Report: Arctic Bathymetry Workshop, Introduction

Report: Arctic Bathymetry Workshop
September 18-19, 1997 St. Petersburg, Russia

REPORT: ARCTIC BATHYMETRY WORKSHOP

September 18-19, 1997
Institute for Geology and Mineral Resources of the Ocean
(VNIIOkeangeologia)
St. Petersburg, Russia

Ron Macnab and Garrik Grikurov

Introduction

The objective of the Workshop was to initiate an international collaboration for the development of a modern bathymetric data base for the Arctic, to be used subsequently in the production of an accurate map. This data base will incorporate in digital form all available bathymetric data north of 64 degrees North, for the benefit of mapmakers, researchers, and others whose work requires a detailed and accurate knowledge of the depth and shape of the Arctic seabed. The rationale and purpose of the proposed data base are outlined in a Project Prospectus circulated earlier in the year by an Interim Steering Committee (Appendix 1).

Funding for the Workshop was provided through a Project Planning Grant awarded by the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). A Local Organizing Committee chaired by Garrik Grikurov, Deputy-Director, VNIIOkeangeologia, assumed responsibility for encouraging participation by members of the Russian Arctic bathymetry community, and for handling all technical & logistical arrangements.

The Workshop opened under the combined chairmanship of Academician Igor S. Gramberg (Director, VNIIOkeangeologia), Admiral Anatoly A. Komaritsyn (Chief, Head Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Russian Federation Navy), and Ron Macnab (Geological Survey of Canada). Following the opening presentations, the Workshop was co-chaired by Garrik Grikurov and Ron Macnab.

Presentations on Day One

The first day's presentations (see Agenda in Appendix 2) described existing data sets that could be considered for incorporation in the proposed data base. Abstracts of the presentations are shown in Appendix 3. After group discussion, the information presented in this session was summarized in tabular form showing among other things the level of availability for each data set (see Appendix 4). It was noted that other data sets almost certainly exist, and that it would be useful to expend some effort in identifying these for inclusion in the project. Also, it was pointed out that new, high-quality data continues to accumulate at a significant rate, e.g. information collected by the SCICEX project, so that new data base structure should include provision for incorporating these observations as they become available.

Discussion on Day Two

The second day's session (see Agenda in Appendix 5) was conduced as a round-table discussion of technnical and organizational issues. Highlights and main conclusions are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Task sharing

In view of potential data volumes and anticipated constraints on the exchange of data sets, it was generally agreed that it would be desirable to divide the processing tasks of the project into components that could be allocated to two or more participating institutions. Such an arrangement would achieve two things: (a) it would spread the technical burden among participants who were prepared to assume the responsibility; and (b) it would resolve questions related to data sensitivity by allowing institutions to retain control over the handling and distribution of their proprietary observations. This arrangement would also entail some form of data division along geographic lines, so that all data sets within any given region could be processed together. Clearly, the approach outlined here would require special care to ensure consistency of data treatment between processing cetres, as well as the compatibility of their output products so all could be merged seamlessly to produce a coherent data base for the entire study region.

Issues relating to the designation of data processing centres, to the scheme for geographical data division, and to the mechanism for coordinating the processing operations, were discussed at varying levels of detail. It was agreed that these matters could be more effectively resolved in a smaller forum, so they were referred to a committee of technical experts (see IASC Project Group below) which would begin at the earliest practicable date to review options and to devise an overall work plan that would meet all concerns.

Funding

The need for adequate funding was a constant theme throughout the discussions, with resources required to meet expenses in four main categories: (1) communications and travel, to permit exchange of information and discussion among participants; (2) technology upgrades (including training), where needed to furnish selected processing centres with the expertise and equipment to handle the anticipated workload; (3) personnel costs, which may or may not be adequately covered by existing institutional budgets; and (4) preparation and distribution of final products.

Clearly it is unlikely there will be an overall budget for the entire project, and support will most probably have to be obtained ina variety of forms: new money acquired for specific project components; institutional funding from existing budgets; and in-kind contributions from participating institutions, such as manpower and processing services. It will be up to each participating institution to determine the level of support that it tis willing to provide to the operation out of its own resources. In the meantime, various potential sources will be approached in a coordinated fashion with a view to obtaining new money.

Suggested IOC affiliation

Intiated under the auspices of IASC, this project has also been proposed as an activity within the framework of GEBCO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans) component of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). In light of the latter's affiliation with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), there was brief discussion concerning the feasibility of establishing a direct link between IOC and the project, in line with a recent IOC resolution concerning the development of a new bathymetric map of the Arctic. This would most likely be achieved through the creation of an Editorial Board that would oversee the production of a map based upon information extracted from the new data base. It was suggested that the proposed IASC Project Group (see below) could fulfill some or all of the functions of the IOC Editorial Board, but it was agreed that further action on this front would require prior consultation with IASC.

IASC Project Group

IASC per se does not engage directly in technical operations, rather it maintains linkages to specific activities through the Project Group structure. Membership in any particular Project Group usually consists of subject matter experts working to achieve a well-defined objetive. In keeping with standard IASC procedure, Workshop participants were asked to nominate members for a proposed Project Group for Arctic Bathymetry. Seven nominations were proposed and seconded, with three more to follow shortly after consultation with national authorities (see Appendix 6). The final list of nominees will be forwarded to IASC for consideration and approval.

Future activities

In addition to preparing and submitting the usual reports, the following were identified as action items to be accomplished within various time frames:

immediate - seek IASC approval for the proposed Project Group.
immediate - undertabke a coordinated search for new funds to underwrite the costs of specific project components
1 month - consult with IASC concerning the potential implications of the suggested IOC affiliation through involvement in an IOC Editorial Board.
2-3 months - address the issues identified above under Task sharing and develop a comprehensive work plan.
1 year- convene a follow-up Workshop to review progress and to discuss significant developments in the project; ICAM III (the Third International Conference on Arctic Margins, 12-16 October, 1998 in Celle, Germany) has been suggested as a possible venue.

Appendices

Return to the St. Petersburg Workshop Page