Forum Discussion

Dear Meerim, Dear SOFF Secretariat,

Thank you for sharing these updates. Below a few suggestions from my end:

 RWC Coordination:

- 1.2: I would replace “If 1.1 applies” with “If the beneficiary country is already affiliated to a RWC, …”

- I think we need an additional paragraph under 1.2, that should begin with “If the beneficiary country is not yet affiliated to a RWC, …”, to clarify what to do in this sort of situation. For example:

“If the beneficiary country is not yet affiliated to a RWC, the Peer Advisor should evaluate which RWCs may prove suitable, and liaise with the beneficiary country to support their affiliation process.”

 Calibration:

- 2. “ … should be documented, preferably in electronic format”. I find this recommendation possibly problematic for LDCs, where the long-term storage of electronic documents is significantly less robust than for physical records. Physical records may be less easily used, but they still provide a good opportunity to store important information until such time as the NMHS is able to guarantee long-term electronic storage. I would suggest to remove the suggestion to favor electronic storage means. 

SOFF operational:

- NGA: the labels of the rows in the different tables could be more uniform/consistent in the wording (e.g. use of “standard density” vs “horizontal resolution”, etc …)

- p.17: the radius to be used for the station on the map should be 141 km for surface stations, 354 km for upper-air stations (354 km & 707 lm in radius for SIDS, respectively). The same comments applies to the NCP (p.36). The mathematical proof for these numbers lies in the Appendix of the NGA for DRC (and also Haiti).

- p.17: “ WMO Technical Authority” is missing from the signature panel. 

Cordially,
Frédéric

• Hi Meerim,Apologies for the delayed answer! 

I only have some minor comments (in bold) on the RWC Annex I discussed with some colleagues from the International Department of DWD, also being part of the ET-WTR: 

• 1.3/ c:  Other complementary information if available at the RWC such as possible assessment on human capacity for WIGOS in the country    or lack of WIGOS/OSCAR/Surface/WDQMS National Focal Points.
• 1.5 SOFF Peer Advisor might attend regional capacity development activities for Members hosted by WMO or RWCs to get familiar with RWC operations and WIGOS Tools.

I.       Collaboration during the investment phase

• A procedure/mechanism for collaboration between SOFF peer advisors and RWCs should be agreed to allow regular communication and exchange of information, which could include

2.3 maybe add: 

agreeing on timelines to put issues related to the investment phase activities (installation of new stations) in “won´t fix” status in the Incident Management System.

Collaboration during the compliance phase:

• Ensure that metadata of all new stations/equipment are registered into OSCAR /Surface before ingesting observational data on WIS2.0 (peer advisor)
•  To monitor  improvements made in data availability in WDQMS webtool (peer advisor)

• RWC verifies quarterly stations` compliance  for the annual WMO GBON Compliance report for SOFF --> Comment: RWCs are not responsible for annual station compliance reporting.

I also think it might be good if the Peer Advisors and the RWC get contact lists of each other, or the SOFF Sec informs RWC about the SOFF countries and focal points that were added within their regional association. (Enabling an easier contact) 

My colleague also mentioned it would be good to show this document to the ET-WTR (If not already) 

Best, Carolin