.g.,synoptic view, consistency and comparability,ability to monitor remote areas, cost effectiveness,etc.)

What are the disadvantages of using RS vis-à-visother methods of information collection? (e.g.,cost considerations, capacity to process and ana-lyze the data, misinterpretation of imagery, etc.)

What institutional components must be in place tolink “raw RS data” to “useful MEA-relevantknowledge”? Where might this kind of activity belocated (e.g., global centers, regional institutions,national institutes, or some combination thereof)?

What is the potential for more widespread applica-tion of the technology in the following areas:

• Identification and framing of important en-vironmental issues

• Negotiation of treaties

• Implementation review

• Compliance and dispute resolution (in lightof sovereignty concerns)

• Environmental assessment

• Utilization by NGOs and MEA constituen-cies for awareness raising

What are the needs of the relevant MEAs for trendanalysis, analysis or archiving of historical data,and more broadly, data management?

What are the needs among MEA constituencies(Contracting Parties, secretariats, and environmen-tal NGOs, particularly in the developing world) forawareness raising and capacity building in the do-main of remote sensing?

What are some new or emerging RS data productsthat may contribute to MEAs in the area underconsideration? What kind of sensors are not cur-rently available or under development but wouldnevertheless be useful to MEAs?

How might the design of MEAs need to be modi-fied in order to accommodate the use of more re-mote sensing imagery?

In cases in which an MEA is using RS well, whatexplains their success? In those which have accessto RS but are using it poorly, what explains theirfailure?

What would constitute a good process for takingmaximum advantage of existing RS capabilitieswhile also making future RS capabilities more use-ful to MEAs?

Groups are encouraged to develop specific recom-mendations and strategies for how to make remotesensing more useful to MEAs addressed in eachthematic area, and how MEAs might adopt remotesensing technology to improve their effectiveness.

remote sensing and environmental treatiessedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/rs-treaties/rs_treaties.pdf ·...

Documents