report from the 4th gmes forum baveno, 26 – 28 november … · 5 4.2.3 upgrading observation...
TRANSCRIPT
Report from the 4th GMES FORUM
Baveno, 26 – 28 November 2003
2
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission or of the European Space Agency.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).
3
Table of contents
Table of contents ......................................................................................................................... 3
FOREWORD…………………………………………………………………………………………..7
FORUM PRESENTATIONS...................................................................................................... 8
1. Introductory adresses...................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Welcome Address. Ezio Bussoletti, Minister Advisor, Ministro dell’Ambiente e
della Tutela del Territori (MATT) .......................................................................... 9
1.2 Statement from the Minister of Environment and Land Protection. Altero Matteoli, Ministro dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territori ............................................... 10
1.3 Statement from the Ministry of Education University and Research. Stefano Caldoro, Secretary of State - Ministry of Education, University and Research ........ 12
1.4 Statement from the Ministry of Environment and Land Protection. Corrado Clini, Director General del Servizio Protezione internazionale, MATT............................ 12
1.5 Address by the European Commission. Catherine Day, Director General for Environment, European Commission.................................................................... 12
1.6 Address by the European Space Agency. José Achache, Director Earth Observation Programmes, European Space Agency.............................................. 15
2. Plenary session 1: GMES : Objectives, content and recommendations for actions 2004-2008...................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 The GMES proposal - Presentation of the Draft Final Report (Version 3.5) of the
Initial Period (2002-2003) of the GMES Action Plan. Timo Mäkelä, European Commission, Director EC DG Environmen, Sustainable Development and Integration, and José Achache, Director ESA, Directorate of Earth Observation Programmes....................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Views on GMES................................................................................................ 23 2.2.1 Ten preconditions for success. Colin Hicks, Chairman of the GMES
Steering Committee Drafting Group.......................................................23
2.2.2 View of EUMETSAT. David Williams, EUMETSAT...............................23
2.2.3 View of the European Environment Agency. Prof. Jacky Mc Glade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency........................24
2.2.4 Views on the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Initiative. Vice-Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Co-Chair, Ad Hoc Group on Earth Observations ...............................................................................24
3. Plenary session 2 : Some lessons learnt.......................................................................... 31
3.1 Overview........................................................................................................... 31 3.1.1 Lessons learned from the GMES Thematic Projects. Michel Cornaert,
European Commission, DG Research.....................................................31
3.1.2 Lessons learnt from the Earthwatch GMES Services Element. Mark Doherty, ESA EOP-S.............................................................................53
4
3.1.3 The JRC’s contribution to GMES. Jean Paul Malingreau, Alan Belward, Iain Shepherd, Francesco Pignatelli, European Commission JRC............53
3.2 Selected projects ............................................................................................... 60 3.2.1 EUROSION. Stéphane Lombardo, Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee, Den
Haag, the Nertherlands.........................................................................60
3.2.2 MERSEA - Marine Environment and Security for the European Area. Johnny Johannessen, NERSC, Bergen, Norway.......................................63
3.2.3 METHMONITEUR. Euan Nisbet, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom ......................................................................67
3.2.4 GSE for Vegetation and Water. Thomas Hausler, GAF and Birgit Mohaupt-Jahr, UBA, Germany..............................................................69
3.2.5 GSE for Risk. Arnaud de Saint-Vincent, Astrium, Chris Browitt, EMSC and Ulf Bjurman, SRSA.........................................................................69
3.2.6 GSE for Marine and Coastal Environment. Roberto Aloisi, Alcatel, David Palmer, UK Environment Agency and François Parthiot, CEDRE, France....................................................................................70
4. Parallel Sessions ............................................................................................................ 71
4.1 Parallel Session 1: Meeting the user needs ........................................................ 71 4.1.1 Analysis of information needs for European Environment and Security
Policies and implications for GMES. Barry Wyatt, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, NERC, United Kingdom...................................................71
4.1.2 Developing the European Geographic Basis: The potential offered by the Common Agricultural Policy control and reporting obligations CAP development & AE landscape indicators. Eric Willems, European Commission DG AGRI..........................................................................78
4.1.3 Developing the European Geographic Basis: The potential offered by the Common Agricultural Policy control and reporting obligations. Els De Roeck, European Commission JRC..............................................83
4.1.4 Security related European policies: needs and recommendations. Christine Bernot, EC DG Research, Coordinator of the GMES working group on security..................................................................................91
4.1.5 Meeting the needs of different users: A Regional Point of View. Prof. Carlo Maria Marino, Regional Agency for the Protection of Environment in Lombardy, Italy ................................................................................94
4.1.6 Outreach programmes : the example of Canada. Ron Brown, Canadian Space Agency .......................................................................................95
4.1.7 A user perspective on EO techniques for national environmental monitoring applications. Timo Pyhälahti, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland..................................................................................97
4.2 Parallel Session 2: The observing and servicing capacity .................................100 4.2.1 Priorities and Functional Components. Peter Ryder, Environmental
Information Services, UK .................................................................... 100
4.2.2 Data Policy Assessment for GMES - Summary of the presentation at GMES Forum 4. Prof Ray Harris,University College London, UK......... 105
5
4.2.3 Upgrading Observation systems: The implications of the Water Framework Directive. Philippe Crouzet, IFEN, Orleans, France............ 111
4.2.4 Upgrading observing networks: Integrated Global Carbon Observation. Anette Freibauer, Max Plank Institut Jean, Germany ........ 118
4.2.5 Upgrading observing networks: Road to operational EO systems. Stefano Bruzzi, ESA............................................................................ 118
4.2.6 Upgrading observing networks: Cosmo Skymed Constellation. Giovanni Rum, Italian Space Agency, Italy ........................................... 118
4.2.7 INSPIRE: Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe. Marc Vanderhaegen, EC DG Environment.................................................... 118
4.2.8 Interoperability, quality assurance, standardisation: the Metropolis experience. Valeria Dulio, Co-ordinator of Metropolis Network ............ 122
4.3 Parallel Session 3: RTD role and capacity building ..........................................126 4.3.1 Generic needs for research and exploitation of knowledge. David
Briggs, Imperial College, United Kingdom........................................... 126
4.3.2 Integrated Observation Networks of the future : a prospective view. Prof. Peter Hoogeboom, Dr. Philippe Steeghs, TNO, The Netherlands with contribution from Emile Elewaut from EuroGeoSurveys................. 127
4.3.3 Specific needs for research and technological development: Land. Anton Imeson, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands...................... 132
4.3.4 Specific needs for research and technological development: Sea. Nadia Pinardi, Giovanni Coppini and Claudia Fratianni, INGV, Italy ... 133
4.3.5 Specific needs for research and technological development: Atmosphere. Geir O. Braathen, GATO, NILU, Norway ......................... 133
4.3.6 Capacity building in the framework of GMES. Jan Stel, ICIS, Maastricht, the Netherlands................................................................. 133
4.3.7 The GMES Russia network component. Dr Nicolai Dobretsow, Geoinformation, Novorsibirsk, Russia .................................................. 136
4.3.8 Additional Contribution: An introduction to EuroSDR. European Spatial Data Research, Paris............................................................... 136
4.4 Parallel session 4: Multi-level cooperation (local, regional, national, international) ...................................................................................................137 4.4.1 The European Information and Observation Network (EIONET) and
related changes in the Belgian environmental network. Jan Voet, IRCEL, Brussels, Belgium ................................................................... 137
4.4.2 Viewpoint from the non governmental organisation: EUMETNET – Lessons from the EUCOS project. Claude Pastre, EUMETNET Co-ordinating Officer.......................................................................... 137
4.4.3 The European Sea Level Service (ESEAS): Potential Contributions to GMES. H.-P. Plag for the ESEAS and ESEAS-RI Consortium, Norwegian Mapping Authority, Norway............................................... 139
4.4.4 Viewpoint from EUROGEOSURVEYS. Emile Elewaut, Secretary General of Eurogeosurveys, the Association of the geological surveys of the European Union ........................................................................ 141
6
4.4.5 Multi-stage Cooperation: Sharing assets. Yves Desaubies, Ifremer, France ............................................................................................... 142
4.4.6 Building regional institutional partnership: the MAMA Pilot experience. Silvana Vallerga, MAMA co-ordinator and MedGOOS Chair................ 142
5. Plenary Session 3: Presentation and Discussion of results ............................................143
5.1 Reports on the parallel sessions ........................................................................143 5.1.1 Report on the 1st parallel session: “Information requirements on EU and
national policies role and meeting the users needs”. Rapporteur: Marc Doherty, European Space Agency, EOP-S............................................ 143
5.1.2 Report on Parallel Session 2: The GMES Observing and Servicing Technical Capacity. Rapporteur : Michel Cornaert, European Commission, DG Research .................................................................. 144
5.1.3 Report on Parallel Session 3: RTD needs and capacity building. Rapporteur: Alan Edwards, European Commission, DG Research......... 146
5.1.4 Report on parallel session 4: Multi-level cooperation (local, regional, national, European, international). Ronan Uhel, European Environment Agency, International Co-operation..................................................... 148
5.2 Discussions and debriefing of the 4th GMES Forum in Baveno at the 7th GMES Steering Committee Meeting . Chair: Christian Patermann, European Commission , EC DG Research I Director................................................................................149
5.3 Concluding remarks.........................................................................................162 5.3.1 Final Remarks by MIUR. Umberto Giovine, MIUR representative in the
GSC................................................................................................... 162 5.3.2 Statement on behalf of the Irish Presidency. Frank Mc Govern,
Environmental Protection Agency Irland.............................................. 163
ANNEXES ...............................................................................................................................164
Agenda of the 4 th forum................................................................................................165
List of participants .......................................................................................................170
7
FOREWORD
The GMES Forum played a vital role in the Initial Period of the GMES Action Plan. By bringing together the various parties involved in the production and in the use of information in Europe, the Forum contributed to develop a shared understanding of the issues facing the establishment by 2008 of a European Capacity for Global Monitoring of Environment and Security. Further it allowed exchanges of views on the actions to be undertaken during the Implementation Period of the GMES Action Plan.
While the first three Conferences of the GMES Forum were dedicated to reviewing and discussing the state of the art on issues of information production, the 4th Forum Conference focussed on the results achieved under the Initial Period of GMES Action Plan (2002-2003) and on the proposals for action. The Draft Final Report of the Initial Period, as well as supporting detailed reports and related national or international experiences served as the basis of the presentations and of the discussions. Summaries of the presentations as well as the discussions of the Final Plenary Session are included in these proceedings. Further information is available in the library of the GMES web site (www.gmes.info).
The 4th Forum was followed by the second meeting of the GEO ad hoc Group which highlighted the complementarity of the initiatives.
The 4th Forum was organised as part of the EU Italian Presidency programme and particular thanks are due to the Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio and to the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell Università e della Ricerca for their contributions to the preparation of this successful event.
Michel Cornaert European Commission RTD.I.2
January 2004
8
FORUM PRESENTATIONS
9
1. INTRODUCTORY ADRESSES
1.1 Welcome Address
Ezio Bussoletti, Minister Advisor, Ministro dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territori (MATT)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to have you here at the opening of the 4th GMES Forum that the Steering Committee decided to organize in Baveno. Following the intense work that was performed during the Implementation Period, we have all considered important that GMES Fora evolve from pure research results to applications and services as this is the first and major task of the initiative.
This transition has already started in occasion of the 3rd event in Athens last June and is presently well accomplished here in Baveno; this site has been chosen on purpose. We face actually the “happy end” of a very fruitful cycle and we open, at the same time, a new one that, I am sure, will be even more fruitful
The Italian Presidency and, in particular, the Ministry of the Environment who is hosting you, are very happy to start this last action before the conclusion of the first GMES period of life.
The purposes of the Forum were, and are, clear: to present and discuss the results so far achieved during these last two years of work.
In particular the IP Report will be presented as well as the results of the Thematic Projects and ESA Service Elements. We will also hear the illustrations of experience acquired at global, European, national and regional levels having particular attention to the views expressed by key European and US actors. In fact, the Forum will be followed immediately after by the 2nd GEO meeting where more than 35 nations and international organizations will be represented. As it is well known, GMES will be the Europe’s contribution to this initiative.
I am sure that the Forum will be a success as, for the first time, we have a very large presence of the users community who are the first target of GMES. This success is also supported by the large number of participants that we have had: we were expecting no more than around 220 persons while you are here about 300 persons: a tangible example of the interest and the commitment that people reached on the subject.
All the speakers are very qualified while those who will make their presentations today are even more as they represent the highest level of concerned Institutions, data users and end-users.
Before starting our work, I take the occasion to warmly thank the European Commission and the European Space Agency for their very fruitful collaboration and their financial support to this event.
Last, but not least, I would also like to point out your attention to the Poster Session of the Forum which represents an important complement to oral presentations showing how lively and competent Europe is.
I hope that at the end of these three days we will get concrete results really able to project GMES towards the near future as one of the major tools which will allow Europe to become a global player in the field of environmental matter and citizens security. Welcome to everybody and best wishes for the incoming work.
10
1.2 Statement from the Minister of Environment and Land Protection
Altero Matteoli, Ministro dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territori
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased to conclude the first working day of this Forum, hosted by my Country and the Ministry I head, here in Baveno. This initiative has been included in the broader context of the Italian Presidency Semester right because of the interest stirred and the positive result that all of you are expecting for Europe.
The choice of the city of Baveno has been carried out because it is there that on May 1998 the proposal has been launched to implement the GMES Initiative, lately adopted formally by the European Space Agency on June 2001 and by the European Commission on November of the same year.
The hosting by the Government of Italy of this Forum represents not only the “closure of a cycle” of useful initiatives but also a clear message of our interest, even at political level, towards this project aiming at placing Europe among those who can show high and competitive skills in monitoring and environmental security.
It is not by chance, indeed, that the Ministry I head will use all available resources and has identified an instrument that we call “The Technical-Institutional Matrix”. In this document, my offices, under the supervision of my Cabinet, have identified the institutional needs to be met, as to environmental parameters to be quantified and the technical parameters required to perform the functions identified.
The Initial Period will end by this year and we have identified “joint and agreed sectoral priorities” under GMES in conformity with and under the framework of the Action Plan drafted by the European Commission and ESA, referring to the E.C. VI Environmental Action Plan.
In my capacity of Minister of the Environment, I cannot fail to share the main target of GMES, aiming at supporting the European goals linked to sustainable development and global governance, and I give my concrete support to high-quality environmental data collection, to foster new knowledge and information.
As you already know, the implementation of this Programme will enable Europe to keep on ranking first, at global level, as well as to guarantee the opportunity to enhance the development of developing countries that will benefit from the implementation of GMES.
This is the clear political European path not only in the environmental field but as a whole.
I take the opportunity here to welcome and to thank all non-European experts that will take part at the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Earth Observation, namely GEO, that has been set up to implement the political decisions adopted in the first Summit held in Washington last year.
I appreciate the choice you made for Italy as the hosting country and I suppose it ensued also by the acknowledgement of the actions taken by Italy in this field, actions duly coordinated by the Ministry I have the honour to head.
In the global reference scenario of GEO, I think that GMES initiative represents the best and fruitful contribution that Europe can give for the long-term targets established under the Summit. I am particular interest to see the first outcome of this work that will be submitted at the Second Ministerial Meeting to be held in Tokyo next spring and that will be the core of the Operational Plan that will be submitted to the Summit that will be held in Europe by the end of 2004.
11
I would like to remind you that we expect from all information coming from GMES system three main things:
• an adequate and prompt response capacity with respect to environmental commitments of final users, in terms of identification, implementation and assessment of European policies as well as a contribution to the drafting of national and international regulations and conventions;
• a support to sustainable development, at European as well as at global level;
• a concrete contribution to the safety of European citizens through the I.T. support for humanitarian and civil protection actions.
A concrete response to these needs is necessary if we want to shift from the research phase to the supply phase, thus supplying services that are targeted and stable.
If it is redundant to recall how GMES system could contribute to the success of many issue of European sectoral policies, it is not redundant indeed to affirm the great contribution that this initiative, if well structured and scheduled, could give to the support of the European sectoral industry, both big companies and small and medium companies.
It is long time that I have been declaring that the Environment could and has to become an opportunity, both for citizens and for the business sector, and this is the key element of the policy that I am carrying out in the present ruling Government.
In this respect, the European policy could concretely use its competences in this field, and they are an example of well-ruling at European level as far earth observation is concerned.
The GMES initiative could be a further step for Europe to become a “world player” in this field, as it has already been the case in other sectors in which Europe has shown its particular feature of being united and coordinated.
It is also clear that, ideas walk through men legs; each idea that could be good in theory, must be prove to be well implemented indeed. It is in that phase that financial resources have a key role for implementation.
It is for that that I address the Commission and European Space Agency representatives. If we all want, and we certainly want, that GMES system becomes operational by 2008, it is necessary, first of all, to secure all financing necessary to cover the costs for this ambitious and strategic programme for European Union, and thus ensuring this financial channel for the years to come.
The Final Report gives an overview of the resources needed, thus foreseeing a consistent involvement of European and Community Institutions as well as National Institutions.
It is not up to me to give suggestions but I have to recall the success of Galileo programme. Personally, I believe that GMES could be a good opportunity to be set, taking into account the great experience already acknowledged thanks to Galileo programme. If we move towards this path, I am sure that each European country will certainly play its role, because the environmental issues represent a crucial challenge that has to be won.
This: not only to guarantee the independence of Europe in this sector, but also to give an efficient response to citizens’ expectations, by solving the everyday problems affecting them, their economic status but also endangering their lives.
I wish to all a great success for the outcome of this Forum and for GEO programme. I thank you all for your attention.
12
1.3 Statement from the Ministry of Education University and Research
Stefano Caldoro, Secretary of State - Ministry of Education, University and Research
Mr Caldoro, Secretary of State , made an oral statement on behalf of the Ministry of Education, University and Research, underlining the importance of this last Forum and the involvement of his Ministry in the GMES initiative.
1.4 Statement from the Ministry of Environment and Land Protection
Corrado Clini, Director General del Servizio Protezione internazionale, MATT
Mr Clini, Director General of the Department for International Protection at the Ministry of Environment and Land Protection, made an oral statement on the impact of the GMES initiative for the protection of the environment at international level.
1.5 Address by the European Commission
Catherine Day, Director General for Environment, European Commission
Addressing this 4th GMES Forum gives me the opportunity to introduce the information needs as they have been identified in the GMES Report on the period 2001-2003.
GMES is clearly a significant EU co-ordinated initiative in support of the three cross-cutting objectives which underpin environmental policy
• integration of environmental concerns into other policies,
• implementation and
• information.
However the current situation of information collection is one of fragmentation and quality information at global scale an comparable from one region to another and across boundaries is lacking in many cases.
The demand for information is currently not met by an adequate supply, information and data is not adequately shared.
GMES is major step forward to address this demand from Environmental and Security policies at EU and global level by building the needed space and in situ monitoring capacity.
Policy requirements: the Environmental dimension
Information from the local to global scales is needed for the 6th Environmental Action Programme:
• to help guide policy formulation,
13
• to help monitor and enforce these policies,
• to assess the impact of existing and planned policies and
• to provide early warnings on areas for new policy action.
The 6th EAP strategies on soil, air, urban, marine, health and natural resources, underscore the need:
• for better information and for more integrated ways of information gathering and assessment
• to provide policy makers and the public with a fuller picture on which to base their decisions.
The integration of environmental concerns in other community policies such as the Common Agricultural and Regional Development policies broadens the scope and efficacy of GMES:
• The Gothenburg and Lisbon processes underline this need for environmental data to support sustainable development across economic, social and environmental policy domains
• Information is also much needed to mitigate the risks due to natural and man-made hazards and environmental pressures, resulting from climate change and socio-economic activities.
Recent examples of such events are the catastrophic flooding in Germany and central Europe in 2002 and this year’s Prestige tanker oil spill on Europe’s Atlantic coast.
The information must be:
• timely, forward-looking and proactive , in that it is available as far as possible before damage occurs and can predict problems before they happen;
• inter-sectoral – so that policies in different areas can be designed to avoid environmental damage and have a combined beneficial effect on the environment;
• explanatory – so that causes of environmental damage can be identified and impacts tracked through the environment from source to effect;
• comprehensive – in that it addresses all the major policy issues and geographic areas of concern in a thorough and balanced way;
• scientifically credible – in that it is based upon sound scientific evidence, accurate and robust.
Policy requirements: the Security dimension
The borderline between civil and military responsibilities is becoming fuzzy and the term “security” finds itself used in a variety of contexts.
The security context of GMES is not limited to civil protection issues within the borders of the EU.
• Civil Protection: The EU Civil Protection Unit and civil protection authorities within Member States of EU and ESA are involved in risk mapping, early warning and crisis management. Most of the actions are undertaken in Europe, however civil protection teams may assist countries outside Europe.
• Humanitarian Aid: The impact of disasters is much greater in the developing world than in the developed one. The EU through ECHO, its Humanitarian Aid Office, and Member States of EU and ESA are involved in programmes to provide aid to developing countries, much of it channelled through Europe’s non-governmental organisations.The quality and quantity of information available on regions outside Europe must improve. This applies both for those who need to decide rapidly whether to deploy resources and for those – including NGOs, as well as public authorities – that operate on the ground in remote areas with limited communications and poor infrastructure.
14
• Common Foreign and Security Policy: In the context of CFSP, the EU is acquiring the necessary resources to undertake crisis management operations. Tasks include humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks. Resources for these tasks can be entrusted to either the EU's military or civil instruments by decision of the Council. CFSP also covers activities in favour of conflict prevention such as information gathering for anticipating potential crisis and monitoring international agreements.
Policy requirements: the Global dimension
• The need for international co-operation was recently reinforced at the highest political levels at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, August 2002. At this event, the heads of state called for improved global observations for better decision-making, underscoring the critical link between global observations from space, airborne and in situ platforms.
• The G8 Summit in Evian, June 2003, resulted in the G8 Action Plan on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development. The Summit expressed clearly the need to develop close international co-ordination of global observation strategies for the next ten years. This includes the need to identify new observations to minimise data gaps by building on existing work to produce reliable data products on atmosphere, land, fresh water, oceans and ecosystems.
• As a result of the EO Summit in Washington in July 2003, an ad hoc Group on Earth Observations (GEO) was established to prepare a 10-year implementation plan for co-ordination of global observing strategies. GMES is the major European contribution to this goal, but at the same time must satisfy the specific needs of European policy-makers.
As stated in the previous section of this report, the security context of GMES is not limited to civil protection issues within the borders of the EU.
This global vision and commitment recognises that policy decisions, environmental impact assessments and mitigation strategies for environmental, natural and technological risks cannot be developed without sound environmental and spatial information and that sharing of information is of paramount importance so that its use and benefits are maximised.
Policy requirements: Summary
Given this European and global context, GMES should therefore support the policy information needs related to:
• Europe’s commitments to monitoring the global environment through monitoring land cover, deforestation, biomass, biodiversity, sustainable forest management, fire, oceans and the atmosphere in the context of global change and development programmes, and in particular the implementation of the EU’s Kyoto reporting obligations;
• Environmental policies with a European geographic focus through monitoring coastal, marine and inland waters, air quality, land-use change and forestry, soil condition, nature protection sites and socio-economic pressures such as urbanisation;
• European civil protection through flooding and forest fires alert systems, risk assessment from geophysical hazards such as landslides and earthquakes, technological and transport risks such as those arising around industrial sites and the transport of hazardous material over sea and land (e.g. marine oil-spill monitoring, pipelines and Seveso-type sites);
15
• The Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies through monitoring area-control measures, forecasting crop production – both inside and outside Europe – the monitoring of the implementation and compliance of agri-environmental practises and the detection and identification of fishing vessels;
• European Union external aid, development and security policies through provision of mapping and decision support services for aid, reconstruction and development of tools in the context of CFSP (crisis management and conflict prevention). The potential exists for application to policies related to Justice and Home Affairs activities of the EU, such as border surveillance.
1.6 Address by the European Space Agency
José Achache, Director Earth Observation Programmes, European Space Agency
Mr Achache, Director for the Earth Observation at the European Space Agency, addressed the Forum on behalf of the Director General, Mr Jean-Jacques Dordain.
16
2. PLENARY SESSION 1 : GMES : OBJECTIVES, CONTENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIONS 2004-2008
2.1 The GMES proposal: Presentation of the Draft Final Report
(Version 3.5) of the Initial Period (2002 -2003) of the GMES Action
Plan
Timo Mäkelä, European Commission, Director EC DG Environment, Sustainable Development and Integration, and José Achache, Director ESA, Directorate of Earth Observation Programmes
The GMES initiative was launched in May 1998 in Baveno and adopted by the ESA and EU Councils respectively in June and November 2001.
Member States have shown a keen interest in GMES from the early days, by hosting several high-level conferences and workshops to further progress on the GMES definition (Lille, Stockholm, Brussels, Noordwijk, Athens and now again under the Italian Presidency Baveno).
For the Initial Period (2001-2003), GMES efforts have been implemented according to a shared EC/ESA Action Plan, with an initial emphasis on agreed thematic priorities, most of them referring directly to the 6th Environmental Action Plan of the European Community.
The objectives of the Initial Period were twofold:
• To deliver of a set of pilot information and products for these priority themes, based on existing European capabilities, allowing to assess the current technical, organisational and institutional capabilities to meet users’ needs;
• To prepare a report proposing how to progress through the next GMES period (2004-2008).
This document is the final report for the GMES initial period (2001-2003). It proposes a way forward for the period 2004-2008 as requested by the Council of the European Union of 13 November 2001 and the Council of ESA of 19 June 2001.
In accordance with the GMES EC Action Plan (COM(2001)609), this report has been generated by a joint EC/ESA team and further reviewed and commented by the EU and ESA Member States through the GMES Steering Committee (GSC). A number of working groups under the GSC have made valuable contributions to the efforts that have lead to this report.
What lessons did we learn from the GMES Initial Period ?
1. ’Deliver to learn’ and ‘assess to structure’ strands
• Projects and related activities, GSC expert groups : Role of these projects and expert activity is to bring together the many users and suppliers of information around their common themes of interest and build up gradually a detailed understanding of the user’s needs for information and the feasibility to satisfy them.
• More than 400 organisations: All of these organisations are engaged in various aspects of environment and security implementation as well as information service provision and development. These include a variety of public sector end user organisations. The private
17
sector, both through Small and Medium Enterprises and international industrial concerns participate mainly as service providers and system integrators. In addition there is an important participation of European and national R&D organisations together with inputs from expert consultants.
• Intermediate results, not conclusive: The majority of GMES-related thematic and assessment projects started their activities in the first semester of 2003. Therefore, their intermediate results at this stage are not yet fully conclus ive although significant progress has already been achieved through the policy analysis and the intensive interaction between user and supplier communities in defining the information products and delivery constraints.
• General findings and conclusion: A number of general findings and conclusions regarding the general user and information needs can already be drawn at this stage. User needs are significantly different depending on where they operate in the policy implementation and monitoring cycle.
2. Information needs are often implicit rather than explicit f or policy review and formulation :
• When more explicit (Water Framework Directive, Air Quality, etc.): more detailed information requirements agreed but not yet fully implemented
• Reporting obligations place an increasing burden on Member States:
– critically assess the information demands
– develop the capacity to transfer and use information across the different
administrative levels.
3. Implementation of policies:
• Happens at the local and regional levels where information needs are detailed and specific.
• Information often of unsatisfactory or undefined quality, based on proprietary standards and managed through closed systems and therefore not sufficiently accessible to users.
4. Users requirements:
• Improved Data Integration and Information Management
• Continued and timely delivery of quality, certified and documented data from Earth observation sources and in situ measurements and surveys
• Commonly needed core data for policy formulation, review and implementation
• Methodologies and tools for forecasting, planning and decision-making
• Policies aimed at reducing duplicated data collection and to assist and promote the harmonisation, broad dissemination and use of data
• Co-ordinated action to better understand the current gaps and deficiencies in the data collection and information supply infrastructures
• Continued research and technology development to address identified deficiencies in the provision
• Documented quality and use conditions of existing data held by the public sector according to common agreed European and international standards
18
• Open standards for data and services based on existing and emerging European and international standards and translation services
• Co-ordinated infrastructures and services allowing anybody to query, view, access and trade the information held by distributed public and private sector bodies
• A data policy framework and sharing agreements between bodies in the public and private sector
Above all: the ultimate beneficiaries of all such information services - the citizens - need more reliable and comprehensive information on the environment and on the modern threats they are facing. This information has to meet their needs and concerns and has to be presented in the form that is easily accessible and understandable
Benefits
1. Socio -economic benefits:
Based on a preliminary impact study, following potential benefits have been identified:
• An improvement in monitoring capability leading to better data and information access, and effort on characterising environmental events and issues
• A better understanding of events based on a more comprehensive integrated service bringing together diverse but complementary data sources and stakeholders
• An improved capability for forecasting and prediction.
• Several issues and opportunities elaborated in the report give estimates of potential quantitative benefits
• GMES provides direct users with improved information on the environment and civil security, but the vast majority of its benefits will accrue to society as a whole as indirect or social benefits.
2. Political and strategic benefits:
• An autonomous capability to monitor the environment and independence in assessment of environmental and security issues are benefits of GMES that are of strategic value to Europe
• Internal benefits to the Union: through better information and participation of its citizens to the societal debate (good governance)
• External benefits to the Union: by contributing to and showing leadership in global initiatives.
GMES Capacity in 2008 : A step-wise implementation
• Users of services: Public institutions and agencies at the European (and global), national and regional level together with industries (including SMEs), NGOs and the general public.
• Criteria:
– EU policy priorities
– Technical feasibility/maturity
– Benefits and added value
– Cost efficiency
19
– Maturity of the user community
• Proposed Service Categories for the period 2004-2008
– Global Climate Change (the Kyoto Protocol) and Sustainable Development
– European environmental stresses and pressures
– European civil protection
– The Common Agricultural, Fisheries and Regional Development Policies
– Development and Humanitarian aid
– EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
1. In Situ Observing Systems
Situation Today
• A critical limiting factor considered for GMES service development and space is the data integration.
• The scope covers sensor networks and survey data .
• A number of in situ observing systems are in place or under development.
• Their usefulness and quality varies, depending on the accuracy, calibration, continuity, density, and maintenance.
• Managed by a wide variety of public sector bodies.
• EU and national environmental legislation, voluntary collaboration agreements and global international and regional conventions are driving factors.
• In the European Union, important gaps and inconsistencies still exist for air, water, land-use, etc.
• Global terrestrial, ocean and atmosphere networks remain to be fully implemented.
• Basic EU geographical data to address cross border issues such as floods or future Kyoto protocol verification are underdeveloped or not sufficiently accessible.
• Population and socio-economic survey data are not sufficiently and not timely available to assess and mitigate impacts of natural and technological hazards.
• The current in-situ deficiencies impact negatively on the quality and cost-efficiency of the GMES services and limit the added value of space observations.
• Major improvements to the in-situ capacity are required at all levels.
2008 Objectives
• Improved co-ordination in the deployment and operations of the different thematic in-situ networks and surveys shall be in place.
• Gaps are to be closed and deficiencies removed gradually.
• Long-term sustainable operation shall be assured.
• In situ data will be available to:
– Mitigate natural and technological hazards at local and regional levels
20
– Support the reporting and implementation of environmental legislation and international conventions
– Support crisis management and conflict prevention on priority areas outside Europe.
2. The space component
The space aspects of the Draft Final report presented by Mr José Achache can be found at: http://www.gmes.info/library
3. Data Integration and Information Management
Situation Today
A number of obstacles limit efficient data integration and information management:
• Standards and application of documentation
• Data and information access (technical and policies)
• Interoperability (between systems and data)
• Modelling (consensus, quality, validation)
• Concerted actions and networking not sufficiently in place (such as Eumetnet/Eumetsat, EEA Eionet)
• An operational data management infrastructure is missing.
2008 Objectives: A European shared information capacity to be in place
• Characteristics:
– Open, seamless communication, interoperable enabling user service autonomy
– A federated architecture, enabling systems to grow and evolve
– A simple, modular architecture
– Self-configurable, programmable and scalable
– Highly dependable, resilient to security threats or breakdown
– Data secured
– Quality of service
– Ubiquity of access, including global reach
• From a set of unconnected networks to a fully integrated network and services, where each user might participate in several virtual networks, one being the original regional or national network and others being pan-European theme-focused networks
• Towards a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI) based on INSPIRE:
– open standards for data documentation, data models and services
– tools and services allowing anybody to query, view, access and trade the information and data
– a data policy framework, both at European and global level, and a range of data and information sharing agreements
21
The European shared information capacity to be in place can be summed up as follows:
= ESDI + high-speed technology networks (GRID&GEANT) + space and in-situ + networks (EEA/EIONET, EUMETNET/EUMETSAT, etc.)
4. Research Technology Development and Demonstration
• Enhancement of environment monitoring networks and associated instrument technologies
• Improvement of models and the capacity for analysis, forecasting, planning and decision support
• Improvement of interoperability and linkage between monitoring systems (space and in situ), data sources (environmental data and socio-economic data) and monitoring standards
• Improved accessibility to long-term data archives, implementation of meta-data standards, actions to facilitate information retrieval and dissemination
• Knowledge development and exchange including basic research on environmental processes, methodologies, training and capacity building
Recommendations for the 2004-2008 Period
1. Begin implementation of priority services
IN 2004 - 2007 GMES services under the EU FP6 RTD and ESA GSE programmes will progressively
• respond to information needs, while assessing gaps in data and collection capacity and other obstacles impeding users to meet their objectives,
• analyse and prepare for the organisation of European information service facilities and networks according to identified needs, by mid 2004,
• provide a yearly report on the status of GMES services with the necessary details of the development and implementation activities.
Action: European Commission and Council, ESA and EU and ESA Member States, GMES Management Entity and/or a GMES Partnership
2. Establish an organisational framework for a permanent dialogue with users to
• further assess and structure the information needs with of EU policies in the field of environment and security at European and global scales,
• provide inputs for adjustments to running implementation contracts,
• identify new services.
Action: European Commission and Council, ESA, EEA and EU and ESA Member States
3. Develop a strategy with respect to information produced by GMES services by mid 2005
• Review the existing data policies in a European and international context, initiating the necessary dialogue and creating arrangements that address the needs of GMES users.
Action: European Commission, ESA, EEA and EU and ESA Member States, in close consultation with wider stakeholders, GMES Management Entity and/or a GMES Partnership
22
4. Develop the capacity and interfaces to improve access, exchange and sharing of data and
information needed and produced by GMES services by 2008
• Include definition, by mid 2005, the European Spatial Data Infrastructure needed for improved data and information access and provide cost estimates and an implementation plan (following INSPIRE initiative).
• Consider the setting up of a European imagery and mapping capability building upon existing facilities and expertise to better serve security-related, as well as environmental policies.
Action: European Commission and Council, EEA, ESA, EU and ESA Member States and operational data and service providers (e.g. EUMETSAT), GMES Management Entity and/or a GMES Partnership
5. Develop the required elements of space capabilities for GMES by 2008
• Prepare new space mission programme proposals.
• Start the implementation phase with industry.
• Undertake and complete the negotiation process to access data from European and non-European satellite systems.
Action: ESA in consultation with EUMETSAT and national space agencies
6. Assess the existing in-situ capabilities of relevance for GMES and prepare an implementation plan
for complementary adaptations and/or new deployments
• Provide a report on the existing/planned in-situ observing systems and provide an implementation plan by end 2004.
• Perform the initial upgrades in funding available in the 2004-2007 timeframe.
Action: European Commission and Council, EEA and EU and ESA Member States
7. To organise and fund RTD activities at a level sufficient to underpin the quality and progress of
GMES services
• Filling of gaps in scientific knowledge and required technologies (including for space and in situ observing systems), implementation of pre-operational activities and the transfer of knowledge and expertise to GMES services.
Action: European Commission and Council, ESA and EU and ESA Member States
8. Establish an operational GMES institutional set-up by mid 2004
• Establish an operational GMES Management Entity.
• Establish (if and as required) a GMES Partnership, following the definition and agreement on its nature, responsibilities and initial composition.
• Establish as required the advisory/supervisory arrangements for the concerned countries.
Action: European Commission and Council, ESA and EU and ESA Member States, in close consultation with wider stakeholders
9. Establish a policy for GMES international partnerships by end 2004
Action: European Commission and Council and EU and ESA Member States
23
10. Ensure sustainability of GMES services through appropriate funding mechanisms
• Create dedicated budgets for the provision of GMES operational services in the 2007-2013 timeframe.
Action: European Commission and Council and EU and ESA Member States
2.2 Vie ws on GMES
2.2.1 Ten preconditions for success
Colin Hicks, Chairman of the GMES Steering Committee Drafting Group
In order to make GMES a success, 10 risks of failure will have to be taken into account and avoided:
• If GMES is used by some to advance their interests at the expense of others;
• If GMES is driven from the supply-side, rather than being led by users;
• If GMES is taken forward by Europe alone, neglecting international co-operation;
• If GMES waits for agreement on everything, before doing anything, i.e. GMES must take a progressive approach;
• If GMES does not address services from end-to-end, adapting and using existing structures wherever possible;
• If the GMES capacity is accessible to users for some purposes, but is withheld from others who want to use it elsewhere;
• If GMES leaves essential long-term datasets and archives at the mercy of the research community;
• If GMES neglects data traceability, quality, policy and the assimilation of data into models;
• If GMES neglects global issues, because early users of the GMES capacity have a priority focus on European issues;
• If there is a failure to agree on the next steps and then endless months and years are just spent discussing GMES.
2.2.2 View of EUMETSAT
David Williams, EUMETSAT
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
24
2.2.3 View of the European Environment Agency
Prof. Jacky Mc Glade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions and also at http://www.eea.eu.int
2.2.4 Views on the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Initiative
Vice-Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Co-Chair, Ad Hoc Group on Earth Observations
Introduction
As GEO Co-Chair, and on behalf of my boss and Co-Host for the Earth Observation Summit, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and NOAA, I express my appreciation to our Italian hosts and to the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) Plenary organizers for inviting me to share my views with you about the very important topic of the GMES. I am delighted and honored to have the opportunity to be in the company of such a distinguished audience and to be in such a beautiful setting here in Baveno. I feel especially privileged to be here with European Earth observation leaders – especially the mix of visionary satellite and in situ representative - friends from the Earth Observation Summit and Group on Earth Observations (GEO) and important User groups.
I believe that international economic and development issues are key agenda items for leaders around the world, and that we in the Earth sciences communities take our ability to contribute to their solution very seriously. As Jose Achache mentioned earlier today, elevating what we do to the political level is critically important to address the policy challenges and priorities of today and the future.
I commend your efforts to address the technological and management challenges of organizing a space-based and in situ Earth observation system and then connecting it with user driven requirements across the nations of Europe. I have great respect for the leadership and progress you have made as you begin this 4th Forum for the GMES. You are helping craft a vital new strategy as well as creating a new context for moving Earth Observations and their benefits into the 21st Century.
Main Points
Understanding that I am the last speaker that stands between you and your next meal, and since much of what I have to say will be coincident with what previous speakers have articulated, I will focus on some key points. The message I intend to convey today is that:
• The GMES is positioned to be an important European contribution to the work of the GEO for developing a global, comprehensive plan for Earth observations that will make full use of Earth based in situ and space-based monitoring assets.
• The GMES and GEO should work in concert to:
– determine which user requirements can be met at an early date and a sequence for the remainder; and
– determine the plan for ensuring the proper system(s) components and the proper architecture are in place to meet user requirements.
25
• The GMES and GEO should develop and harmonize management and organizational principles for meeting our shared objectives.
The GMES and GEO
The GMES and GEO have much in common. The GMES has catalogued the benefits obtained by Earth observing systems in monitoring for scientific, economic, and societal benefits. The GMES has helped to achieve the “buy-in” of world leaders, as evidenced by the Earth Observation Summit and the G-8 Action Plan which highlighted Earth observations as a priority. The GMES initiative focuses on products and services to meet a wide range of societal needs. Integrated operational information services to support User requirements should be the end result of our collective efforts to develop a mature, sustainable operational Earth observation capacity across nations. Society needs information and services, not just data.
The 4th Forum is not only important to advancing the goals of the GMES, but also those of the Earth Observation Summit and GEO. Your efforts are providing a foundation for implementing the elements of the Earth Observation Summit Declaration.
The GMES can serve as a regional observation entity and key part for the global Earth observation system(s). The global connection will not happen without your help – and the help of the individual countries and institutions involved in the GMES.
The GEO and GMES need to draw on the work of previous groups as well as advancing new ideas for improving collection, development, utilization, and integration of Earth observations.
The WMO, the G3OS (Global Climate Observing System - GCOS, Global Ocean Observing System - GOOS, Global Terrestrial Observing System - GTOS) and the Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) and its members, including the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), have focused on achieving the full benefits of Earth observations that result from the combination of in situ and space remote sensing. It has been demonstrated that there is great synergy when the remote sensing and in situ communities come together to identify requirements, share data, and define best practices for exchange of data and establishment of clear standards and formats.
For example:
• IGOS Themes, for which EUMETSAT has been a strong leader in integration, include: Ocean, GeoHazards, Water Cycle, Coastal/Coral Reef, Carbon, and Atmospheric Chemistry; and
• CEOS Working Groups include:
– Disaster Management Support Group (DMSG) whose report helped to identify requirements for the disaster management community.
– Calibration and Validation
– Data Utilization
– Education and Training
Society has already experienced the benefits of global coordination of systems, such as the enormous growth of worldwide telecommunications, and in banking and finance, where trillions of dollars in capital are moved quickly around the globe everyday.
26
Prioritization: System Components and Scope
System design and component development begin with an in-depth understanding of the requirements of User groups. A well-connected network of nodes and sensors is imperative for understanding and monitoring larger issues such as climate and other Earth physical and biological phenomena, as well as applications for sustainable agriculture, natural resource management, disaster mitigation, food security, poverty alleviation, and much more. It is the services for addressing these issues that are paramount, and the previous models of “stovepiped” organizations will not achieve these needed services. Integration of technology and expertise – working across “stovepipes” will help us achieve the full benefits of systems and services from those systems.
Meeting the goals of the Earth Observation Summit will require piecing together large initiatives like the GMES, as well as the systems and components already in place. It will require the active participation of industry, academia, and the general public. An inclusive approach involving both users and providers will be necessary to build the support needed to achieve success.
The pressing social, economic, and science imperatives of today and the future will determine the scope of what should be included in this effort. For example:
• Understanding the carbon cycle and its role in climate projections;
• Drought and water – more than 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and two billion lack basic sanitation;
• Managing and developing energy sources – reducing harmful emissions and a growing derivatives market;
• Transportation – 95% of U.S. trade is transported by ship across oceans waterways;
• Global coastal population trends show growing concentration along coastlines which are often the most biologically productive areas of a country. They are a primary source of nutrition, support growing tourism, and affect public health in terms of water quality including the effects of toxic algal blooms.
Civilian Focus
We have moved beyond short-range weather monitoring and forecasting to the longer- range implications such as those derived from our El Nino monitoring and prediction system. We are moving towards ecosystem-level monitoring. We now foresee a broad scope of users and information requirements – insurance, utilities and energy management, transportation, agriculture, finance and derivatives, and security aspects related to public health and safety, such as air quality monitoring, harmful algal blooms, ports and infrastructure security, vessel monitoring for fisheries management…to information dissemination for hazard warnings and emergency rescue (COSPAS-SARSAT and the new personal-locator-beacons).
GEO does not have the word “security” in it, but clearly the applications of Earth observations have public safety and security aspects. It should be stated that the GEO is focused on the civil applications for Earth observations and monitoring – for research, for natural resource management, and for public use and safety. The “security” aspects of GEO cover essential civilian applications, such as public health, air quality, and management of infrastructure asset. GEO does not include classified assets that are used for other purposes of national defense.
27
End to End
Successful culmination of both the GMES and GEO will require full system planning – the end-to-end concept. Drawing from principles established by many of the groups represented here today, we must continue to support and expand development through a systems engineering approach
• from identifying User requirements
• to developing and connecting the platforms
• in order to:
– assure data receipt systems
– process and distribute data
– assuring open access to data
– provide the services and products that the public, research, and commercial sectors need.
Prioritization: Initial Objectives
The GMES provides an important forum for identifying and defining the work of the GEO. The GMES is a global and a regional model. GEO can be what we want to make it. Your work can be extremely important as we proceed to the next meeting of the Group on Earth Observations that starts here on Friday afternoon. GEO has an ambitious schedule, and I must emphasize that given the complexity of the effort, progress has been incredible. However, it cannot succeed without the committed involvement of those here today.
There is similarity and coincidence between the efforts of the GMES and the GEO Sub-Groups, which have been working hard to draw from existing efforts. For example:
Architecture – This group will develop a concrete, structured, end-to-end approach and consider concepts for the technical operation of the system or systems, including such features as data capture, data collection, processing, dissemination, storage/archiving, exchange, products and services, and telecommunications.
Data Utilization – This group is grappling with reviewing and documenting relevant international Earth observation data policies and identifying barriers to data accessibility and utility to develop strategies to minimize them.
Capacity Building – This element includes one of the fundamental drivers for the Earth Observation Summit, which is to assist resource managers in the developing to gain expertise and access to information vital to make sound decisions on food security, sustainable agriculture, natural resource management, disaster mitigation, and poverty alleviation.
User Requirements and Outreach – This group is undertaking the important task of improving dialogue with Users and is drawing from important sources such as the GMES/WMO database, IGOS Themes, latest update of WCRP needs, and GCOS Adequacy Report. It is important to note that during the last few years new types of users are beginning to value remote sensing, such as nongovernmental organizations for conservation and humanitarian relief and others, which include media organizations requiring timely information.
International Cooperation – This group has the task of reviewing existing international coordination mechanisms and models. It includes identifying barriers and determining how to improve on the way the international earth observing community is organized and carries out its work.
28
Prioritization: Management and Organizational Principles
Research to Operations
There are several long-term issues that are critical to both the GMES and GEO. The first is moving research discoveries to an operational and value-added context. I cannot emphasize enough how important this transition is to our success. Secondly, working from mission requirements, we must be capable of providing not only data, but also more importantly, decision support information. And lastly, asking the right kinds of questions to ensure the utility of both the products and the supporting technologies. The GMES and its partners know the value of the transition from research to operations, and within the framework of the GMES will have a new mechanism to expedite this critical process.
Management and Organizational Principles
I also stress the importance of prioritization for managing and organizing what we are collectively trying to accomplish. Organization and management structures should flow from asking the right questions about the complex issues we face for the future. Traditional “stovepipe” organizations will not be the most useful in meeting user requirements. Additionally, continuity, sustainability, and exchange of data are important operating and management principles.
Data Management and Access
If Earth observations are going to be useful, it requires more than just developing more sensors. We are also faced in the near future with the need to double – even triple - existing data management capacities to match sensor system capacity.
In the next 15 years, the Earth will launch over 150 satellites, bringing increased data streams. For example, my agency, NOAA, by 2004, will ingest and process more new data in one year than was contained in our total digital archive in 1998. By 2017, it is expected that NOAA’s data holdings will grow by a factor of 100. Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) data volume alone will grow by a factor of 30 over the next 8 years.
Therefore, with investments in satellite and in situ monitoring systems comes the need for appropriate investment in data management and high-performance computing.
• common standards, formats and mechanisms for sharing information;
– common infrastructure for information systems
• providing:
– up-to-date GIS presentations on a global scale,
– images quickly in crises;
Continuity of measurements and data for environmental parameters is extremely important if we are to reap the benefits of a comprehensive system. Creating long-term consistent records of the environment is of the highest importance for many key users of both remotely sensed and in situ data. It is also extremely challenging for agencies responsible for their creation. As one step in this direction, we need to pay special attention to the GCOS Climate Monitoring Principles that are in the Second Adequacy Report provided to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Full and open sharing of data between nations is essential. We welcome new ideas for access and distribution, such as use of pre-processing software, standardized metadata strategies, and streamlined coordination mechanisms. I expect that the GMES contribution in this area will be enormous and indispensable to progress.
29
User Connection and Future Projection
Previously used one-way models - “technology push” or “user driven” – have not led to efficient information product systems. They must be replaced by a structured and permanent dialogue between all actors involved in information production and use. We need to construct two-way exchanges and feedback. The GMES has recognized this fact and can help with our emphasis on ensuring that users needs are adequately met and anticipated by integrating dialogue early in the process of definition of programs and systems.
This approach is consistent with GEO fundamentals and GEO will look to the GMES to contribute in a substantive way.
Building a deeper and broader level of dialogue with Users and all levels of society would involve state and local agencies, federal agencie s, academia, and the private sector since they have access to vast and unique resources to achieve the full potential of Earth observation.
And what might that future hold given a successful development and implementation strategy? Future valuable products and services could certainly include:
• Up to the minute, accurate forecasts of travel/road conditions available in every car and truck on our highways. Travelers and commercial vehicle operators will have the advantage of knowing if there is fog, heavy rain, hail or developing icing and snow conditions around the next corner on every road in our national system. Savings in lives and economic benefits in the billions will accrue.
• Real time monitoring and forecasting of the water quality in every watershed and accompanying coastal areas would provide agricultural interests with immediate feedback and forecasts of the correct amount of fertilizers and pesticides to apply to maximize crop generation at minimum cost, as well as maintain healthy ecosystems which will support greatly increased EEZ fisheries output and value from coastal tourism.
• Instrumenting the ocean combined with improved satellite observing coverage will make the Biblical story of Joseph and the seven years of drought following seven years of plenty a routine part of what will become revolutionary decadal worldwide and regional climate forecasts. Agriculture and energy to mention only two important economic sectors will have the benefit of being able to plan for maximum production and efficient use of resources years in advance.
• Comprehensive monitoring of physical, chemical and biological parameters in combination with super computing will give us the capability to predict and prepare for such human health issues as the next outbreak of diseases like Malaria, West Nile Virus or SARS.
• Air quality monitoring systems will provide real time information as well as accurate forecasts days in advance allowing for mitigation of the effects by proper transportation and energy use planning, again saving lives, and avoiding losses in productivity worth many billions of dollars in every region of the nation.
• A comprehensive Environmental information matrix, with short term and long range economic consequences available daily on both a national decision maker-level and "USA Today" level for individuals – would make today’s valuable weather forecasts look like prehistoric relics.
Potential for Advancing Global Earth Observations
The GMES approach can make an important difference in meeting the challenges of establishing the user connection, setting priorities and scope, developing innovative management and organizational
30
initiatives, expediting the transition of relevant technologies from research to operations, and assuring free and open data access.
We are excited about the prospects. I fully expect that the next steps the GMES and its partners will take in this meeting will be directly relevant to advancing GEO and our collective efforts for improving the global observing system. Such progress will be of immeasurable value to the following GEO objectives:
• Improved coordination strategies and systems for observations of the Earth and identification of measures to minimize data gaps;
• A worldwide effort to involve and assist developing countries in improving and sustaining their contributions to observing systems, as well as their access to and effective utilization of observations, data and products, and the related technologies by addressing capacity-building needs related to Earth observations;
• The exchange of observations recorded from in situ, aircraft, and satellite networks, dedicated to the purposes of the Earth Observation Summit Declaration, recognizing relevant international instruments and national policies and legislation; and
• Preparation of a 10-year Implementation Plan, building on existing systems and initiatives.
I know it takes no urging from me. You have already clearly demonstrated your motivation and enthusiasm to join in this critically important undertaking.
Again, I am pleased and honored to share the stage with this group of knowledgeable and dedicated leaders, and to be with you today. We are on a path of collaboration that will benefit the world in many ways we cannot yet imagine. I hope that the GMES and its member states will continue to offer their expertise and support. I look forward to working with you on achieving and improving upon our joint mission and our common goal for generating relevant and comprehensive Earth information for the benefit of humankind.
The full text of Vice-Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher's remarks can be found at the NOAA website http://www.noaa.gov/speeches.html
31
3. PLENARY SESSION 2 : SOME LESSONS LEARNT
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 Lessons learned from the GMES Thematic Projects
Michel Cornaert, European Commission, DG Research
ACTIVITIES OF THE GMES INITIAL PERIOD (2002-2003)
A number of activities were conducted during the Initial Period (2002-2003) of the GMES Action Plan which developed along three lines of work (see Figure 1). The aim was assess the adequacy of the current European capacity to provide information for Environment and Security policies and on that basis to identify and justify the actions to be taken to establish by 2008 a European capacity for GMES.
Figure 1: The Initial Period of the GMES Action Plan.
As indicated at figure 1, the work programme of the initial Period comprised 3 complementary activities:
• Thematic Projects
A series of projects were selected following the GMES dedicated call under the FP5 Environment and Sustainable Development and IST Programmes (see table in annex). Another 10 projects were selected under the ESA GSE Scheme to assess the feasibility of operational services of information provision to end-users (see annex 2). This paper summarises progress of the projects under the Environment RTD programme as well the EUROSION project under DG Environment. According to the terms of reference, these projects were set to achieve three aims and provide three categories of deliverables in 2003:
2002 2003
Proposals for
GMES
Thematic Projects (EC) and Services element (ESA)
Assessment studies
GMES Forum
Prepare
Learn
32
– To elaborate information products of direct interest to EU Environmental or Security policies (e.g. European maps or Data Bases). The elaboration of these products would enable the achievement of the two other aims;
– To establish the dia logue with information users and obtain feed back on the adequacy of products prepared;
– To document the obstacles to the production information met in the project and to identify solutions.
In 2004-2005 projects will research specific issues of production of environmental information.Cross-cutting Assessments
• Cross-cutting Assessments. The aim of these studies was to draw the lessons from the thematic projects and to identify the actions to be undertaken during the 2004-2008 GMES Implementation Period of the Action Plan.
• The GMES Forum was set to initiate a dialogue between all parties involved in the production and use of information for Environment and Security policies and discuss the results from the Thematic Projects and the Cross-cutting Assessments.
SUMMARY RESULTS FROM THE GMES THEMATIC PROJECTS
Due to administrative delays the GMES Thematic Projects were not able to start until early 2003, which left only 9 months to perform the tasks set to contribute to the GMES Initial Period. Furthermore all projects met considerable difficulties in trying to access and acquire the necessary data sets.
The implications for the achievement of the three aims were:
- First aim: the preparation of information products of relevance to EU policies has been achieved to a limited extent so far and work will continue in 2004.
- Second aim: in most of the projects a number of users are directly associated to the work (as reviewer, advisory group, etc). However, little action has taken place so far beyond these small numbers of directly involved users. Wider communication and dialogue are awaiting information products to be available and constitute the discussion platform.
- Third aim: project coordinators have identified and described the key issues hindering the production of quality European information. In attempting to produce full scale, policy relevant European information, all Thematic Projects faced many difficulties in the domains listed below (details can be found in Thematic Projects annual reports and in the Cross-cutting Assessment reports). Overall the current situation is that the quality of environmental information is very good in a number of cities or regions, satisfactory in a few countries only, and generally poor at EU level.
Domain Assessment of problem Actions required on
Access to data and information
Often achievable, but with significant delays and at great manpower and economic cost. Further, much data was found to be lost and could not be recovered.
Develop data services; metadata; archives; data policies; IT logistics and organisation
Observing systems
Inadequate to produce information for transfrontier issues.
Optimise and ensure complementarity of observations from satellites, in situ networks
33
and socio-economic statistics.
Adapt networks to produce observations representative of European territory and of the Planet.
Secure continuity of observations.
Create European spatial data infrastructure.
Data quality Seldom or not documented Implement QA, quality standards, error reporting procedures.
Modelling Models and data combination methods rely on insufficient knowledge of environmental phenomena. They are seldom or not documented;
Improve underlying knowledge, model development and testing, interoperability, model documentation, error reporting procedures.
Research and technological development
Important knowledge gaps. Slow transfer of knowledge to operational level.
Needs to improve knowledge and tools on the above issues, and to enable use of results (capacity building).
Data services Very few European or Global data sets are available in operational conditions.
Support the development of data services as basic infrastructural element (EU-wide data sets) of the information production chain.
End-user information services
Many services are in place or supported on ad hoc basis to help meeting policy need for information. Overall, for transfrontier issues, outputs are expensive and of poor quality, due to above listed problems.
Specific EU action on end-user information services is not needed at this time. The initial priority for action should be given to the improvements required in the domains above, since these constitute preconditions to the further development of services. Immediate demonstration activities should be carried out in less advanced regions and countries, in support to capacity building activities.
Finally it is important to stress that in order to improve the situation it is necessary to consider the whole chain of information production. EU action is needed in all of the identified obstacles to information production. Furthermore an overall frame is needed to allow prioritization and allocation of actions between European key actors, as well as to monitor progress. Priority actions have to address the limiting factors within the information production system and within its individual elements.
The projects summaries below illustrate the above general findings, although they do not present an exhaustinve description of the projects results.
34
BIOPRESS
LINKING PAN-EUROPEAN LANDCOVER CHANGE TO
PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY http://www.creaf.uab.es/biopress/index2.htm
Aim and method
The focus of BIOPRESS is to assess land cover changes around sensitive areas in Europe between 1950 – 2000. For a sample of Natura2000 sites and their surroundings, land cover change matrices will be produced by back dating CORINE land cover 1990 with aerial photos of the 1950’s. For a subset of the sample of Natura2000 sites a more detailed interpretation and analysis of aerial photographs acquired in 1950, 1990 and 2000 will be undertaken. The land cover change matrices from both exercises will be analysed and then extrapolated to the European level using CORINE land cover.
The European products will be used to assess the links between land cover change and pressures on biodiversity (intensification, abandonment, afforestation, urbanisation) in combination with other biological, environmental and socio-economic data. A semi-quantitative pressure-state-model called MIRABEL will convert the quantified pressures into assessments of biodiversity at the pan-European level.
The objectives of BIOPRESS for the first working period were:
• To acquire and prepare existing European datasets related to land cover, land use and the four pressures (intensification, abandonment, afforestation, urbanisation) acting on the environment.
• To produce for a sample of approximately 100 Natura 2000 sites and their surrounding landscape land cover change matrices by back dating CORINE land cover 1990 with aerial photos of the 1950’ies. For each Natura2000 site a 30kmx30km window centred on that site will be interpreted (see figure 2).
• To produce for a subset of these Natura2000 sites and their surrounding landscape land cover change matrices from a more detailed interpretation and analysis of aerial photographs acquired in 1950, 1990 and 2000. The interpretation is to be carried out on 2km x 15km transects.
Results
At the time of the 4th GMES Forum, quantitative results had been produced for a few windows. Figure 3 and Table 1 show the changes of land cover around Brussels between 1950-1990. The discontinuous urban landscapes have gained 8881 ha, increasing by one third their area at the expense mainly of arable and rural landscapes.
35
Figure 2: Location of selected windows. Figure 3. Land cover changes 1950-1990. Doted lines: Natura 2000 areas.
Data availability
Land cover classes 112 121 124 142 211 231 242/3 311 312 313 322 324 411 511 512 Total 19501.1.2. Discontinuous urban 25344 253471.2.1. Industrial/commercial 3036 25 30781.2.4. Airports 468 4681.4.2. Sport and leisure facilities 6 1384 13982.1.1. Arable land 2887 700 415 234 18015 48 63 3 228282.3.1. Pastures 212 21 34 1210 48 2 15822.4.2/3 Complex rural 5309 573 154 81 10 13521 14 36 108913.1.1. Broad-leaved forest 142 6285 18 64613.1.2. Coniferous forest 241 2413.1.3. Mixed forest 210 12 3468 37833.2.2. Moors and heathland 91 913.2.4. Transitional woodland/shrub 115 7 18 67 2064.1. 1. Inland marshes 134 1345.1. 1. Water courses 4 45.1.2. Water bodies 99 99
Total 1990 34229 4337 883 1784 18171 1283 6500 6338 258 3506 91 67 134 4 117 90000
Table 1: Matrix of land cover changes. Brussels 1950-1990
Lessons learned: Acquisition and checking of data caused considerable delay and additional
costs for users
• Access to data:
– Aerial photographs. Most suppliers have difficulty with large orders, there are negative economies of scale! Can be difficult to physically find data known to exist (thousands of cans of film, millions of negatives). Indexes are sometimes inconsistent and incomplete and sometimes separate from the archive
– Natura 2000 data base. Consultation only at Commission offices.
• Data quality: Very variable
• Data policies: No two suppliers have the same prices. No two suppliers have the same copyright or IPR rules.
Brussels
36
LADAMER
LAND DEGRADATION ASSESSMENT IN MEDITERRANEAN EUROPE.
http://www.ladamer.org
The LADAMER project aims at the integrated assessment of the state and dynamics of land degradation and desertification in the Mediterranean Basin. It includes the identification of hot spot areas at risk, and the consideration of physical and socio-economic conditions as potential pressures upon land.
In view of land degradation and desertification, both in Europe and at global scale, the EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (COM (2002)179) is setting a new cross-sectoral policy framework to prevent and mitigate land degradation and protect Europe's soil resources. Land degradation / desertification is explicitly mentioned with particular reference to soil erosion, decline of soil organic matter (SOM) and salinisation. Furthermore the European Union responded to the objectives set forth by the UNCCD and the following declarations through a number of activities integrating land degradation and desertification concerns.
Providing information to combat land degradation processes (e.g. soil erosion) requires consistent and detailed information on land condition, land use, land cover, climatic conditions, socio-economic statistics on human activities, topographic data (see Figure 4). Previous research has clearly shown that operational monitoring and impact assessment of the major soil threats and land degradation / desertification require a high degree of data integration at European level.
Figure 4: LADAMER methodology.
Socio -economicDrivers
Climate ChangeScenarios
Land UseDynamics
LandSuitability
Land DegradationAssessment
Land Use Forecasting
LandDegradation Monitoring
37
Methods and working steps
Aquiring data. Required data largely exist but are scattered across various National, European and international institutions. Assembling these data sets in a working data base is a first working step.
Obtaining and processing time series analysis on NOAA-AVHRR data to assess vegetation trend-classes and detect ‘hot-spots’ of land degradation.
Processing. Use of evaporative coefficient k to obtain actual land condition in moisture-limited environments using time-integrated normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). Modelling and mapping of land condition index on empirical relationships between k and time-integrated NOAA-NDVI. The derivation of the land condition index is shown here as one example. In step 1, regression analysis was used to derive an empirical relationship between Spechts` evaporative coefficient k and maximum time-integrated NDVI (TNDVI) for the Iberian Peninsula. The first graph shows the relationship between Spechts` k and maximum TNDVI. The land condition index (LCI) can be obtained by calculating the ratio between actual kact and potential kpot. This Index was applied to the Iberian Peninsula, to derive the actual land condition.
Validating. The predictions from this map will be validated by comparing them with e.g. the CORINE Land Cover inventory.
Modelling and predicting changes in land use and land condition over time will be achieved by combining existing land use information with regional socio-economic variables derived from statistical archives.
Results
During the first project phase the land degradation assessment methodology has been developed. The required base data have been collected from various European and international institutions and assembled in a consistent geo-database.
Regional maps of vegetation density over time and land degradation ‘hot spots’ have been produced. Scenarios for land use change have been calculated.
Lessons learned
Lessons learned during the first project phase mainly concern the problems and obstacles of data acquisition and their usage. The acquisition of data has been more time-consuming than expected, mainly due to problems with administrations in particular digital elevation models, soil data base, statistical data etc. The European Soil Data Base at a scale of 1 million created by the JRC is still not available to the LADAMER project in its original vector format, although specific licensing agreements have been implemented. The delay is caused by specific restrictions in distributing this essential data set brought forward by one member state after the licensing procedure had been installed. Statistical data had to be obtained from institutions (EUROSTAT) at relatively high costs, with corresponding implications for the project budget.
Other obstacles result from the still not fully solved calibration problems concerning very long time series of global monitoring systems with involve several satellite generations (i.e., NOAA AVHRR).
Another difficulty appeared in relation to potential stakeholders at the EU and Global level. It was found difficult to establish contacts with responsibles qualified to answer on behalf of the institution and provide their view on LADAMER products.
38
EUROSION
COASTAL EROSION – EVALUATION OF THE NEEDS FOR ACTION
http//:www.eurosion.org
See the presentation by Stéphane Lombardo at section 3.2.1.
OCEANIDES
HARMONISED MONITORING, REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT OF
ILLEGAL MARINE OIL DISCHARGES
http://intelligence.jrc.cec.eu.int/oceanides/oceanides.html
There have been many projects showing that it is feasible to find oil-slicks with SAR images (see figure 5) and many countries monitor with aircraft operationally. However there is still no authoritative figure as to the amount of oil spilled annually or what its impact is.
In order to progress, following questions need to be answered: what is the probability that a dark mark seen by a SAR image is an oil slick? how does this vary with wind, waves, temperature, season sensor? how many oil spills are identified by aircraft and satellite monitoring every year? how many oil spills are there every year in these sea basins? (including false negatives and areas not monitored) where are the hot-spots? How much oil is spilled (m³)? Where does it end up? Where does it evaporate or hit coast? What is its environmental impact?
The picture of figure 5 represents an Envisat ASAR Wide Swath image was acquired 16 September 2003 at 20:03:35 UTC. A long and clear oil slick was detected in the image outside the Estonian coast. A vessel can clearly be detected at the southern end of the slick shortly after doing a 3600 turnaround. The day after at 16:13:22 UTC, 20 hours and 8 minutes later, a Radarsat-1 ScanSAR Narrow was acquired covering the same area. The oil slick has not drifted much but it is possible to see the weathering effects on the slick and that the vessel continued releasing oil towards entering the Gulf of Riga. The colour image shows the two images overlaid and it is possible to see the actual drift and development of the slick in the time passed between the two images. The blue colour slicks are from the Radarsat-1image while the green colour slicks are from the Envisat image. Unfortunately no aircraft or other surveillance data exist for this incident.
Figure 5: Detected oil spill off the Estonian coast.
Results:
39
– harmonised database for both aircraft and satellite image sightings;
– understanding of the importance of image calibration (pixel brightness to radar backscatter);
– reproducible results between ENVISAT and RADARSAT (even 20 hours apart) despite different polarisations and resolution;
– aircraft report no difference between slicks identified as “probable” and “possible” on images;
Underway:
Benchmarking of algorithms; oceanographic modelling of Baltic to determine how many slicks reach coast; statistical analysis.
Lessons learned:
Even in a seemingly straightforward exercise such as monitoring for oil spills, uncertainty is crucial. Four main issues can be identified.
• Experienced operators or sophisticated algorithms are presently used to determine whether a low reflectance on synthetic aperture radar images is an oil slick or an artefact caused by noise, ocean features or bad weather. They assign a probability that this shape is indeed a slick. But when assembling sea basin statistics over an annual period we need to know whether a 75% probable oil slick recorded by one operator or algorithm would be identified as such by another operator or algorithm. Within the GMES OCEANIDES project the issue is being addressed through benchmarking between human operators and numerical algorithms, between different sensors – ENVISAT-ASAR and RADARSAT1 in this case -and between satellite images and aircraft sightings. An early finding was the need to have a standard nomenclature to define the size and shape of the slick as well as the prevailing weather conditions. A draft set of parameters has now been developed and a database of sightings from different sources based on these parameters completed. A second finding was that images need to be calibrated to ensure a standard relationship between the radar backscatter and the brightness seen on the image.
• False negatives. The probability that we fail to observe a slick that is in fact present. This problem will be tackled in the next year of OCEANIDES and the approach favoured presently will be to correlate observed sightings with weather conditions, assume a deposition rate based on known shipping traffic and determine under which weather conditions slicks are underreported. This issue also touches on sampling frequency which is dealt with separately in this report.
• The thickness of oil spills. Because it is nearly impossible to determine the thickness of oil spills observed in satellite images, it is likewise impossible to calculate the volume of spills from the surface area observed. Even with aircraft monitoring it is difficult. Reducing this uncertainty might not be feasible without an extensive ground-truthing which is beyond the current scope of OCEANIDES.
• Environmental impact. Surprisingly there has been very little research on the impact of illicit as opposed to accidental oil spills. Within OCEANIDES a set of scoping calculations are being performed for the Baltic to determine how much oil can be expected to disperse or evaporate and how much might reach the coast.
It is obvious that a better case can be made for setting up a monitoring system for oil spills if we are able to inform stakeholders what the present impact of oil spills on the environment is, what fraction
40
of spills we might expect to detect and what the probability is that the slicks that we identify are really slicks.
SIBERIA
MULTI-SENSOR CONCEPTS FOR
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING OF NORTHERN EURASIA
http://www.siberia2.uni-jena.de/index2.php
The goal is to assess the share of terrestrial biota in the budget of major greenhouse gases in Northern Eurasia and to demonstrate the viability of full carbon accounting (including CO2, CO, CH4, N2O, NOx). The methodology (and table 2) is being developed to be transferable after completion of the project to the whole boreal zone. The expected results are:
• a better understanding of land surface processes;
• an improved mapping of land surface features (e.g. not “functional types”);
• a better understanding of dynamic phenomena and interdependencies between them.
Table 2: Model inputs and data sources.
Lessons learned
• The availability of EO space data is good. The need is for secured continuity of observations over the long term.
• In-situ data for validation severely missing.
• Data linkage between attributes and spatial units can not be performed for all parameters due to missing in-situ data.
• Interdisciplinary linkage of data and models is still only beginning.
41
• Key data for climate change observations are: Land cover change, evolution of wetland extent, above--ground biomass.
MERSEA
MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY IN THE EUROPEAN AREA
http://www.mersea.eu.org/html/information/overview/LAS_demo.html
See the MERSEA presentation at section 3.2.2.
ESONET
EUROPEAN SEAFLOOR OBSERVATORY NETWORK
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ecosystem/esonet
Europe has a large and diverse ocean margin domain compared with e.g. USA, Russia, Japan, and many other major states. This region, however, is poorly documented or access to recorded information is restricted. For example there is no readily available agreed chart defining the limits of European EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). The sea floor is inadequately mapped below depths of importance for shipping. Most available information stems from the United States and is generally unavailable within Europe. Human impacts on this zone are poorly understood. A prerequisite for management, conservation and protection from hazards is the establishment of a long- term monitoring capability.
To provide the necessary spatial and temporal coverage it is necessary that different agencies, nations and scientific/technical disciplines work together sharing infrastructure, data, information and knowledge.
Achievement of these objectives requires the co-operative development of an observatory network. ESONET proposes a network of sea floor observatories around the European Ocean Margin from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea for strategic long term monitoring as part of a GMES with capability in geophysics, geotechnics, chemistry, biochemistry, oceanography, biology and fisheries. Long-term data collection and alarm capability in the event of hazards (e.g. earthquakes) will be considered. ESONET will be developed from existing networks in key areas where there is industrial sea floor infrastructure, scientific/conservation significance (e.g. coral mounds) or sites suitable for technology trials (e.g. deep water close to land).
Issues
• Baseline mapping does not attract funding and is expensive and there is no commitment to routine mapping
• Areal coverage is large, approximately 3 million Km2
• International cooperation is required
• Remit of map is multidisciplinary
• Available data has poor resolution
• Existing data not in the correct format or is subject to copyright restriction
• Access to databanks is very expensive
• There is no central repository for geographical data.
42
Solutions
• EU funded data needs to be archived in a European central data centre
• Exploration of uncharted regions and routine mapping is required
• National efforts of member states need to be coordinated
• Liaison with industry is required
• Long term commitment to updating and maintaining a GIS is required
• Funding is required to purchase data
• Mechanisms for interdisciplinary collaborations between all end users are required (member and non-member states)
• Access to GIS database needs to incur minimal cost for basic research
• Establishment of an ESONET network. A multi-faceted approach is required. In addition to autonomous platforms, use of existing moorings, observatory stations, cabled systems and other subsea infrastructure (e.g. from the military or oil industry) can form the first level of observational capacity at minimal cost. At the next level, clusters of stations around telemetry buoys or the use of cabled systems from the coast, where the deep sea is close enough to land, could be commissioned. In order to be effective, however, the placement of fixed observatories cannot be random or limited to locations that offer cheap alternatives. Instead, the division of the European ocean margins into representative zones, each with an observatory capacity, is a more fruitful way of maximising environmental monitoring capacity. It is not necessary to complete a cabled network around Europe from the outset, rather a phased introduction of appropriate technology in key provinces is more realistic. Many potential sites have already been identified as being operable to some degree and provide promising opportunities in terms of their scientific contribution to the network, geographical location and adaptability. Ten sites around Europe form the core nodes of an ESONET: Arctic, Norwegian margin, North of the Faroes, the Porcupine abyssal plain, mid atlantic ridge at the Azores, Gulf of Cadiz, Ligurian Sea, Eastern Sicily, Hellenic area and the Black Sea. In addition to this observatory backbone, must be established an appropriate mobile response observatory to monitor unforeseen natural or anthropogenic disasters, wherever they may take place, in order to mitigate any negative impacts on ocean resources and guarantee future environmental security.
GMES-GATO
http://www.ozone-sec.ch.cam.ac.uk/Clusters/Gato/Gmain.html
The report defines a strategy for global atmospheric observations to make best coordinated use of existing measurement networks and satellites, and to complement these where necessary.
• The analysis is based on the current policy commitments and research needs:
• The Montreal Protocol: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion and Surface UV Radiation
• Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol
• Regional Air Quality
• International conventions on Aviation, Shipping and Coastal Pollution
• Volcano Monitoring and Public Safety
• Atmospheric influence on Systems Observing the Earth’s Surface.
43
For each of the above areas, the following issues have been considered:
• Verification of compliance with and success of protocols.
• Provision of near-real-time information for public and scientific use.
• Observation and modelling synergies.
• Measurement quality, archiving and access.
• Extension of the satellite programme beyond ENVISAT.
• Development of non-satellite monitoring systems for GMES Post-2008.
• Provision of funding / rational funding frameworks.
The results and recommendations are summarized in table 4 on next page.
44
Table 4: Actions towards the establishment of an atmospheric information system within GMES
45
METH-MONITEUR
METHANE MONITORING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RUSSIA
See the presentation on Meth-MonitEUR at section 3.2.3.
CREATE-DAEDALUS
DELIVERY OF AEROSOL DATA BASE AND PRODUCTS FOR
ASSIMILATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL USE
http://www-loa.univ-lille1.fr/Daedalus/
CREATE and DAEDALUS have been established to address issues related to measuring, modelling, and monitoring of atmospheric aerosols and to advise on the optimum use of aerosol in-situ, ground-based and satellite remote sensing data to meet the users’ needs, to deliver data and information to the users, and to develop the methodologies necessary for delivering operational aerosol products. CREATE-DAEDALUS contributes directly to GMES by delivering a quality database and a united data format, bringing improvements in satellite retrievals and models, investigating issues relevant to GMES in the context of atmospheric aerosols. This short summary presents the current situation vis-à-vis aerosol measurement and modelling, the successes which have been achieved, the most important needs, the actual deficiencies and gaps identified, and recommendations for the future directions.
Results
• Acquisition of in-situ data has been tackled by putting together two existing structures working on aerosols (namely EMEP at NILU and the World Data Centre for Aerosols at Ispra)
• Harmonization of data acquisition, quality assurance, and format has been performed.
• An analysis of network sustainability has been performed.
• Aerosol satellite retrievals, intercomparison of satellite data, modelling activities, and prototyping aerosol data assimilation systems are going on, as necessary steps towards an operational aerosol monitoring system.
• New stations are encouraged to contribute to networks by following common, established instrument standards and techniques as well as quality assurance.
• A standard data exchange protocol has been developed and agreed for submission of data to a common data centre at NILU.
A survey to assess users’ needs has been undertaken and address them in the framework of existing and future products.
46
Figure 6: shows the distribution of key monitoring stations reporting to the World Data Centre for Aerosols (archive of quality-assured data)
Lessons learned
• Emission databases are not accurate enough to predict the evolution of aerosol fields over Europe.
• Validation of satellite derived aerosol products is needed from in-situ ground truth and vertical profile (sunphotometer / lidar) data.
• Measurement programmes should have long term continuity and not subject to vagaries of short term funding.
• Difficulty in accessing and distributing processed data from ESA.
• Availability of model results and forecasts should be improved.
• Elements begin to be available for an operational aerosol monitoring system although some work still needed for satellite aerosol retrieval and assimilation techniques.
• Sampling inadequacies. Gaps in coverage, lack of representativity in surface-based monitoring networks, inadequacies/biases in sample design.
Unlike atmospheric gases, aerosols cannot be characterised by a single parameter alone (its concentration in the case of a gas). Understanding atmospheric aerosols requires the knowledge of the physical, chemical, and optical properties of individual particles. Atmospheric aerosols are inherently very variable in space and time, which complicates their characterisation and monitoring.
A number of networks measure some limited aerosol properties, such as those of EMEP (aerosol mass and composition over Europe), GAW of the WMO (basic aerosol parameters), PHOTONS-AERONET (sunphotometers), CMDL (from NOAA), and IMPROVE (over the United-States). While these networks provide very valuable information on aerosols, there are still important limitations, such as spatial coverage, vertical distribution and type of information available. For instance there is a clear lack of stations over some continents (e.g., Africa, Eastern part of Europe, Tropics, Asia) and over the remote oceans (especially in the Southern Hemisphere). There is lack of coverage in the vertical (from lidar, balloon, aircraft, and satellite platforms) in both the troposphere and stratosphere.
47
Each of the above-mentioned networks measures only a fraction of all relevant aerosol parameters. Aerosol scattering and absorption (mostly due to black carbon, a climate warming agent) deserve more attention. The concept of “supersites” with advanced instrumentation (for aerosols and gases) and covering a wider range of key aerosol and gaseous parameters is now emerging to complement at a reasonable cost more usual measurements made at other network sites and at large scale monitoring networks.
More integration of aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements at the European scale is needed, with possible common stations between the different networks. There should also be more harmonisation between the different networks (e.g., EMEP/AIRBASE and EMEP/GAW). There is also a need for more integration between models and in situ and satellite observations which can well complement each other in several fashions.
Satellite coverage is global but aerosol retrieval is still a young science. It is limited to clear-sky conditions for tropospheric aerosols (see figure) and has a rather coarse horizontal resolution for stratospheric aerosols. Moreover the retrieval of aerosol properties is not yet possible over bright surfaces such as snow-covered regions and deserts. Satellite aerosol retrievals have now become a very important component of global aerosol monitoring, for instance to evaluate the representativeness of individual sites and plan their development. However both algorithms and instrument design need to be improved. European satellite products are available for scientific use subject to approval of an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) proposal and access is limited. In general however there is relatively little funding of the development and exploitation of European products, both for development of algorithms and making the data available to a wider community.
APMoSPHERE
AIR POLLUTION MODELLING FOR SUPPORT TO POLICY ON
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS IN EUROPE
http://www.apmosphere.org/home.htm
The need for information
Proper implementation and monitoring of policies to combat air pollution requires reliable, consistent and detailed information on emissions and air quality. Information is also needed to guide and monitor the effects of the many sectoral policies (e.g. transport, energy, tourism) that affect air quality.
Many of the impacts of air pollution on human health are complex and, at the local or individual level, small: what makes them important is the large populations at risk. In order to understand and assess these risks it is vital to monitor conditions over the whole EU and to analyse data from different areas in a consistent form.
Current air pollution monitoring cannot provide all the data needed to support policy and science. New monitoring technologies, including Earth Observing satellites, offer great potential, but information is needed to help design and use these systems effectively, and methods are needed to extrapolate the monitoring data to areas which cannot be directly monitored.
Methods
Emissions inventories will be generated by disaggregating national emissions statistics to local level, using data on land cover, employment, road density etc (see figure 7).
Modelling and mapping of PM10, NO2, CO, SO2 and O3 concentrations will be done using stochastic, geostatistical, affinity zone stratification and Bayesian hierarchical modelling techniques to
48
extrapolate from the monitoring networks to unsampled locations. Performance of the different methods will be assessed by comparing results with data from an independent set of monitoring sites.
Landsat, Ikonos and Envisat will be assessed and compared as a source of input data for modelling and a basis for air pollution monitoring, in a number of test areas.
Figure 7: The APMoSPHERE model
Results
Problems with data acquisition, especially of monitoring data from the Airbase database and population data from Eurostat, have delayed the work. So far, therefore, methods have been developed and trialled mainly using data from the UK, which are readily available via the Web (see figure 8). In step 1, regression analysis techniques were used to derive an empirical association between nitrogen dioxide monitored across a network of 1200 sites in the UK, using passive sample rs, and a range of predictor variables for the 1 km grid squares surrounding each site – including land cover, light emissions, road density, geographic location and emissions. The first graph show the relationship between the modelled and monitored concentrations at these sites.
In step 2, this model is applied to each grid square in the UK, to derive an air pollution surface – in this case, for urban background sites (i.e. urban sites not adjacent to major roads); separate maps can be produced for roadside and rural sites.
In step 3, the predictions from this map are validated by comparing them with an independent set of data, from 70 continuous, fixed site monitoring stations in the UK. The results are good, with almost 60% of the variation in NO2 concentrations being explained by the model. This compares favourably with results obtained from sophisticated dispersion models.
Emissions
Indicators
CORINE land cover etc Monitoring data
Disaggregation
Interpolation/modelling
ValidationAir pollution maps
Risk assessment
Emission maps
Satellite data
CORINAIR data (NUTS3 )
AIRBASEThermal imagery – point
sources
Night-time imagery – light
emissions
Envisat -transmissivity
etc
49
Figure 8: Modelling air pollution maps
Lessons learned
In the process of undertaking the APMoSPHERE project, many lessons have been learned, and several perceptions confirmed, about the problems of data acquisition and usage.
These problems have affected data from both commercial and public sources; the most severe difficulties, however, have arisen with data from EU sources – especially Airbase and Eurostat data. These problems have included:
• Delays and failures in data delivery and access arrangements (e.g. download tools)
• Errors in georeferencing of the data
• Formatting errors and inconsistencies
• Duplicate and missing data records: statistical data on CO data from Airbase, for example, is still missing, despite promises that the errors in the processing tools which have caused the problems in previous years would be fixed for the 2001 data.
• Lack of common identifiers in attribute and geographical data sets (e.g. population and administrative areas)
Inconsistent pricing policies between different organisations (including suppliers of Eurostat data) have also necessitated lengthy processes of negotiation to get the best deals on data purchase. In the case of the administrative boundary data, there was a five-fold difference in the quoted price between different suppliers! Costs of a detailed gazetteer ranged from zero to over £3000.
Basic data, which might be expected to be available via GISCO or other EU sources, are also lacking – e.g. detailed roads data. Many socio-economic data from REGIO are also available only at a very broad level of aggregation (e.g. NUTS 2), and even then are out of date and far from complete (e.g. energy consumption).
Modelled NO 2 (ug/m3)
6050403020100
Mea
sure
d N
O2
(ug/
m3 )
100
80
60
40
20
0
Modelled NO 2 (ug/m3)
6050403020100
Mea
sure
d N
O2
(ug/
m3 )
100
80
60
40
20
0
y = 1.025x + 9.2626R2 = 0.591
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Modelled NO 2 (ug/m3)
Mea
sure
d N
O2 (u
g/m
3 ) -
aver
age
1997
-200
1
1. Model development
2. Model application
3. Validation
50
These problems have delayed the project significantly, and necessitated the diversion of substantial resources (ca. 1 person year of effort – 10% of project resources) away from analysis to basic data cleaning and integration tasks.
DISMAR
DATA INTEGRATION SYSTEM FOR
MARINE POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY
http://www.nersc.no/Projects/dismar/
Aim and method
The aim of DISMAR is to develop an intelligent system for monitor ing and forecasting of the marine environment to improve management of natural or man-induced pollution crises in coastal and ocean regions of Europe, supporting public administrations and emergency services responsible for prevention, mitigation and recovery of crisis such as oil spill pollution and harmful algae bloom. The main elements of DISMAR are:
• Design an integrated marine information system using distributed data-base technology for monitoring and forecasting of oil spills and harmful algae blooms.
• Develop prototype GIS/Internet-based tool (DISPRO) which can retrieve and integrate data from disparate sources, including in-situ data, satellite imagery, model output and resource documentation.
• Utilize new observing systems such as: a) ENVISAT (ASAR and MERIS) and other space-borne platforms; b) stationary land-based X-band radar providing continuous temporal data coverage of coastal regions, c) in-situ observations from ferrybox systems providing water quality data in near real-time, and d) multi-sensor data from aircraft surveillance flights.
• Implement and link existing oil drift and algae models with observing systems to produce forecasts for decision support and management of crises.
• Develop and apply different data fusion, pattern recognition and image processing methods to extract more relevant information from multi-source data.
• Improve dissemination and reporting on the state-of-environment to EEA and national environmental authorities.
The technological approach in DISMAR is to build a spatial data infrastructure as proposed by INSPIRE. Key elements are standardisation of meta-data and data products and facilitate interoperability between different service providers.
The DISMAR prototype (DISPRO) is designed and will be developed to facilitate quick and effective communication of environmental data for associated with oil pollution and algal bloom incidents at sea. The prototype will be based on a distributed network of databases, open GIS and various web-tools that can be used as a decision support system.
Lessons
• There is a general lack of sufficient observational data of oil spills and algae blooms, both in the past as well as in future incidents. Good observations from different observing systems can only be achieved by setting up co-ordinated programmes that can secure colocated measurements from several platforms including satellites in areas where oil spills and algael blooms are expected.
51
• For satellite data it is important to have more frequent coverage to secure daily monitoring, but this is not feasible for instruments such as SAR. Optical and infrared images can be obtained daily, but are hampered by cloud cover. In general satellite data can play an important role in monitoring systems, a fully operational system can only be established if there are several observing systems in place and data are delivered in near real time.
• In situ observing systems using automatic buoys and such as coastal radar are under development. Fully operational systems only exist in a few locations and there is far too little data collected from in situ systems. FerryBox systems are being implemented as a very useful system for operational data collection.. It is therefore important to link satellite and aircraft measurements to in situ data from ferryboxes.
• Aircraft surveillance collects a large amount of data of the sea surface as part of the regular operational monitoring. It is important to co-locate the aircraft data with satellite and in situ observing systems.
• New data acquisitions planned in DISMAR need to emphasise co-location of measurements from different platforms. This is the only way to obtain integrated measurements and assess the importance of the different data types in an operational monitoring system
• Data policy issues need to be resolved, especially data costs for SAR and other EO data that need to be acquired in large quantities in an operational services. Currently, use of SAR data represent a high cost for the service providers/ users. This is a severe limitation that need to be solved
ISIS
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS FOR
HUMANITARIAN GEO-INFRASTRUCTURE
http://www.geo4ngo.org/isisobjectives01.html
The aim was to raise interest and awareness in the use of web mapping and state-of-the-art geo-information techniques by humanitarian organisations.
Results
An assessment of the users’ practices and requirements by a statistical and qualitative analysis of a questionnaire answered by 33/130 humanitarian organisations.
A technical survey and analysis on telecom, field GIS and web-mapping. Proposals of scenarios for the future use of these linked techniques in humanitarian organisations.
A broad dissemination related to the use of geo-information techniques, workshops and a presentation poster.
The humanitarian organisations are willing to:
• Exchange baseline geographical information and experience.
• Make use of geo-technologies component in their projects.
• In specific projects ,hand over geo-information to local and/or development organisations
• To set-up an exchange platform of geo-information between humanitarian NGOs.
52
MAMA
MEDITERRANEAN NETWORK TO ASSESS AND UPGRADE
MONITORING AND FORECASTING ACTIVITY
http://www.ifremer.fr/mama/index.htm
The aim was to network institutions of the countries of the Mediterranean basin and to develop exchanges of information and know-how, as well as capacity building on issues of ocean observation and forecasting.
Results
The elements of the network have been brought together and have initiated cooperation. A large number of participating national institutions are getting committed. The exercise confirmed that potential partners of a network need to be associated right from the start, at the planning stage in order to develop ownership.
The MAMA model of cooperation is being now implemented in all 9 GOOS regions, involving 91 countries. This confirms the important role that Europe can play in empowering developing countries.
EUFOREO
AN EU-WIDE FORUM ON THE USE OF EARTH OBSERVATION FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY
http://www.cs.telespazio.it/earsc/EUFOREO/EUFOREO_more.html
The aim was to identify priority services based on Earth Observation data and to collect users view on these proposed priority, noting potential gaps between demand and supply.
Results
Based on an analysis of the users needs, the current technical performances of the EO satellites instruments, well as on the identification factors hindering the use of EO satellite data, a number of priority candidate services for GMES have been identified: Oil Pollution and Coastal-Marine Pollution; Urban Expansion; Forest Fires Risk; Information for Crisis Preparedness; Crop production; Global Land Cover;
Lessons learned
• There is often a strong need or requirement for specific services but the demand (i.e. willingness and ability to pay) is low;
• The value data derived from EO satellites for useful information for EU Policies is little recognized.
• Developing multi-users licences and fair policy price for EO data would help.
• Some services require increased satellite EO capabilities (e.g. revisit time, spectral bands)
GMES-RUSSIA
http://www.gmes-russia.uni-jena.de/index.php
The aim of the Project was to assess the issues of information production for Environment and Security in Russia
53
Monitoring infrastructure in Russia has a distributed administrative structure. The monitoring process is under the control of the corresponding ministry. The offices and departments of ministries are responsible for the particular monitoring type.
In recent times ministries have been restructured (e.g. forestry to the emergency ministry) causing unclear situations about responsibilities.
GMES-RUSSIA Website
The proposed concept of interactive database with sophisticated but user friendly search mechanisms will allow to bridge the gap existing in the communication and information exchange within Russia and to Europe.
Russian monitoring systems under operation
The current Russian monitoring systems provide monitoring of the basic environmental components such as water, air, forests, land resources.
All Russian monitoring systems are designed as complex systems that use space, ground, airborne and aerological information in combination. The data integration from these different information strata is being done on the basis of GIS technologies.
Recommendations for Actions
Maintainance and development of GMES-RUSSIA Interactive Database, using the interactive project website in Russia.
Intercalibration of measuring instruments (foreign and Russian, space/airborne/in-situ) for Greenhouse Gas Accounting.
Preparation and execution of pilot projects on assessment of the incorporation of Russia´s EO capacity into GMES.
3.1.2 Lessons learnt from the Earthwatch GMES Services Element
Mark Doherty, ESA EOP-S
See section ESA GSE projects at http://www.gmes.info
3.1.3 The JRC’s contribution to GMES
Jean Paul Malingreau, Alan Belward, Iain Shepherd, Francesco Pignatelli, European Commission JRC
The JRC has been a catalyst in the GMES process since its inception (Baveno, 1998).
Activities
Activities at JRC focus on four broad domains:
• Assessing, developing and answering institutional demand for data and information services via collaboration with policy DGs (“the JRC mission”)
54
• Contributing to developments in areas of strategic interest for the Union: global monitoring, security
• Provide technical support to the realization of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI)
• Supporting Space Agencies through delivery of state of the art in remote sensing
Key areas of work include :
1. Monitoring in the context of Europe’s environmental policies,6th Environment Action Plan, e.g.:
• Forest Focus, Habitats Directives
• Soil Protection Strategy, Nitrates Directive
• Clean Air, Emission
• Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy
• Urban Thematic Strategy
Examples
• Soil monitoring and protection:
– European Soil Bureau: operational, harmonised monitoring and impact assessment of the major soil threats require a high degree of data integration at European level
– New methods using remote sensing are developed to make soil organic matter estimates, model soil erosion, soil sealing, soil salinisation and to inventory specific sources of local contamination
• Monitoring levels of natural UV radiation:
– JRC operates the European reference Centre for UV Radiation Measurements (ECUV) to support the Commission’s DG ENV, DG RTD and DG SANCO
– A UV radiation climatology using satellite data is built to quantify the factors that determine the surface UV radiation strength: ozone layer, clouds, aerosols, etc.
– Data are used to estimate human exposure to UV radiation (Environment and Health Comm. ).
2. Monitoring to support Europe’s commitments on the global environment
• World Summit on Sustainable Development
• climate change, Kyoto reporting obligations
• global land cover assessments
• deforestation-forest law enforcement
• productivity of oceans
• atmospheric observations, aerosol
Examples
• Global land cover
– Global land cover for the year 2000 (GLC2000). Produced by the JRC in association with FAO and UNEP on behalf of the GLC2000 partnership of 30 organisations from around the world
55
– GLC2000 uses as reference in various international initiatives (i.e. FAO, UNEP, WCMC, Millennium Assessment)
• Land surface albedo
– The JRC has developed an advanced algorithm to estimate land surface albedo from Meteosat data
– EUMETSAT has incorporated this in the ground segment and is reprocessing the entire archive (1982 to present)
– EUMETSAT and JRC are defining a similar algorithm for MSG
– Basic for Global “Climate” Product with Co-ordination Group for Meteorological Satellites
Land surface al bedo May 1999 (© JRC and EUMETSAT)
56
3. Natural and technological hazards - Civil protection e.g.,
• flood, fire risk, damage assessment, landslides
• databases in support to Seveso Directive
• marine oil-spill monitoring
Examples
• Forecasting forest fire risks
– The JRC has developed a pre-operational system providing 1, 2, and 3-days fire risk forecasts for all of Europe
– The “Forest Focus” legislation foresee a comprehensive European Forest Fire Information System
– Risk maps made available to forest fire and civil protection services in the MS and DG ENV in Brussels every morning via Internet
– Burned area statistics throughout Summer 2003 provided within days to DG ENV and REGIO for decision on Community assistance
• Supporting the Seveso Directive:
– MS are obliged to provide information on the location of all industrial plants containing dangerous substances above a certain threshold amount
– The combination of the presence of dangerous substances with natural risks such as flooding or fire and the changing nature of the risk due to urban encroachment are matters of concern
– JRC has used spatial analysis to identify particularly vulnerable areas
57
4. The Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies e.g.,
• monitor ing area-control measures
• forecasting crop production – inside and outside Europe
• detecting and identifying fishing vessels activity
Examples
• Rural areas: geo-traceability
– Citizen requires quality and safety : Certification of Origin
– Europe has to define the rules for imported products
– Certification companies guarantee the process
– Farmer has to protect his responsibility
– Shared Image Base (Admin, Industry, Farmer)
– Reliable 1m GPS location available (Egnos-Galileo)
• Fishing vessels detection and identification
– All EU vessels over 24 metres carry on-board satcom / satnav system for position monitoring (VMS)
– Satellite imagery can help detect and identify vessels whose VMS is not functioning
– Vessel positions from Radarsat image sent to authorities for comparison with VMS signals in near real-time (< than 30 min.)
– Major challenge is the integration of information from different sources (VMS, coastal radar, aircraft or patrol vessel sightings)
The English Channel
58
5. European Union external aid and security policies e.g.,
• Mapping and decision support services for humanitarian aid and development assistance
• Post-conflict damage assessment and reconstruction
• Information gathering and management for regional forestry and conservation projects
• Assistance in humanitarian demining
• Verification of non-proliferation treaties and nuclear safeguards
Examples
• Crop monitoring for Food Security
– Support to EU food aid programmes
– Uses measurements from the VEGETATION and outputs from the ECMWF for crop production estimates
– Monthly bulletins prepared for Eastern Africa, South America, Mediterranean basin, Russia, & Central Asia
– 10-day bulletins for Somalia and Sudan:
• Post-conflict damage assessment
– Need to assess damage for reconstruction as quickly as possible
– Military restrictions, landmines, remoteness make ground inspections difficult
– Analysis of very high resolution imagery allows reasonable estimate of severely damaged homes (West Bank, Iraq)
– Challenges:
Ø automatic feature recognition and change detection algorithms
Ø access to pre-damage imagery archives
Ø use of radar imagery for areas with frequent cloud cover
Key features of JRC GMES Action
• Answering EU policy needs in a pre-operational mode
• Towards precursor GMES services
• Adjusting to needs as they evolve (dialogue)
• Tapping the best that technology and R&D can offer
• Integration of data sets (i.e. ESDI)
• Participation to
L. Shabelle class "irrigated"Flood irrigated maize
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
M A M J J A S O N D J F
Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
mm
59
– EC/ESA GMES related projects (i.e. ICAROS-NET, LADAMER, CREATE-DAEDALUS, OCEANIDES, EUFOREO, DISMAR)
– EC/FP6 Integrated Projects and Network of Excellence (i.e. GEOLAND, MERSEA, CARBOEUROPE, GMOSS)
• Contributing to international activities (e.g. IGOS, FAO)
• Close partnership with ESA, EEA, EUMETSAT, ECMWF, etc.
60
3.2 Selecte d projects
3.2.1 EUROSION
Stéphane Lombardo, Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee, Den Haag, the Nertherlands
Introduction
About 25% of the European Union’s coast is currently eroding despite the development of a wide range of measures to protect shorelines from eroding and flooding. The prospect of further sea level rise due to climate change and the heritage of mismanagement in the past imply that coastal erosion will be a growing concern in the future. This motivated the European Parliament and the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission to initiate the EUROSION project (service contract ENV.B.3/SER/2001/0030).
The EUROSION consists in:
• Assessing and mapping the exposure of the European coastline to coastal erosion and coastal flooding (based on a GIS database compatible with scale 1:100,000)
• Providing the European Commission and the European Parliament with a set of policy recommendations on how to address coastal erosion issues throughout Europe
EUROSION has started in January 2002 and is expected to provide its results by mid-2004. However, some preliminary are already available such as a Europe-wide database on vulnerability to coastal erosion (see third section).
What is coastal erosion ?
Winds blowing over the sea generate waves and currents which, combined with tides, relentlessly scour materials (including sands, cliffs, rocks, etc.) away from the shore and result in coastline retreat. The recession of shoreline, in turn, leaves the social, economical, and ecological assets along the coast undefended against the assaults of the sea. In the last 50 years, coastal erosion processes have been exacerbated by such human activities as harbour and dam construction, offshore dredging, and coastal urbanisation, which all contributed to reduce the availability of sediment along the coast. An example of severe coastal erosion is given in figure 1.
Figure 1. Example of coastal erosion along the coast of Happisburgh (North Norfolk, UK)
61
Some results of EUROSION
To perform its assessment, EUROSION has produced a GIS database at scale 1:100,000 meant to quantify the major factors influencing coastal erosion processes and to derive regional indicators out of it. By developing the database, a particular attention was paid in building upon existing data sources and not producing new data. This lead to the following layers:
• Coastline
• Elevation
• Administrative boundaries including :
– (i) terrestrial administrative boundaries, and
– (ii) Maritime boundaries
• Hydrodynamics including :
– (i) Wind speed and direction,
– (ii) Wave heights and directions,
– (iii) Tidal range, and
– (iv) sea level rise
• Geomorphology
• Geology
• Erosion trends
• Type and location of coastal defence
• Sediment discharge from rivers
• Land cover including land cover changes since 1975.
By pondering these different factors according to their respective importance in coastal erosion processes and by combining them, EUROSION has demonstrated that it is possible to derive sound indicators to measure the vulnerability of European coastal regions to coastal erosion. This process for producing indicators is illustrated in figure 2.
62
Figure 2. Process for producing regional vulnerability indicators (derive d from EUROSION database)
Lessons learned
Based on EUROSION experience, a wide range of lessons could be learnt and constitute a valuable experience for GMES. These lessons can be best summarized as follows:
• A huge amount of datasets exist, but they are poorly organized and disseminated. Difficulties to identify and access existing datasets resulted in a 5 month delay during EUROSION implementation.
• A wide range of formats and reference systems are being used. Considerable post-processing efforts were therefore needed to make these existing data interoperable (20% of Eurosion budget dedicated to interoperability)
• Quality of existing data is not adequately documented nor “certified”. This downgrades the overall quality of the final product.
63
• Major information gaps still remain. In the framework of EUROSION, the following gaps have been identified as particularly critical:
– Waves and currents in the nearshore area (within 5 km from the coastline)
– Seafloor sedimentology
– Seamless European bathymetry with a submeter accuracy
– Suspended matter concentrations at the mouth of European rivers
• Dissemination of EUROSION results is hampered due to excessive copyright restrictions from input datasets. This will undeniably reduce their visibility to the public.
Among the reasons why these obstacles should be addressed without delay by GMES is that they all have a significant impact on the cost of proje ts’ implementation. In the specific case of EUROSION, this impact resulted in a significant increase of the cost of raw data acquisition and correction of data format inconsistency (post-processing). In turn this increase results in less resources to data update and indicator production, which should really constitute the added value of any information project. Figure 3 illustrates the shift in budget breakdown induced by the previously mentioned information issues.
Figure 3. Comparison between initial and final budget breakdown of EUROSION database
3.2.2 MERSEA - Marine Environment and Security for the European Area
Johnny Johannessen, NERSC, Bergen, Norway
Approach
The current capacity in provision of near real time operational marine environmental information to different users occupied with aspects of the environment and security is being examined and characterised by the Marine EnviRonment and Security for the European Area (MERSEA) Strand-1 project (see http://www.nersc.no/~mersea). By integrating existing spaceborne observations with data
64
from in-situ monitoring networks through ocean modelling and data assimilation system MERSEA Strand-1 shall deliver:
• analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of existing oceanographic data assimilation methods and systems;
• analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of existing marine observational networks (in-situ and spaceborne) and their flow of data to operational/pre-operational models and assimilation systems;
• methodologies for distribution of and access to harmonised and quality-controlled information products from observational and modelling systems;
• specific demonstration of relevance, value and deficiencies of existing information products to users and policy makers and their stakeholders;
• an overview of major knowledge gaps
• a recommendation of cost-effective and sustainable solutions to obstacles encountered for the development and implementation of a fully operational oceanography system beneficial to GMES.
Information Products
Integrated observing systems and numerical models are capable of producing a large range of information products (output) of physical (i.e. waves, currents, temperature, etc.), biological (i.e. algae concentration, primary production, etc.) and chemical (oil pollution, etc.) quantities. The reliability and utilization of these types of information products depend not only upon the performance of the models and assimilation tools, but also on the availability and quality of the observing systems, telecommunication networks, data processing and distribution, data access, and rapid information integration, flow and services.
MERSEA Strand-1 operates both global ocean systems producing assimilated analysis of the ocean state and forecasts, and regional to coastal high resolution systems producing user-oriented products. Information products are then examined and intercompared in hindcast-nowcast and forecast mode in support of:
• Climate research and prediction
• Marine security (crisis management)
• Routine and rapid marine environment assessment
• Fisheries
• Management of shelf/coastal areas
• Offshore industry
• Coast Guard and Navy applications
• Policy making
In general these systems are more mature for ocean physics, while they are still at the research level for pollution and ecosystem simulations.
The four data assimilation systems TOPAZ, MERCATOR, FOAM and MFS are forced with atmospheric data from numerical weather prediction models and they can assimilate satellite derived sea-level anomaly (SLA), sea surface temperature (SST) sea ice fields and ocean colour measurements. In addition the Argo profiling float system measuring T and S profiles is essential for
65
constraining the subsurface hydrography in the open ocean, as is regular XBT observations from VOS. Moreover, the high resolution (~ 4 km) models considered for (harmful) algal bloom, eutrophication and oil spill are MIPOM, met.no OD3D, BOOS, NORWECOM, POSEIDON, CYCOFOS and POLCOMS/ERSEM. These models are also dependent on the atmospheric forcing field and specification of 3D current fields, and place additional requirements on availability and density of in situ measurements for validation purposes.
Currently, the products from the core models are distributed through an OPeNDAP server where the information products from the four data assimilation systems, are compared for the Atlantic Ocean (MERCATOR, FOAM, TOPAZ) and for the Mediterranean (MFS, MERCATOR, FOAM). Examples of this can be viewed and examined at
http://www.mersea.eu.org/html/information/overview/LAS_demo.html.
Obstacles to Information Production and Solutions
The following preliminary recommendations are made to highlight the current capacity of European ocean monitoring and modelling system for environment and security.
These answer the first of the GMES questions being addressed by MERSEA, namely: What are the main gaps in knowledge, technology and tools that need to be filled?
It is arranged according to satellite observations, in-situ observations and ocean models but as a marine GMES will rely on the capacity of the integrated system it will not perform better than the weakest element within these three modules.
SATELLITE MODULE
• 3 altimeters to about 2007. A multi-satellite system for continuous high resolution altimetry must urgently include a high inclination altimeter mission (post-ENVISAT) after 2007. This mesoscale altimeter mission is needed to complement Jason-2 and to constrain in a satisfactory way the mesoscale variability and open ocean currents. In addition, an independent mapping of the high resolution geoid form an essential component of long term altimetry strategy. The planned launch of the GOCE mission in 2006 secures this.
• At least 3 infrared radiometers to 2007. A long-term commitment, beyond 2007, is needed to provide high quality high resolution SST measurements from combined use of passive microwave and infrared radiometers. Regarding GODAE High Resolution SST-Pilot Project (GHRSST-PP) this implies the need to maintain at least one sensor in orbit having measurement stability and accuracy equivalent to that of the ATSR series of sensors.
• 3 spectrometers up to 2007. There is an increasing demand for high-resolution measurements of chlorophyll derived from ocean colour data, blended from different missions (2-3 missions in order to limit the cloud cover effects) and served in near-real time for validation of or assimilation into marine biogeochemical models. As part of this reliable satellite observations of suspended matter in case 2 waters are highly important.
• 2-3 SARs to about 2007. Spaceborne SAR data is a highly needed source of information for detection of oil spills both from illicit vessel discharges and major accidents (e.g. Prestige case). The continuous use of multiple platforms and wide swath sensors (minimum of 2-3) is necessary to maintain sufficient temporal and spatial coverage.
• At least 2 scatterometers to beyond 2010. Measurement of wind vectors over the sea with 25 km resolution and global daily coverage must be made available in support of operational
66
basin-scale ocean forecasting models. Passive radiometry and scatterometry can also be combined.
IN-SITU MODULE
• Argo, VOS and Ferry-boxes: The utilization of VOS and ferry boxes along the European coastal and shelf seas should significantly increase and complement Argo data, and all be sustained. Investment and annual operating cost for a ferry box amounts to about 30 and 40 keuro respectively.
• Rapid data transmission: New integrated data network systems must be established for rapid transmission of very high rates of raw data to processing centres and derived products to operational users locally as well as regionally.
• Observatories: The development and operation of integrated observatories at selected tie -points (minimum 10 sites) along the European coastal and regional seas, such as the one operating in the Irish Sea, is the only way towards routine and sustained in-situ monitoring for environment (physical, biogeochemical) and security (oil spills, red tides, toxic algal blooms).
• HF radars: The number of operating short and long range HF radar systems should increase to at least 10 (today 3 systems are operating) and be implemented at selected observatories.
• Biogeochemical sensor development: There is a developing need to be able to measure pigments, nutrients, dissolved gases and other biogeochemical properties in the sea at fine spatial and temporal resolution. This requires new chemical sensors to be developed that permit high frequency and semi-autonomous sampling from buoys as well as from VOS and ferry-boxes.
• River discharges: There is an urgent requirement for a routine monitoring system of river discharges (volume and nutrients) into coastal seas. The present lack of near real time dissemination of data on river discharges is a major limitation for coastal environmental monitoring.
MODELLING MODULE
• Skill Assessment: There is a need for systematic examinations of the performances of forecasting models which quantify their dependence on the availability, timeliness and quality of measured ocean data from satellites and in-situ systems.
• Downscaling: The regional high resolution forecasting systems improves with systematic and reliable information on the open boundaries from global and basin scale systems.
• Marine GMES: The ocean monitoring and modelling system will not be adequate for several major applications (e.g. provision of high quality and accurate 3D current field for oil spill and pollution monitoring, search and rescue applications, boundary conditions for coastal models and their applications, etc) without a high-inclination altimeter to complement Jason-2 beyond 2007.
• Coastal Models : Coastal models are far from being developed and operated at the adequate resolution for applications to pollution monitoring from land sources. Moreover, the information flow from global and regional scale systems to the local coastal models have not been unified, quality controlled and nor have communication protocols been identified.
• Ecosystem modelling: There is a strong need to develop and advance the maturity of ecosystem modelling, in particular in the direction of species-specific properties, trophic interactions and a tighter coupling to biogeochemical cycles.
67
• Sustainable observations : Basin-scale operational ocean forecasting systems require a commitment to sustain indefinitely the present planned system of 3000 Argo floats (currently around 900 deployed) and basin scale XBT transects from VOS and ferry-boxes or their equivalent, and to enhance their coverage.
Project Team
There are 19 partners in the project from 10 countries.
The project is coordinated by J.A. Johannessen (NERSC, Norway.
The project has 5 workpackage leaders including P.-Y. Le Traon (CLS, France), I. Robinson (SOC, England), K. Nittis (NCMR, Greece), N. Pinardi (INGV, Italy). The remaining partners include P. Bahurel (MERCATOR, France), B. Chapron (Ifremer, France), E. Buch (DMI, Denmark), G. Zodiatis (DFMR, Cyprus), B. Hackett (met.no, Norway), E. Svendsen (IMR, Norway), K.A. Lisæter, L. Bertino and B. Furevik (NERSC, Norway), R. Proctor (POL, UK), M. Bell (Met Office, UK), I. Allen (PML, UK), P. Dandin (MeteoFrance, France), S. Lehner (DLR, Germany), P. Malkki (FIMR, Finland), D. Mills (CEFAS, UK), C. Le Provost (LEGOS, France), K. Haines (ESSC, UK), G. Georgiou (MAS-UCY, CYPRUS), and S. Brenner (IOLR, Israel).
3.2.3 METHMONITEUR
Euan Nisbet, Royal Holloway, University of London, United Kingdom
Meth-MonitEUr stands for “Methane monitoring in the European Union and Russia”.
Methane is the second most important human-emitted (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas after CO2, and proportionately has increased much more than CO2 since 1750.
Today, in 2003, human-made methane has half the warming impact of human-made CO2. It is a much more powerful warmer, weight for weight, than CO2. But methane has a short life in the air (about a decade), after which it is converted to CO2. One gram of methane over 20 years has the same warming effect as 56 grams of CO2 (the C from the methane spending half that time as methane, half as CO2). Over 100 years (spending 10 yr as methane and 90yr as carbon dioxide) one gram of methane warms as much as 21 grams of CO2.
Europe and Russia are major sources of methane.
• Gas leaks - Europe depends on Russian, North Sea, and Algerian gas.
• Landfill emissions
• Agriculture
• There are also big tropical emissions - biomass burning - big grass and forest fires, mostly very damaging.
• The main data sets at present are from the USA, Australia, Canada and NZ. Germany has a good methane program but there is no integrated EU effort so modellers have to use US data (and the US has to sample in Europe to help).
68
The science needs are:
• Long term knowledge of changing methane concentration in specific iar masses (e.g. Atlantic air, Siberian air, S. African air) from a small number of well chosen in situ stations, both in background air and in sites of major emissions (cities, gasfields)
• Modelling, tested against the data sets, to work out where the emissions are and how they are changing
The information needs are:
• Long term site series of CH4 concentration and isotope ratio (13C in CH4),as the basis for local, regional and global models
• Good 3d global and regional models, and local studies, to assess emissions and Verify self-assessed national claims
The Benefits are:
• Best cheap way of cutting greenhouse warming, with effect in 10 years
• Cutting methane Helps in cutting ambient ozone problems
• Cutting tropical emissions linked to reduction of tropical problems such as deforestation
• Can save money by reducing gas system leaks etc.
Methods
• Creation of a genuine European data set, by Intercomparison of measurements between existing EU labs.
• Saving threatened long term records - most European monitoring programs are very insecurely funded and many have been broken by funding gaps.
• Improvement in data gathering by more sampling and better sampling, especially in Russia and by more isotopic data.
• Development of local, regional and global modelling efforts to assess local, national, EU and global emissions by place, season, and source.
This is a genuinely pan-European problem, needing both careful national monitoring and integrated European data sets. The winds carry no passports, and our modelling must depend of intercompared data sets, not just across Europe but also the Atlantic background and the wider world.
Results
Presently the work has
• Saved some threatened long-term data sets, helping them continue (e.g. Isotopes at Mace Head and Svalbard, defining the N Atlantic background). Other key records remain under threat and may soon be discontinued.
• Funded Intercomparison studies, now in progress, to create a truly European data set for modellers.
• Supported important Russian efforts - the Russian gasfields are arguably Europe’s largest energy source
69
• Helped support Modelling studies, to assess emissions and to verify EU national estimates (based on statistical self-declarations - e.g. number of cows - but not on independent measurement.
Europe presently plays only a minor role in methane monitoring, with most of the burden being carried by the US, Australia and New Zealand (who have to extend their coverage to help in Europe. Meth-monitEUr hopes to help.
Why Monitor? And what are the problems?
Meth-Moniteur is necessary to:
• Understand global change - radiative warming - and also to understand ozone budgets
• Verify self-declared emissions in other nations and allow others to verify EU emission declarations
• Keep highly threatened monitoring programs going - several key time series have been lost or broken in the past because of financial problems. The USA always has to ‘cover’ for us, and US monitoring is thus the key underpinning of all global models. Even in Europe the US has to step in to help.
• Support intercomparison efforts between EU nations to create an EU database - not popular with national funding agencies.
Meth-MonitEUr is needed because
• Winds carry no passports - this is a genuinely EUROPEAN problem.
• The EU is NOT pulling its weight, either in its own borders or in helping monitoring in the tropics (e.g. Africa). Yet only a relatively small effort is required.
• The EU is committed to Kyoto and Kyoto needs independent verification mechanisms to succeed (a major weakness in the treaty is that it is based on self-declaration and thus it is hard to create trust).
• The nuclear test ban treaty succeeded because it was verified by air sampling for radionuclides and by the World Wide Standardised Seismograph Network (which unexpectedly gave us Plate tectonics as a by-product).
3.2.4 GSE for Vegetation and Water
Thomas Hausler, GAF and Birgit Mohaupt-Jahr, UBA, Germany
See at http://www2.gaf.de/gse
3.2.5 GSE for Risk
Arnaud de Saint-Vincent, Astrium, Chris Browitt, EMSC and Ulf Bjurman, SRSA
See at http://www.risk-eos.com
70
3.2.6 GSE for Marine and Coastal Environment
Roberto Aloisi, Alcatel, David Palmer, UK Environment Agency and François Parthiot, CEDRE, France
See at http://www.coastwatch.info
71
4. PARALLEL SESSIONS
4.1 Parallel Session 1: Meeting the user needs
4.1.1 Analysis of information needs for European Environment and Security Policies and implications for GMES
Barry Wyatt, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, NERC, United Kingdom
The purpose of this presentation is to summarise the explicit and (more often) implicit requirement for information in support of European policy on environment and security.
The presentation stems principally from work carried out by the BICEPS Cross-Cutting Assessment during the GMES Initia l Period. The assessment began by reviewing the implications of European policy and legislation for data information acquisition and delivery, drawing on policy documentation from relevant Directorates of the Commission and, importantly, from the experiences of Thematic Project Teams and from the invaluable advice and support received from the Working Groups of the GMES Steering Committee.
Our approach to the identification of user needs for GMES was outlined in a previous GMES Forum (Athens, June, 2003), so this presentation will focus on the conclusions of the study.
GMES and the Policy User
Those who consulted the issue of the newsletter that was included in your welcome pack will have read the helpful and succinct answer to the question ‘What is GMES?’
GMES is a political initiative to secure Europe with an autonomous and operational information production system in support of environment and security policies
Operational implies that the information production system is stable, sustainable and that it must deliver outputs in response to clearly-defined requirements for information, produced to consistent standards of timeliness, quality and completeness.
As Catherine Day noted yesterday, information from monitoring is needed at four main stages in the policy cycle:
• during formulation and development of policy;
• to help monitor and enforce the implementation of these policies;
• to assess the impact (effectiveness) of existing or planned policies;
• ‘horizon scanning’ to identify where there may be a need for new policy action.
The requirement for operational products stems mainly from stages 2 and 3. At stage 1, the need is principally for information to develop scenarios in order to assess and evaluate various policy alternatives. At stage 4, the need is for insights into new problems or policy challenges. Here, the main driver is scientific research or – occasionally – the onset of catastrophe.
This is not to say that operational monitoring cannot usefully contribute throughout the policy cycle; rather, it is to emphasise two important points for GMES:
• some policy applications may make unpredictable demands on information provision that are difficult to plan for in an operational monitoring system
72
• to emphasise the synergies between research, monitoring and policy.
This latter point leads on to four further observations:
• operational monitoring must be founded on good scientific understanding;
• science requires access to quality long-term data from monitoring;
• policy issues frequently emerge from advances in scientific awareness
• operational monitoring is often initiated only after a policy issue is recognised.
The Users
Partly because much of the responsibility for undertaking these tasks in relation to European policy in environment and security is devolved to Member States, potential users of GMES are extremely diverse. They include:
• policy makers both within Europe and elsewhere: these include DG-Environment, the various Directorates with interests that impact on the environment (e.g. agriculture, transport, energy, industry, regional development), the European Parliament and supporting agencies such as the European Environment Agency, ESA and Eurostat;
• agencies and individuals responsible for policy implementation and enforcement at European, national and regional levels – including national governments and regional and local authorities;
• research bodies who provide much of the scientific input into policy – including JRC, universities and national and international research agencies;
• industries and businesses that are often the target of policy;
• NGOs and the public;
• producers of information services in both the private and the public sectors, whose rôle is to generate and disseminate specialised information products in support of these end users.
Users of information
As the example showed below taken from the APMoSPHERE Thematic Project shows, the needs of these different users vary.
Pollution forecastsPublic
Emissions data; air pollution maps; time-series data Education
Time-series data; regional air quality maps; pollution forecasts
Environmental services
Pollution forecasts; regional air pollution mapsConstruction industry
Long-term time series data; national air pollution maps; pollution forecasts
Insurance companies
Emissions inventories; air pollution mapsTransport, energy industriesIndustry & Commerce
Time-series data (hourly, daily, annual); detailed air pollution maps
EpidemiologistsScientists
Emissions inventories; site-based monitoring (hotspots); detailed air quality maps; pollution forecasts
Planning departments; environmental health departments
Local authorities
Emissions inventories; long-term air quality trends; national air quality maps
Ministries of environment; ministries of health
National policy-makers
Emissions inventories; long-term air quality trends; EU-wide air quality maps
EEAEU policy- makers
Information needsExamplesUser group
Pollution forecastsPublic
Emissions data; air pollution maps; time-series data Education
Time-series data; regional air quality maps; pollution forecasts
Environmental services
Pollution forecasts; regional air pollution mapsConstruction industry
Long-term time series data; national air pollution maps; pollution forecasts
Insurance companies
Emissions inventories; air pollution mapsTransport, energy industriesIndustry & Commerce
Time-series data (hourly, daily, annual); detailed air pollution maps
EpidemiologistsScientists
Emissions inventories; site-based monitoring (hotspots); detailed air quality maps; pollution forecasts
Planning departments; environmental health departments
Local authorities
Emissions inventories; long-term air quality trends; national air quality maps
Ministries of environment; ministries of health
National policy-makers
Emissions inventories; long-term air quality trends; EU-wide air quality maps
EEAEU policy- makers
Information needsExamplesUser group
73
They cannot necessarily be met by the same information sources, processed and presented in the same way. Forcing common information upon different users and areas of application can therefore be dangerous, both because it may impede specialised insights into the data and because it can lead to use of suboptimal information.
On the other hand, the information base should be mutually consistent and complementary. Cost-efficiency also argues for information-sharing and multiple use of data.
Because much information is synthesised at the European level from data collected locally, there is a particular need for effective integration between data collecting and information processing activities at local, national and European levels.
This implies the need for greater consistency and compatibility of information sources at the different administrative levels (global – European – national – local) - a requirement that has been a common plea from the user communities consulted during the BICEPS study.
Yesterday, we heard Jackie McGlade use the catch phrase ‘Report once, use many times’. GMES would do well to adopt this as one of its fundamental principles.
Key Policy Areas for GMES
Few areas of European policy do not interact in some measure with environment and security. The 6th EAP sets out the general environmental policy framework within which the EU will operate.
The 6th EAP is founded on a number of long-standing principles, many of which also apply to security policies. Key principles are that it should be preventative, integrated and regionalised, that action should be taken at the appropriate administrative level (subsidiarity), and that the polluter should pay for the costs of mitigation or remediation.
These principles have many implications for the information needed for policy support. Catherine Day yesterday referred to a number of key requirements that bear repetition.
The information must:
• Be timely and proactive, in that it should anticipate damage and predict problems before they happen;
• Support integrated policy and assessment, by recognising and reflecting connectivity between media and sectors;
• Be comprehensive, and capable of addressing all the major policy issues and geographic areas of concern;
• Be scientifically credible – in that it is based upon sound scientific evidence, accurate and robust;
• Be explanatory and predictive – so that causes of environmental damage can be identified and impacts tracked through the environment from source to effect;
Other relevant European Policy Areas
However, 6th EAP alone is too narrow a basis from which to assess the broader information need. Other important policy influences on information requirements in the GMES domain. I have grouped examples here in three broad categories:
• Current and anticipated legislation bearing directly on environment and security
– Directives on Wild Birds and Habitats
74
– Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
– Seveso-II Directive
– Water Framework Directive and its precursors
– Air Framework Directive and related legislation
– Thematic Strategies on soil and forests
– Council Regulations on humanitarian aid and food aid
• Relevant sectoral policies and Directives
– The Common Agricultural Policy
– The Common Fisheries Policy
– Regional Development policies
– Directives on food safety and drinking water quality
– The Waste Directive and legislation on packaging and waste disposal
– The Aarhus Convention
• Key international conventions
– UNFCCC
– the Montreal Protocol
– the Convention on Biodiversity
– Various marine conventions (OSPAR, MARPOL, Bonn)
– The Cotonou Agreement
This list is far from exhaustive.
Framework for Analysis : the DPSIR model
The challenge for GMES is therefore to draw from this diversity of users, coming from such a broad range of policy backgrounds a comprehensive assessment of their information needs – and hence the observation networks needed to provide that information with the appropriate spatial resolution, temporal frequency and measurement accuracy.
Drivers
Pressures
State
Impact
Responses
75
Unfortunately, policy documentation is rather unhelpful in this respect. The wording of policy statements and Directives tends to be non-specific in terms of the information to be used in assessing environmental quality or level of impact. There are exceptions to this generalisation, particularly in the more recent framework Directives (on air and water quality) which specify in some detail the determinants to be measured and, in some cases, the design of the necessary observational systems. Nor was it feasible – or desirable – to attempt to seek requirements through direct interview with end users.
As reported at the 3rd GMES Forum, the BICEPS study took an analytical approach. We examined relevant EU Directives and background policy documents in 19 thematic areas, based upon an extension of the original GMES Priority Themes. In each thematic area, we examined: the policy context, the information needed, potential and actual data sources, data processing and analysis, limiting factors and implications for GMES. We were helped in this task by the existence of a number or relevant assessments undertaken by other bodies including, importantly, the IGOS 2nd Adequacy Report (climate), the work of EuroGOOS and the Marine Forum and that of the GMES Working Group on Security.
As a framework to help analyse this material and present the results, we used the DPSIR model that has been widely adopted in Europe as the common tool for environmental assessment. By this means, it was possible to draw out from the user requirement some important general principles and priorities that will help to define and realise GMES.
The DPSIR model as a basis for defining monitoring need
Minimise risk and exposure
PopulationHuman health
Agricultural productivity Food supplyWildfire extent
Land useMeteorological anomaliesVolcanic activityEarthquakes
Climate and weatherPopulation changeGeophysical hazards
Environmental security
Habitat protectionSpecies protectionLand use planningAgricultural policy
Loss of amenityLoss of genetic resource
Habitat extentHabitat qualitySpeciesnumbersSpecies distributions
Land useUrbanisationAtmospheric emissionsWater pollutionWater abstractionSpecies introductions
Climate changeGlobalisationAgricultural policyTechnological advancesEconomic development
Biodiversity and nature protection
Emissions controls
Habitat damage/lossSpeciesdistributions/ populationsPopulationHuman healthCrop production
Stratospheric meteorologyAtmospheric compositionRadiation budgetOcean surface state
Greenhouse gas emissionsAerosol emissions
Solar forcingVolcanic activityEconomic developmentPopulation growthLifestyle change (consumption)Energy policy
Climate change
ResponseImpact StatePressureDriverPolicy area
Taking three thematic areas that have been proposed in the GMES Report as priority topics for GMES services, we can identify the types of data needed to inform the five stages of the DPSIR cycle.
Information needs
To generalise from this Table, we can say that:
76
Drivers of environmental change largely result from economic activity and (arguably) from exogenous processes like climate change. To describe them, we need:
• Information on source activity by socio-economic sector
• The ability to link socio-economic measures with environmental data
• The ability to look at interactions between different drivers
• Long-term continuity of information
• Improved geo-referencing of non-environmental data
Pressures are the primary interactions between socio-economic activity and environment. Typical requirements include:
• Emissions and material flow inventories
• Linkage across different media, sources and pollutants
• Information on land use change
• Information on rates of extraction and exploitation of other natural resources
• Continuous monitoring, rapid processing and access
• Capacity to link information on different pressures from different sources
To observe States, we need:
• Ambient physical, chemical and biological conditions in the different environmental media
• Improved co-ordination of survey and monitoring across media and compartments, to observe and track material and energy transport from source to sink (we saw numerous examples of this earlier today)
• Capacity for rapid response and high spatial resolution in relation to emergency response and regional /local applications
Particular requirements relating to Impacts include:
• Continuity for assessment of long-term effects
• Geo-referenced demographic information / human health data for risk assessment
• Measures of economic performance, as it might be affected by the environment
• Capacity to link data on socio-economic and human health impacts with information on environmental effects
The information needs in relation to policy Responses are largely identical with the policy component of driving forces.
Implications for GMES Report
In the light of this analysis, it is useful to consider the success with which the recommendations of the GMES report address five generic requirements:
Non-environmental data
There appears to be insufficient recognition paid to the importance for many applications of data and information from sources other than environmental monitoring.
As we have seen, these are needed for at least three reasons:
77
• Socio-economic data, in particular, are needed to characterise drivers, pressures and responses;
• Non-environmental data are often used as surrogates for environmental variables that cannot be directly observed (e.g. diffuse pollution)
• Non-environmental data provide the geographical, social, economic or human health context against which to assess risks and impacts.
Models
Monitoring alone is not capable of delivering important elements of the policy requirement – especially functions that depend on the ability to predict future conditions or to examine alternative scenarios. For these purposes – and for many others – monitoring must be supplemented by models, whose sophistication may vary, depending on the state of knowledge.
The GMES report identifies modelling as an important component of GMES and flags the need for QA and improved inter-operability.
However, these requirements are not carried through into the recommendations.
Monitoring and Services
The Report’s recommendations are essentially founded on a linear model, in which two main data streams (from EO and in situ monitoring) feed into the delivery of service elements.
This model fails to recognise a requirement that pervaded the findings of the BICEPS analysis – namely, the importance of being able to link and combine information:
• across environmental compartments (in order to track complex cross-media interactions)
• across policy areas (in the interests of integrated policy / integrated assessment)
• across geographic scales (from the local to the global)
Research and Monitoring
Synergies between research, monitoring and policy are being explored in greater depth in a parallel break-out. I raise it here because the research sector is an important user community for operational monitoring, whose needs appear to have been only partially addressed.
Research is the key mechanism by which new problems are identified that require new policies for their resolution.
The boundary between research and operational monitoring is constantly shifting, as David Williams reminded us.
Euan Nisbet’s presentation on methane monitoring this morning highlights the problems that occur when a requirement for operational monitoring is met by research programmes.
RTD actions should therefore go much further than the filling of gaps, implementation of pre-operational activities and technology transfer, that are the subjects of the relevant recommendation in the GMES report.
Investment in Infrastructure
Finally, the report recognises the importance of a whole range of underpinning activities that will be needed to provide much of the necessary functionality of GMES. This infrastructure will include:
• provision of access to core data
• agreement of common standards and protocols for information exchange
78
• agreement of QA procedures.
It seems to me that the concept of ‘user pull’ is inappropriate as a route to the definition of these functions. Rather, investment in this area may need to be the outcome of more strategic decisions, taken at the programme or systems levels.
4.1.2 Developing the European Geographic Basis: The potential offered by the Common Agricultural Policy control and reporting obligations CAP development & AE landscape indicators
Eric Willems, European Commission DG AGRI
Citizens and the CAP
In the past, the CAP has been the domain of the farmers. Critical remarks where made only by scientists and tax payers. But the debate has broadened (and significantly changed) during the last decade.
Meanwhile it is clear that there are many different interest around the table. The three elements of sustainability
Figure 1: Citizens and the CAP
Sustainable agriculture and Rural Development
• When talking about sustainability, we have to keep in mind that “sustainability” encompasses more than the environment: The environmental dimension reminds us that keeping the means of production, the natural resources and, in a good condition is the very basis of future production.
Common Agricultural
Policy
Common Agricultural
PolicyConsumersConsumers
TaxpayersTaxpayers
Environmentand Animal
Welfare groups
Environmentand Animal
Welfare groups
FarmersFarmers
ScientistsScientists
RuralDwellers
RuralDwellers
79
• However, environment policies must meet the requirement of social acceptability. Social acceptability goes together with an economic rational according to which measures remain balanced in view of the cost and benefits achieved.
• The economic dimension reminds us that only an economically viable sector will be able in to deliver the outcomes society expects. On the economic side, there is, again, a link to social acceptability, since the latter requires that structural change be accompanied by measures to cushion social hardship.
Only if all three elements are respected, we will be able to build the house called “sustainable agriculture and rural development”.
Figure 2: The 3 elements of sustainability
Has the CAP evolved?
Changing conditions in the sector, new challenges, and a steady learning process are reflected in the different reforms of the CAP. Thus, CAP reform can be seen as a continuous process.
The CAP has undergone considerable changes - from the early days, when the focus was on a short-term-oriented counteracting of economic and social pressures, to direct income payments, rural development, and agri-environment measures applied today.
Environmental Integrity
Social Acceptability
Economic Viability
Sustainable Agricultureand Rural DevelopmentSustainable Agricultureand Rural Development
Reducedsurpluses
Environment
Incomestabilisation
Budgetstabilisation
Reducedsurpluses
Environment
Incomestabilisation
Budgetstabilisation
Food security
Improvingproductivity
Market-stabilisation
Incomesupport
Food security
Improvingproductivity
Market-stabilisation
Incomesupport
Overproduction
Explodingexpenditure
Internationalfriction
Structuralmeasures
Overproduction
Explodingexpenditure
Internationalfriction
Structuralmeasures
Deepening the reform process
Competitive-ness
Rural Development
Deepening the reform process
Competitive-ness
Rural Development
Market orientationConsumerConcerns
Farm income
Ruraldevelopment
Environment
Market orientationConsumerConcerns
Farm income
Ruraldevelopment
Environment
The Early Years
The Early Years
The Crisis Years
The Crisis Years
The 1992Reform
The 1992Reform
Agenda2000
Agenda2000 Cap Reform
2003Cap Reform
2003
ProductivityProductivityCompetitivenessCompetitiveness
SustainabilitySustainability
80
Informal working group on landscape indicators
• Significant changes have been introduced through the CAP different reforms. The latest reforms re-shaped the CAP as a policy based on two pillars: market policy and rural development policy with a shift of money from the first to the second pillar.
• This leads to the need to have tools (agri-environmental indicators) to check the good use of the tax payer money spent through the second pillar. For that reason, at the end of ’90s an informal group on landscape indicators was set up. The original members of the group were different European Commission Services as well as the European Environment Agency.
• The aim of the different teams of this informal group is to explore the tools available (no new data collection) to monitor and assess the agricultural and rural landscapes and their development over time. The results of their work are published in joint publications which are recognised to be extremely valuable by international organisations such as the OECD.
Work and studies
Until today, three joint publications were issued in 2000, 2001 & 2002. They are also available on Internet.
• From land cover to landscape diversity (2000) http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/landscape/index.htm
• Towards agri-environmental indicators - Integrating statistical and administrative data with land cover information (2001) : http://reports.eea.eu.int/topic_report_2001_06/en
• Building Agro Environmental Indicators - Focusing on the European area frame survey LUCAS (2002): http://agrienv.jrc.it/publications/ECpubs/agri-ind/
The first publication was mainly based on the land cover component of the first CORINE inventory. As we are more interested in temporal developments than in static analysis, the second and third publications focused more on the Farm Structure Surveys and the Integrated Administration and Control System. Today, we are preparing a new publication and Directorate General for Agriculture contribution will deal with the comparison of the “1990” and “2000” CORINE inventories.
81
Diversity indices
All 3 indices are computed in 2 steps
• the base unit is a grid cell of 3 x 3 km² in which the indices are calculated
• the results are summed up at regional level (NUTS2 or 3)
• the median is used as the best estimator at regional level
Agricultural diversity index: the simplest way of capturing the diversity of the landscape is to count the cover classes in a unit area. The more classes there are the more diverse or rich the area is.
The Shannon Diversity Index quantifies the diversity of the countryside based on two components: the number of different patch types and the proportional area distribution among patch types.
Perimeter/Area Ratio (PAR) : An edge refers to the border between two different classes. Perimeter/Area Ratio, equals the length (in m) of all borders between different patch types (classes) in a reference area divided by the total area of the reference unit.
Figure 3: Diversity indices used
Each of the indices has strong and weak points depending of the precision and accuracy you want to reach. For that reason, we calculate the 3 indices.
Preliminary results
Preliminary « 2000 » CORINE inventories are available for the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg. Figure 5 shows the development of the perimeter/area ratio index for the Netherlands at regional (NUTS 2) level between the “1990” and “2000” inventories. In Ireland, the Shannon index between « 1990 » and « 2000 » indicates developments which are positive at regional level.
NC: 3 NC: 3NC: 3 NC: 3
SHDI: 1.39SHDI: 0.98
Equal number ofclasses
4 classes4 classes
ED: 800m/ha ED: 1260m/ha
Class areas areidentical
Agricultural diversity index
The Shannon index
Perimeter/Area Ratio (PAR)
82
Figure 4: Results of the application of the diversity indices
Preliminary conclusions
• At national level:
– For the 3 MS, all indices are higher in 2000 than in 90
– Increases rank from 1% for the perimeter/area ratio index in NL to 15% for the same index in Luxembourg
– Low increases in NL, high increases in IRL & LUX
• At regional level:
– In IRL, all regions have higher indices in 2000 vs 90.
– In NL, some regions have a lower diversity index and perimeter/area ratio in 2000, this is not the case for the Shannon index
These preliminary results have to be confirmed or infirmed for other countries.
83
4.1.3 Developing the European Geographic Basis: The potential offered by the Common Agricultural Policy control and reporting obligations
Els De Roeck, European Commission JRC
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) includes a range of agricultural subsidies that are paid out each year to farmers by the Member States. The payment of those subsidies is conditioned by the obligation that the National or Regional Administrations have to set up systems to manage and control all the subsidy applications from farmers and to report on a yearly basis to the Commission the results of the agricultural campaign. The exact requirements for those systems are detailed in a series of EC and Council Regulations.
Geographic component
The MARS unit of the JRC provides support to DG AGRI and the Member States on the technical aspects of the systems used in the Member States for the management and control of the agricultural subsidies that have a geographic component. Those are:
• the direct payments, and more specifically the area-based subsidies for arable and forage crops;
• part of the subsidies defined in the Rural Development Plans;
• and a series of subsidies on permanent crops such as on olive trees, vineyards and nuts trees.
Area-based direct payments
If they want to receive agricultural subsidy, farmers have to lodge an application each year. This
application includes a declaration of agricultural parcels and their use.
The Member State Administration has to set up an integrated system to
• manage all those incoming subsidy applications,
• carry out a series of administrative cross-checks against existing databases,
• perform a reliable and objective control on a representative sample of the applications,
• carry out the payments to the farmers,
• finally, to account for the funds spent.
This system is called the “Integrated Administration and Control System” or IACS.
A series of Council and Commission Regulations describes the mechanism of the subsid ies and the requirements of IACS. The initial one is Reg. 3508/92, which has been amended several times in the course of the past decade and which was repealed in summer 2003 by the latest reform of the CAP, defined in Reg. 1782/2003.
An important regulation with regards to geographic information to be included in the IACS, is Reg. 1593/2000, which stipulates that the geographic reference used for the declaration of the agricultural parcels has to be in a GIS format by 1/1/2005 (previously, this reference was allowed to be analogue – i.e. on paper only – and not digital).
84
Geographic components of IACS
There are two major geographic components contained in the IACS: the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) and the Remote Sensing data used for control purposes.
• LPIS: The LPIS functions are the geographic reference system that farmers use to declare their agricultural parcels in their subsidy application. It is important to note that the farmer has to declare all his agricultural parcels, and not only the ones for which he requests subsidy. The LPIS is used both at the management stage and at the control stage in IACS. According the Regulations, it is not necessarily nation-covering, although in some countries, it is. However, all agricultural area that is declared by the farmers in their subsidy applications is included in the LPIS. As stated above, this LPIS has to be in an operational GIS by beginning of 2005. More details about LPIS are given in following slides.
• Remote Sensing data : The Remote Sensing data are mainly used at the control stage. It concerns mainly high resolution (HR) and very high resolution (VHR) satellite images and/or digital (air-born) ortho-photos (DOP). The data acquired in the control context are scattered over the Member States’ territory and the area covered changes from year to year, covering only a limited part of the territory. For these reasons, they are of less interest when we are looking at large, fairly homogenous geographic database at European level.
The slide above shows an example of the remote sensing data (multi-temporal HR images + DOP) used for the purpose of control of agricultural subsidy applications.
The LPIS is the most interesting geographic component of the IACS in the context of large geo-databases:
• It is built by the Member States on the basis of obligations laid down in the EC regulations according common specifications regarding quality and up-to-dateness.
• The exact technical specifications of the system vary from one Member State to another, because of the fairly large liberty left to the Member States on how exactly to implement the LPIS.
85
• An important issue to mention is that the LPIS is completely owned by the Member States – it is in no way property of the Commission.
As said, the exact specifications of the LPIS can vary according the Member States’ choice and needs.
This has led to a variety of reference systems in the EU of the 25 Member States (current and future):
• Some countries have built an LPIS containing as entities the individual agricultural parcels as such.
• Other have opted to use blocks of adjacent agricultural parcels (sharing the same physical boundaries).
• A third type of reference used are the more property-oriented geodatabases such as the cadastre and the ordnance survey registers.
The basic data used throughout Europe to build this reference system are: digital ortho-imagery (airborn or spaceborn), cadastre, ordnance survey, topographic maps, and any other ancillary data that proved to be useful and usable.
We’ll take a better look into the characteristics and examples of the underlying geo-databases used.
LPIS: Characteristics and examples
Countries that have implemented LPIS based on cadastre or Ordnance survey data are e.g. France, Spain, parts of Germany, UK.
The main advantages of such systems is that they are usually known to the farmers and that they are nation-covering databases.
Under the positive impulse of the CAP regulations on the agricultural subsidies, the national cadastres have been improved in quality to meet the IACS standards and where they were not (entirely) digitally available, they were digitised.
In some circumstances it became clear after first attempts to use the cadastre or ordnance survey data as reference, that the said databases were not suitable for use as geographic reference for describing agricultural activity; a workaround was found so as to comply with the EU legislation.
The slide below shows some examples of the (digital) LPIS reference systems currently in use.
topographic map + GIS
Sweden
Orthophotos + GIS
Denmark
Orthophotos + GIS
Finland
86
Another example shows a region in Poland, where cadastre is used as reference for the IACS under construction. According the Polish Administration, the cadastre is well-suitable to serve as LPIS.
Cadastre PL
Following slide shows an example of a region where the German cadastre does not fit the agricultural reality. Some cadastre parcels cover several agricultural parcels, while to describe other agricultural parcels, a whole series of small cadastre parcels needs to be regrouped. In the central part of the figure, three large cadastre parcels first need to be regrouped into one big block and then split up according another pattern, if one wants to describe the underlying agricultural parcels.
Cadastre - DE
87
Recommendations of use
The use of digital ortho-imagery (DOI) as a basis for the LPIS was recommended from the start in the IACS regulations – it was not compulsory because some (mainly larger) Member States objected to that.
The minimum resolution was fixed at 1m, with RMSE of less than 2.5 m and no need for color DOI was expressed – it was obvious that black and white DOI provided sufficient information to serve as basis for LPIS. The age of the DOI was not to exceed 5 years.
A reality?
When we take a look at the LPIS systems that are currently in place in the EU25, we observe that although back in 1992, the Commission could not make the use of DOI for LPIS compulsory, its use is generalised throughout the Union. Moreover, the resolution and accuracy are often better than the originally proscribed values and the DOI are often in color. The update cycle of the data is in many countries reduced to 3 years in stead of 5. In most cases, the DOI coverage produced in the frame of the LPIS construction is nation-covering. Again we see that the CAP regulations have had a very positive impact on the production of high-quality up-to-date geographic databases in the EU.
A very interesting point to note is that in several countries that started immedia tely in the early ninetees with the use of DOI, the DOI are no longer a product produced and used for “the sake of IACS”, but that they have become a standard commercial product. In countries such as UK, DK, IE, BE, several sectors have found common specif ications for these geographic data, which are used for a wide variety of application sectors. The DOI are produced once and the various stakeholders buy the right to use them, without having to pay for the entire production of the product as a whole. Surely this will be an interesting observation for our colleagues working on the INSPIRE initiatives: the common “interest” of various applications that has led to a standard geodatabase product with common specifications – even without the definition of it in regulations requesting this synergy!
Practical solutions for practical problems
Since the LPIS and IACS have to be operational systems, Member States had to be flexible in the implementation of them. As mentioned earlier, they have had to look for workarounds when practical problems arose.
For example, France started of using the cadastre as reference for LPIS, but after some years of implementation, it was judged that this was not an optimal choice. After thorough study of potential alternatives, the cadastre was abandoned and currently, farmers cultivation ilots are delimited using DOP as basis (see image next page).
Another example is e.g. Cyprus, where for military reasons no aerial photos can be made due to flight restrictions: after successful tests it was decided to substitute aerial ortho-photos by spaceborn ortho-imagery, using the latest available VHR satellite images.
Result
As a result of the implementation modalities described above, we can say that the CAP regulations on IACS have led to a set of fairly standardised LPIS geodatabase throughout the 25 Member States of the (future) EU.
88
Example of a practical solution to a practical problem: delimitation of farmers’ ilots on DOP in France.
Rural Developments Plans
Next to the direct payments for arable and forage crops, the Rural Development Plans also contain a set of measures for which the subsidy paid is area-related or defined in terms of a geographic reference (points, linear, location).
It concerns the agri-environmental measures (AEM) and the Less Favoured Areas (LFA).
The Member States are obliged to manage the subsidy applications that farmers lodge on a yearly basis for this type of subsidy in a system that allows direct cross-checks and exchange of information with the IACS system.
Currently, this system does not contain compulsorily a GIS reference, although we note a tendency to work towards the integration of the required information on the declared land parcels into a GIS, often linking it in some way or another to the LPIS. This approach is, however, not followed systematically in all Member States.
In various ways and at various levels, the potential use of VHR for the management of the said geo-referenced measures of the Rural Development Plan is being investigated (see image next page). Not only would this type of data be useful at the control stage (for which it was initially mainly looked into), but it could also be very helpful at the implementation stage to increase awareness of the farmer about the actual commitment he takes and to carry out a sort of pre-check on eligibility of the contracted elements. In this context, it could be that larger parts of the national territories would be covered by such data. But this remains to be seen in the future.
89
Example of use of VHR in control of extensive orchards in Germany.
Subsidies Permanent Crops
A third group of agricultural subsidies that contain a geographic component are part of the permanent crop subsidies.
• The Olive Tree Register
The crop for which the geographic component is most explicit is definitely the olive tree. The nine Mediterranean countries of the EU25 have to set up according the EU legislation an olive tree register, compulsory in a GIS system by November 2003.
The olive GIS comprises all parcels for which olive subsidy is requested and is therefore not so complete as the LPIS for arable and forage lands. Its contents, however, is quite detailed: both geographic location of olive tree parcels (including their boundaries) and the location of the individual olive trees are recorded in the geographic database with good precision. The system for the management of the subsidy applications (including the geographic part) has to be compatible with IACS.
Throughout the nine Member States concerned, DOP with specifications similar to the LPIS ones are systematically used to build up the GIS (see image next page). For the coming update of the GIS, the use of VHR is being investigated.
Here again, we see the CAP as driving force behind the construction of standardised geodatabases over a large part of Europe.
90
Example of DOP used to initially set up the olive GIS.
• Other registers
Other permanent crop registers that are set up in the frame of the CAP do have a geographic component, but are not so “sophisticated” as the olive tree GIS in terms of corresponding geographic databases.
– The vineyard register contains all the vineyards, but no obligation to create a GIS is included in the EU legislation. At present, only 4 countries use GIS reference charts, but a tendency towards the use of a GIS starts to show.
– For the nuts sector, a the new regulation is under discussion in light of the CAP reform. Most probably the reformed nuts sector will include area-based subsidies, although it is not clear whether a GIS component will be incorporated.
Conclusion
We can say that starting the early 90’s, the Common Agricultural Policy has been a catalyst in the area of geo-data. Especially the IACS regulations have been a driving force for the production of large geographic databases.
A very positive point to note is that Member States have spontaneously improved the quality and the accuracy of the underlying basic data used to produce the geographic databases required for IACS, although there was no obligation in the regulations to do so.
We see that nowadays, the geo-databases created in the context of the CAP are generally made available (often on-line via a dedicated network or over the internet) not only to the National and Regional Administrations, but also to their associated bodies involved in the control of the subsidy applications, to the farmers, to extension services and to farmers’ associations.
91
We can consider two major types of geographic integration when looking at the geographic databases produced under the impulse of the CAP: “horizontal” geographic integration and “vertical” geographic integration.
• Regarding the vertical geographic integration, we observe that the synergy across sectors and harmonisation of data specifications has already started in some countries and is in selected cases done at very advanced level. This is certainly an encouraging point to notice, because this process happened spontaneously, driven by common sense and without any explicit specification in the regulations.
• Horizontal geographic integration: Since the LPIS and the underlying/related geographic databases are produced by the Member States according to common specifications regarding quality, accuracy, up-to-dateness and to a good extent the contents, they are already at a fairly high level compatible with each other. Relatively speaking, the efforts to make them interoperable across the EU25 would be not very large, but have not been embarked on yet.
Obviously, the question arises about the accessibility of the mentioned geographic databases at European level, by e.g. the European Commission. At present, such accessibility is not a fact and no initiatives in this respect have started to date. One could wonder if the time is ripe to start active discussion on this issue, to envisage formulating regulations at EU level.
Contact details:
http://mars.jrc.it/
Els De Roeck: [email protected]
Jacques Delincé, Head of MARS Unit: [email protected]
4.1.4 Security related European policies: needs and recommendations
Christine Bernot, EC DG Research, Coordinator of the GMES working group on security
The presentation summarises the results obtained within the GMES working group on security.
Background
The GMES Steering Committee of 18 October 2002 has decided to establish a working group to define the scope of security within GMES. The working group was chaired by Ezio Bussoletti, the Italian representative at the GMES Steering Committee. It includes representatives of Member States, Commission services, ESA and Council. We met 4 times and the presentation is based on contributions received from the participants.
The working group approach has been to:
• review EU policies linked to conflict prevention and crisis management that GMES could support in the frame of “security”, namely: civil protection, humanitarian aid, and Common Foreign and Security Policy.
• establish who are the main end-users and what are their needs in terms of monitoring
• propose recommendations.
92
1. Security domains
Before presenting the needs as gathered by the working group, the main 3 domains related to security are presented.
• Civil protection
• Humanitarian aid
• EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
Those involved in these areas have similar missions, they are all involved to different degree in risk assessment, early warning, crisis management and prevention. They have common needs.
Needs and recommendations
1. Need for improved performance of earth observation (EO) data (world-wide coverage, image
quality inc. high resolution, all weather night and day observation, adequate acquisition and revisit
time) and ensured data sustainability.
These matters are part of the general Space Policy and the information has been given to those in charge of the white paper. It is an important point for GMES and should not be forgotten.
In this context, we support the development of co-operation agreements for the EU to access military imagery (National assets) or information derived therefrom, with appropriate security agreements. Considering the confidentiality of the information, the EUSC could be the interface between users and data providers.
We believe that the EU should negotiate with national authorities to have access to archived data and the possibility of ordering data from up-coming national satellites.
We also recommend that the EU establish a partnership with Member States (on a voluntary basis) to share investments for the next EO satellites. Thus the EU would obtain tasking rights. The group felt that shared ownership of space facilities might be necessary to guarantee access to EO during crises.
2. Need for improved access to EO data (better interface between users and data providers, improved
access to existing databases).
We recommend creating a centre to meet the collective needs for imagery and mapping in support of Commission and Council needs (with possibility to establish mechanisms to respond to Member States demands or external demands from NGOs for example). This could be done by developing the activities already undertaken at the EUSC.
In this context, GMES could support the development of a database of imagery and geo-spatial products. This database would be part of the GMES information system but with a controlled access to sensitive data.
In addition, a programme could be established to archive earth observation data in support of conflict prevention and in preparation to crisis management (“preventive archiving”).
3. Need for improved access to non-EO data
There is also a need to improve the access to background data in particular for risk or impact assessment (on population, infrastructure, access to resources…).
93
We recommend the creation of a database or meta-database to ease access to this type of information, complementary to what can be obtained via the UN. Here again, the database would be part of the GMES information system with controlled access to data. Maintenance and update should be ensured in the long run.
4. Need to improve the production of information and responses to users’ needs (integration of data
from different sources, rapid interpretation, off-the-shelf applications…).
In this domain, progress should be made by implementing GMES services. In the context of security, we recommend to develop services for civil protection teams and NGOs in support of their actions both inside and outside Europe.
To improve our knowledge of users’ needs, we recommend to set-up a network of experts, including representatives of the research community, industry, service providers and users, to deal specifically with security aspects.
In the other hand, awareness could be improved on the users’ side by developing training activities to inform them on the tools and information services developed through GMES.
5 Need for improved methodology and tools for forecasting and planning in particular to support
humanitarian aid and conflict prevention
E.g. impact of climate change and environment degradation on population, probability of migration and conflict, evaluation of associated risks…
We should support research activities in this domain. The EU Research programme could be used to respond to specific needs in close co-operation with potential users.
6. Improve interoperability of systems used by various organisations and rescue services, in different
countries.
We recommend to use the work done by INSPIRE to establish commons standards, formats and mechanisms for sharing information at European level.
We should also define requirements to improve interoperability of systems used during crisis management for a better coordination of rescue services at European level.
7. Regarding improving our response to crises
At present the International Charter is a unique initiative to respond to needs for EO imagery in case of natural disasters. The information is given by data providers free of charge, on a voluntary basis.
We think that the Charter missions should be extended, to cover additional activities and in particular conflict-driven crises. We propose to set up a mechanism to discuss how this could be done.
In the longer run, a user-driven approach could be developed, using a GMES infrastructure, it could include the coordination of user requirements and common procurement for imagery.
Presentation of several chapters of the final report directly related to the needs expressed in
support of policies related to security.:
II. GMES Capacity in 2008
94
II.1 Proposed services categories for 2004-2008:
• European civil protection: risk management including prevention, monitoring and assessment at European level related to natural and technological hazards, maritime transport and security
• Development and Humanitarian aid: provision of data, information and decision-support services
• EU Common Foreign and Security Policy: in support of conflict prevention and crisis management (monitoring of international treaty, population monitoring, surveillance of sensitive areas, rapid mapping for crisis management)
II.2 Space Observing Systems
2008 objectives include very high and high spatial resolution and all-weather imagery.
II.3 In Situ Observing Systems
2008 objectives include: maximise the collection of in situ and survey data in support of crisis management and conflict prevention on priority areas outside Europe
II.4 data Integration and Information Management
• 2008 objectives include:
– an infrastructure enabling GMES users not only to communicate but also to access resources such as very large data collection or archived information.
– the data policy framework for GMES services has to find the balance between "non-discriminatory access" on the one hand and security concerns which might require regulation or other measures to limit the access to certain services, information or data under specific circumstances.
• Recommendation 4 – chapter IV: To consider the setting up of a European imagery and mapping capability building upon existing facilities and expertise to better serve security-related, as well as environmental policies
Conclusion
The GMES final report that ends the initial period takes into account the users’ needs for security in the definition of the GMES capacity in 2008. However the implementation steps to reach the 2008 objectives need to be clearly set.
4.1.5 Meeting the needs of different users: A Regional Point of View
Prof. Carlo Maria Marino, Regional Agency for the Protection of Environment in Lombardy, Italy
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
95
4.1.6 Outreach programmes : the example of Canada
Ron Brown, Canadian Space Agency
There are many similarities between the thrust of GMES and those within the different federal government departments in Canada. In particular, within Canada there is a strong thrust to ensure that research and development within the various departments support their policy and decision making.
This manuscript will present some of the Canadian experiences in this area and relate to those being planned for GMES. In particular, the presentation deals with how several government departments obtain input and advice on the direction and priorities of their programs in general and on specific programs. In addition, the presentation deals with some of our activities associated with international outreach and collaboration with respect to what has worked well.
Finally, the presentation deals with some of the collaborative and consultative structure that has been set up within Canada between the federal government and the provinces. It is seen that there are some similarities between the interaction and those between the Member States and the EU and ESA.
Management support
Almost all science-oriented federal departments have some sort of mechanism for getting advisory input at the Ministerial (elected officials) or the Deputy Minister (highest Civil Servant) level.
This input is directed towards getting input on formulating direction and priorities within the departments (but not in setting policy—which is done at the political level). Typically, input is solicited from leaders in the field such as industrial associations, universities, and other government departments. The Canadian Space Agency (CSA), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Environment Canada (EC) all have such mechanisms in place.
• GMES Consideration: How is GMES going to get input into its program to help formulate direction and priorities?
Program Development
At a Program Development level, input and advice is solicited in most programs within the different federal departments. Usually this is directed towards ensuring that the developments and thrusts are relevant and are driven by true user needs and not by those of small groups.
There are many cases where the Research and Technology development is undertaken because of the interests of the researchers and not the departments. There is still need for some free thinking, however, it should be within some bounds.
Now: How several different departments handle getting input into their programs?
1. Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Program input
It is very important that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) solicit input on their programs as this agency is essentially a technology-based organization. As such, it must ensure that the programs are driven by real and relevant needs within the country. Consequently, the agency has set up the mechanisms to get input on the direction of the agency and on the various programs within the CSA.
Specifically, this discussion will deal with obtaining input in the Earth and Environment Service Line of the agency. First of all, there is a President’s Advisory Council made up of senior civil servants,
96
university presidents, and CEO’s of industry to obtain advise on the overall direction of the programs. Secondly, there are specific Service Line Advisory Committees (for example, there is a committee for the Earth and Environment Service Line) which gives advise on specifics of the programs, priorities within the specific programs, etc. The members of this committee are either Assistant Deputy Ministers or Director Generals of agencies (within the federal government structure there are: Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, then Director Generals as we progress down the management chain within a department). Finally, when there is a need for a particular new program or thrust, there are usually National Workshops to obtain input on the proposed direction. These are open to anyone that has an interest and normally attracts persons from universities, industry and government.
More at a Program level, there are national workshops to get input on specific initiatives, mechanism for implementation, etc. An example might be a workshop on the direction of an initiative such as the Government-Related Initiatives Program (GRIP) which funds government departments to incorporate Earth Observation data into their decision making process.
In addition, there is an Earth Observation Management Board which sets direction and sets priorities within specific programs within Earth Observation.
Hence, it can be seen that input is solicited at several different levels within the overall program of the CSA.
2. Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) Program input
Within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) the interaction and outreach beyond the department can be illustrated by looking at a program called the National Land and Water Information Service (NLWIS). This is another example of the thrusts within the federal government to make information available to other departments and the public through information services.
Within AAFC, there are federal/provincial committees that look at the overall programs (including NLWIS). Then there are special Working Groups that look at specific aspects of the program (such as Landcover and Landcover Change). However, one thing that is different from the CSA are the partnerships that have been established to share data layers.
This appears to have a direct correspondence to the thrust within GMES to share the data from individual groups within a shared information system.
3. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) Program input
• Similarly within Natural Resources Canada there is an advisory group that reports directly to the Minister of the Department. Within one of the sectors of the department (Earth Sciences Sector—ESS) there are two other advisory committees that are more technically oriented in the area of geology and geomatics. There are about 17 programmes within the ESS. Most of these have advisory groups that concentrate on the details of the particular programme.
Hence, from these three examples, it can be seen that similar structures have been set up in the different departments to get input at the strategic and technical levels.
4. GMES
Based upon this, GMES may wish to consider how to get on-going user input and maintain dialogue with the User groups at several different levels (strategic and the science and implementation level). Also, GMES will need to address how to get input on priorities. Within the federal government departments this is done at the Managerial level on the types of programmes and at the specific programme level on development priorities.
97
Finally, there is a need to establish some mechanism to track the development and progress and to assess excellence. This is an important aspect of any program to ensure that the program evolves and remains relevant.
Cooperation
1. Federal/Provincial cooperation
Within Canada, there are a large number of federal/provincial committees that address a variety of collaborative developments. Likewise there are a number of working groups that foster further collaborative and synergistic developments .
It is important within GMES to set up a mechanism that will ensure that synergistic and complementary development occurs as opposed to duplication endeavours.
2. International Outreach
Finally, a couple of words on International Outreach. We have found that the most successful international programs have been those where the international partner had a significant development role. That is the international partner needs to do most of the work on development of information products as they are best suited to address the needs within their technological limitations. Within GlobeSAR, coordinators were assigned to each country. They visited the development group in the participating countries personally several times a year to ensure that development did not hit any major road blocks.
The message for GMES in the area of international outreach is to ensure that you fully understand the needs of the developing country and to appreciate any limitations that they may face.
Conclusion: Canada and GMES Similarities
Hence, it can been seen that there are many similarities between the proposed outreach within GMES and similar activities in Canada.
One last word: Outreach is essential but it must be relevant to the program
4.1.7 A user perspective on EO techniques for national environmental monitoring applications
Timo Pyhälahti, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Introduction
The presentation "A user perspective on EO techniques for national environmental monitoring applications in Finland" at parallel session 1 "Meeting the user needs" de-scribed the practical application of earth observation (EO) techniques in national level monitoring. Experiences of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) were presented. SYKE the national environmental research and development centre of the Finnish Ministry of the Environment and the environmental administration. SYKE acts both as EO service provider and information end-user. SYKE purchases satellite data from satellite data receiving stations and processes it to the final products, because experience has shown the global methods usually require some "fine tuning" in order to be applicable to local circumstances.
98
The following examples were addressed:
• CORINE 2000 / IMAGE 2000
• Hydrological monitoring – snow melt
• Algae bloom monitoring in the Baltic Sea
• Multiple monitoring areas in water quality monitoring
CORINE 2000 / IMAGE 2000
We were able to design a cost effective highly automated land cover mapping system for national scale by using Landsat imagery to be used in CORINE 2000. An effective tool was the Landsat mosaic of the whole country created in IMAGE 2000 project. However, the mosaic was not suitable for all cases, and the original Landsat imagery was required in the process too. It was concluded that the methodology must be vegetation zone dependent in order to reach sufficient accuracy.
It can be noted, that some of the preliminary data products, which are required for compiling the final CORINE results, are useful to other modelling and monitoring purposes too. Thus reduction of expenses can be achieved, if the future national data needs are anticipated and taken into account when fulfilling for example EU obligations.
Hydrological monitoring – snow melt
Finland has an extensive in situ measurement network for snow monitoring. This is due to the heavy seasonal snow cover and the consequent requirements of the hydro-power industry and flood prevention. Advanced hydrological modelling system is established on the operationally available data from snow courses and weather stations.
Main functionality of these models are still based on these in situ measurements. The most important snow parameters, snow water equivalent (SWE), cannot be provided by EO technology in the spatial and temporal resolution required by the models. In-stead, the areal extent of snow cover (SCA) can be estimated with reasonable costs and with sufficient resolution and accuracy. This parameter alleviates the lack of SWE in-formation during the melting period, as through it, the peak value of SWE just before melting period can be re-estimated. SCA can efficiently be derived from various satellite measurements. It is currently operatively assimilated into Finnish national hydro-logical modelling system for predicting snow melt and river run-off. It significantly increases the accuracy and performance of the hydrological forecasts.
Assimilation procedures of this kind require good knowledge of both EO techniques and the used model. Significant changes to the models, programs and procedures are required, so the implementation is not a minor maintenance matter. As models in some occasions inherently try to correct the intrinsic systematic errors, addition of accurate "real world" data may result to system performance decrease. New tuning and verification of the models are required.
Due to the potential difficulties in implementation, comprehensive and intensive training and even consultation work is required. However, the increased results merit the effort.
Algae bloom monitoring in the Baltic Sea
Algae blooms in the Baltic Sea demonstrate clearly the difficulties in using global EO algorithms for local and regional monitoring. The 'global algorithm' term here refers to attempt of using a single methodology for interpreting all satellite observations everywhere without any reference to local peculiarities of the observed phenomenon. Oceans provide a good example of this. Most of the ocean
99
surface is relatively distant from shore, and thus not influenced by the terrestrial substances from rivers etc. In these areas the remotely sensed water optical properties are governed by phytoplankton processes, which are suitable for the aforementioned global algorithms.
Coastal areas are optically more complex due to different terrestrial impacts. The errors are manifested typically as loss of accurate scale: Instead of being able to quantify the exact amounts of phytoplankton, the global algorithms may only be able to classify the areas as high/low concentrations. The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed, turbid, humus-rich estuary rather than an open sea, thus these phenomena are quite clear. Knowledge of local optical properties help to overcome these problems in algorithms.
When using EO data, knowledge of locally occurring phenomena is essential. For ex-ample, summer blooms in the Baltic are typically surface-floating dense cyanobacteria blooms. Thus, if an EO algorithm anticipates the algae to be well mixed in the water, an error is to be expected in the measured algae amounts. However, satellite imagery has proven to be an essential help in monitoring and detection these blooming events in classification sense.
Multiple monitoring areas in water quality monitoring
EC Water framework directive requires member states to monitor the environmental state of their coastal waters, rivers, lakes and ground waters. Actions must be taken to demonstrate and if necessary to restore good ecological status of these waters. The assessment standards of waters are currently evolving, but the indicators most relevant to EO are vegetation along the shores and in the bottom of the water and occurrence of algae blooms.
The number of the lakes to be monitored is quite large (ca 4 500 lakes), and some of them are quite far from environmental administration laboratories for water quality analysis. Thus satellite monitoring is a viable alternative for high temporal resolution monitoring purposes.
As described earlier, the optical properties of water are influenced by nearby land properties. In the case of lakes, the situation is even more complex. For medium and low resolution satellites even the size of the lake to be measured becomes an issue. Archive access to usable cloud-free measurements of small targets in numerous large EO datasets is not trivial either.
In addition, it is necessary to combine the data to various other sources of information to make the final assessment. For classifying the lakes into different types, assessing lake status as compared to the reference "good status" of its type and even to simulate the behaviour of the lake after alternative corrective measures, a wealth of information on it must be available to the water management experts.
To facilitate this kind of integrated monitoring, ULAPPA database system was de-signed to orchestrate the use of in situ measurements, EO data, auxiliary data (weather data etc), lake specific parameters and different models. The idea is to allow web ac-cess to these sources of information: If the data is not stored to the database itself, ULAPPA can provide information on how to obtain it. Different kind of interpretation results of EO data and/or other sources of information can be used as raw material for new assessments. Still, it is possible to reach the original EO data from which the in-formation originates. As modelling processes can be quite lengthy, the system allows parallel processing: Information on one lake can be accessed as a separate entity, unlike the case in typical purely image-based systems.
As many of the tasks the ULAPPA system performs are common to other disciplines of monitoring and modelling (agricultural, forestry etc.), the technology is designed in such a way that it can be implemented to other purposes easily. This kind of systems is likely to provide essential tools for both use and production of information relevant to GMES.
100
4.2 Parallel Session 2: The observing and servicing capacity
4.2.1 Priorities and Functional Components
Peter Ryder, Environmental Information Services, UK
On behalf of the BICEPS Cross-Cutting Review Team:
• Prof. David J. BRIGGS, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
• Dr Peter RYDER, Environmental Information Services
• Dr Barry K. WYATT, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Natural Environmental Research Council
Design issues
• Very diverse users, sources of data, information generation methods and range/scale of services are expected.
• Therefore the architecture of the systems chosen to support GMES must be flexible and open, i.e. have internal consistency and be able to adapt to new, unforeseen requests for information, be self-organising, seamless and provide a sustainable system of working, within which is the participants’ own interests to operate.
• GMES should build on present capacity and practice (in monitoring, models, standards, information management and dissemination), with the aim of improving interfaces between thematic monitoring systems, broadening their relevance and utility, enhancing accessibility and filling gaps. Interoperability between the GMES components is essential.
• Monitoring and assessment should be both reactive (e.g. sustained & prepared to track trends in key variables and indicators over long periods) and proactive (e.g. give early warning of new and unforeseen problems).
• Although automation will be extremely important for internal traffic and for experienced users, human interfaces are needed to facilitate, support and advise on all aspects of operations and use, and particularly in relation to information access and data interpretation.
Priority Setting
The criteria are applicable to system components and and the individual services that are enabled.
Thus actions which deliver system components that are essential to overall functionality, give much added value at reasonable cost, have demonstrated feasibility, are likely to be adaptable to meet changing needs, deliver a strategic capability and are likely to be part of a wider, perhaps global, system would be accorded highest priority.
Similar considerations apply at the service level, but here weight is given to the extent that user needs are met in terms of accuracy of measurement, spatial and temporal resolution, stability and continuity.
Possible actions have been characterised as low, medium and high priority. Only high priority actions are included here.
101
Monitoring Systems
The current EO priorities for action comprise provision of:
• High resolution SAR imagery, for continuity with ERS & Envisat, with an interferometric capability for small surface motion monitoring and a medium resolution mode with the widest possible coverage for marine and ice surveillance.
• A polar radar altimeter to compliment the Jason class programme
• Provision and preparation for atmospheric chemistry monitoring, including instruments providing continuity of the ERS and ENVISAT data streams.
• A multi-spectral optical imaging satellite at two spatial resolutions:
– High resolution for local & regional operational monitoring applications (continuity of SPOT & Landsat classes)
– Medium resolution for global applications (continuity of ENVISAT and SPOT sensors), with multi-spectral capabilities and optimized for vegetation, cloud & aerosol and ocean colour.
For some services, the need for directed measurement at high temporal/spatial resolution can best be met by airborne monitoring.
Substantial gaps and deficiencies have been identified in in situ networks on land sea and in the air. Generally, for high priority actions, the technology is available and the need cannot be met by deploying remote sensing methods. The 2nd Adequacy Report reflects a global consensus on what needs to be done to monitor climate change. Analogous analysis has been carried out to establish specific deficiencies in current networks monitoring air quality, ODS & greenhouse gas emissions, subsurface physical, biological and chemical properties in the regional seas and biodiversity on land. A wide range of solutions is available, ranging from the use of platforms of opportunity to installation of very capable observatories at carefully selected sites. The single largest impediment is the lack of long term commitment to such monitoring.
Monitoring systems
Increasing emphasis is placed upon risk assessment, i.e. assessment based upon the probability of occurrence of a particular hazard and the likely vulnerability of or impact on people or material assets if that hazard occurs. The Water Framework Directive builds on this approach by encouraging risk based monitoring, i.e. an emphasis on measurement where uncertainty and impact are a maximum.
Such information allows the associated risk of damage or disruption to be managed effectively.
It is to be expected that environmental monitoring will enable the probability of natural hazards to be predicted, statistically and in near real time. Compatible information about people and assets at risk are often not available but without it the value of the environmental information is reduced.
GMES must encourage, and where possible facilitate, the capture of such non-environmental data and help enable their widespread use.
Information Generation
Data assimilation, as described above, has transformed the use of EO and in situ data in operational numerical weather prediction and, through reanalysis of past data, determination of recent climate properties.
102
Such data are assimilated optimally in time and space by comparing the model prediction of the variable in question, at the point/time of measurement, and the actual measurement. Differences are used to nudge the model toward reality, bearing in mind the likely errors in the measurement and in the model prediction.
The basic requirement is for a dynamical (time dependent) model which closely mimics reality. These models exist for fluids such as the atmosphere and oceans, but very substantial investment in computer facilities is required to run them.
Sub models (physical, biological and chemical) can either be closely coupled into a larger scale model or a higher-resolution smaller-domain model can import boundary conditions from a larger scale model. The former enables interactions in both directions but the latter is easier to distribute amongst application centres.
Europe is fortunate in having several word-class establishments capable of operating such strategic data assimilation assets and they should be encouraged to form key components of the GMES. The field continues to be a very active area of research, which benefits from close coupling to operational work.
Data assimilation is not a panacea. Many important processes, particularly on land and in fields such as health, but also in the atmosphere and oceans, are not amenable to modelling in this explicit way and therefore recourse has to be made to empirical methods (whose provenance may change as the context varies) to transform measured data into useful information. The need for active development and continued cross verification has to remain a high priority for all modelling work.
There are also classes of information product which are essentially descriptive and associative and derive their value from bringing disparate data types together in a manner that allows for easy interpretation. Map based products are obvious examples. GMES must facilitate creation of products of this kind.
Typical met-ocean information service
Typical Typical mmetet--ocean information serviceocean information service
Data sourcesData sources
Archive
Model
Data assimilation, state prediction & statistical
properties
Specific value adding & services
Application-specific data
103
The above emphasises that many environmental information services which relate to events taking place in the atmosphere or oceans are dependent upon both a common core of information, and data that are specific to the application. The common core often has a statistical component, derived from archived data, and near real time current and forecast information, derived from a model. Typically that core will describe the appropriate physical state, ( temperature, humidity, salinity, precipitation, radiative fluxes, etc) and the associated dynamical properties (wind and currents). The application specific data might include a description of a particular external pressure (e.g. in the form of a pollution or other hazardous event) and/or information about the impact of the prevailing state (e.g. on flooding incidence, on energy demand). The value of the near real-time information service is usually to be found in optimal adaptation to or avoidance of the predicted event. Whilst the statistical information is often used in the design of structures expected to withstand/cope with such events.
The diagram emphasises that core information is always dependent upon many data streams and that application specific data are likely to have more than one source. It also highlights that services are at their most effective when they are tailored to specific need, but are produced most efficiently when they can draw on a common base of information.
Although GMES is not dealing only with services and events of the kind described above, the approach could be adapted to the construction of state indicators, for example.
GMES Information Service Components
Necessary-but
sufficient too ?
The evidence
suggests-not
Leaving aside the question of a common core of information accessed by many services, which is the hallmark of met–ocean services described in the previous slide, several IST projects (e.g. GIMMI, TEASE) have assessed how to make existing information infrastructures interoperable at various levels.Many environmental applications are custom-built, using bespoke data processing and information elements, sometimes even unique sensor and computational infrastructure. What is probably worse, stand-alone custom development is perpetuated, since little or no effort goes into
O b s e r v i n g S y s t e m s
E O s u b - sys tem
Atmosphe re s u b -sys tem
Soc io -e c o n o m i c s u b- sys tem
O c e a n s s u b-sys tem
L a n d sub- sys tem
Model l ing and Analys i s
I n f o r m a t i o n E n d U s e r s
Serv i ce Prov iders
Forecasts Indicators
R i s k A s s e s s m e n t Repor t ing
104
making the individual functional components universally accessible. In the long term this approach will inhibit fast and robust deployment. Moreover, considerable resources can be wasted just to “re-invent the wheel” because no effort is invested to make available elements accessible to others. One should therefore not think of GMES as a collection of stand-alone applications, but as an infrastructure that actively supports the interconnection of components that are already available and also promotes the implementation of new components that can be used by many.
How to encourage such interoperability? It has to be easier to gain access to required data, information and services than to find a bespoke solution.
Framework for Integration
Access to long-term data sets implies that they are valued, their existence is advertised in some form of catalogue, their quality is assured and they are readily available. Any at risk need to be secured.
Implementation of metadata standards and services using standard protocols that are sufficiently flexible to be applied to the spectrum of data types required across anticipated GMES applications and sufficiently detailed to ensure that compliance will ensure the requisite level of inter-operability between datasets.
Core information in this context includes topography, infrastructure (e.g. roads & buildings), population, soils, geology, water bodies, land cover, basic atmospheric and ocean state variables.
Promotion of data linkage and interoperability as key, demonstrated attributes of ESIS.
Knowledge development & exchange with associated capacity building where necessary, both within and outside the EU will be essential to maintain the relevance and capability of the ESIS to meet evolving needs.
D a t a f l o w sR e q u e s t s f o r
i n f o r m a t i o n / d a t a
M e t a d a t a f l o w s
S h a r e d E u r o p e a n O b s e r v i n g S y s t e m s
D a t a I n v e n t o r y
M o d e l I n v e n t o r y
I n f o r m a t i o n I n v e n t o r y
G M E S L i b r a r y
G M E S I n t e r - O p e r a b i l i t y F a c i l i t y
E a r t h o b s e r v a t i o n s u b - s y s t e m
A t m o s p h e r i c s u b -s y s t e m
L a n d s u b - s y s t e mO c e a n i c s u b -
s y s t e m
S o c i o - e c o n o m i c s u b - s y s t e m
I n f o r m a t i o n e n d u s e r
G M E S I n f o r m a t i o n
H i g h w a yD a t a Q u a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t
a n d I n t e r -c o m p a r a b i l i t y
M o d e l Q u a l i t y A s s e s s m e n t
M o d e l l i n g
F o r e c a s t s E n v i r o n m e n t i n d i c a t o r s
E n v i r o n m e n t r e p o r t i n gR i s k a s s e s s m e n t
S e r v i c e P r o v i d e r s
L i b r a r y s e r v i c e s
G M E S C a t a l o g u e
The GMES Information Highway is the means by which metadata, data, information and outputs from service providers are transmitted between the ESIS components and to the end user, in response to enquiries directed to the system. It would comprise both a high capacity telecommunications infrastructure and the software needed to assemble bespoke outputs from the various distributed information sources in a way that is transparent to the user. Care would need to be taken to build upon, not to disrupt capable systems that are in place already.
105
Interoperability and quality assurance. Connectivity will be possible only if contributors agree to adopt common standards at all stages of the data management and information processing chain, from observation to product delivery. An important facet of inter-operability is the adoption of standards for quality control. In most cases, QC will be devolved down to individual information providers. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to maintain centrally the capacity to support the definition and agreement of standards, to address issues that cut across thematic areas and institutional domains, to audit compliance and to manage the meta -databases; in effect to provide the necessary quality assurance.
The GMES Library will respond to requests from users by means of a standard interface, linked to digital catalogues and inventories to provide access to available data, information and services. The GMES Library will thus act as a approachable shop window to the entire GMES network. However, it will not substitute for the direct interfaces that are already in place for most of the constituent information sources, nor will the library control access to them. Experienced users will continue to access data and information by the routes with which they are familiar. It is envisaged that the Library will be an physical entity, staffed by dedicated personnel, but will be physically distributed, with branches linked to a central facility.
4.2.2 Data Policy Assessment for GMES - Summary of the presentation at GMES Forum 4
Prof Ray Harris, University College London, UK
Introduction
Access to environmental data of our planet has a high scientific, technological and political profile. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, and recent meetings of the G8 ministers have noted the need for the international community to monitor the environment, improve our knowledge and understanding of environmental processes and be able to predict future changes. Heads of state and prime ministers meeting at the G8 summit held in Evian, France in 2003 agreed to strengthen coordination of global observation strategies.
Data policy should be simple. Data policy should be the servant of the mission or programme objectives. While GMES has some over-arching objectives, it is still in its initial period. What can be usefully said about data policy that will help in the growth, development and maturity of GMES? This report from Forum 4 addresses this question.
The Data Policy Assessment for GMES project (DPAG) contacted 167 organisations to collect information on the data policies of their organisations. The project also had interviews with eight EC GMES projects and three relevant ESA projects to collect information and views on data policy, plus written input from three further EC GMES projects. The information input was organised into six data policy themes: ownership, intellectual property rights, standards, licencing, pricing policy and archiving policy.
Summary of the findings
The table below summarises the main findings from the information on data policy collected from target organisations. The two main categories or sectors that present data policy challenges are mapping and Earth observation. There are data policy challenges across all the six data policy characteristics, but most notably in ownership, intellectual property rights and pricing policy.
106
Ownership, privacy and confidentiality
Intellectual property rights and associated legal frameworks
Standards and metadata
Licensing, distribution and dissemination
Pricing policy Archiving Policy
Statistical Institutes
Most statistical institutes maintain ownership of data. Data relating to individuals strictly confidential.
Unrestrictive – redistribution often allowed if source is quoted.
Many follow international standards such as EUROSTAT, OECD
Basic data distributed widely as possible, few restrictions. Licences may govern sensitive data.
Free of charge via internet or at marginal costs. Individual requests may be at market price.
Often long-term in electronic and hard copy formats.
Mapping Agencies
Ownership maintained by organisation in most cases. Some restriction for national security.
Restrictive – strict copyright to prevent unauthorised redistribution in many cases.
Generally follow national, not international standards. Most agencies have metadatabases.
Distribution and dissemination generally controlled through licensing.
Generally at market price. Cost of licences often depends on proposed use of data.
Older map data often archived by national archives of respective countries.
Institutes for Natural resources
Ownership of data generally maintained by organisations, although most data is placed in the public domain.
Unrestrictive, although creators of data often given privileged access for a certain time.
Diverse range of projects and data regarding natural resources means there are no universal standards.
Most natural resources institutes distribute their data as widely as possible. Some restrict access to ensure it is used for research purposes only.
Most natural resources data is supplied free of charge. Some institutes charge if data is used for commercial purposes
Variable – usually dependent on perceived long-term usefulness of individual datasets
Environmental Monitoring
Ownership maintained by organisations, although data is often in public domain. Ownership of meteorological data maintained by respective organisation
More restrictive for meteorological data, except in the case of ‘essential data’. Generally unrestrictive for other environmental data
Meteorological agencies follow international standards (WMO etc.) Other environmental data covers wide variety of topics – most aim to meet international standards
Meteorological data highly influenced by international agreements. Other environmental data often distributed as widely as possible, particularly if publicly funded.
Essential’ met data is provided on free and unrestricted basis. Derived products often at market price. Publicly funded environmental data generally free of charge.
Met data is archived long-term for climate records etc. Variable for other environmental data sets – usually dependant on perceived long term usefulness.
Earth Observation
Ownership of EO data is strictly maintained. Access to data is sometimes restricted for reasons of national security.
Restrictive in many cases with strict copyright to prevent redistribution. Some US data (eg MODIS) has few restrictions.
Dependent on platform and organisation. Metadata is supplied with most datasets.
Licensing governs distribution of many EO data sets, although some are distributed freely with very few licensing conditions.
Price of licences often depends upon the proposed use and number of users of the data. Some US data available for free.
Most EO data has been archived for the duration of the associated mission. Access often dependent on age of data and storage media.
Table: A summary of data pol icy for the organisat ions contacted
Main data policy concerns
During the DPAG project a series of common issues or concerns have emerged on data policy. This section identifies the main issues, setting them in the context of GMES data policy development. For convenience the issues are given in alphabetical order to avoid an impression of priority.
Archives of Earth observation data are usually in digital form, but other data archives relevant to GMES are in hard copy form. Digital data archives have presented physical problems in media and reading machines, but there are even greater challenges of storing and accessing hard copy archives.
107
INSPIRE. The INSPIRE initiative is one of the building blocks of GMES. INSPIRE is a part of the same process in Europe to improve access to information related to the environment, and so the agreements reached by Member States on INSPIRE will lay the ground work for later developments in GMES.
Internet. The Internet is changing pricing and distribution policy. In many institutions (e.g. for population censuses) there is a shift from providing data at the cost of reproduction to providing data free of charge. This has implications for the GMES Information Highway.
Legal obligations. Legal obligations are important in driving data accessibility. Examples of legal obligations include (1) the German law on environmental information (Umweltinformationsgesetz) which states that all data concerning nature and environment in public authorities must be freely available and free of charge, (2) the EC Directive on Freedom of Access to Environmental Information and (3) the provision of national statistics to EUROSTAT.
Licences. It is common for licences for the use of environmental data to be restricted to single projects or single applications. Given that environmental data are by their nature of wide application there is a demand by users to have more flexible licence arrangements to enable and to promote wide use of data.
Map access. Mapping agencies tend to use national standards rather than international standards. This presents challenges for Europe-wide map data sets. Where GMES will be potentially global in its reach, specifically on topics related to regional development and humanitarian aid, access to map data will be required. In many parts of the world maps are only openly available at a best map scale of only 1:200,000 (for example Russia) or even 1:1,000,000 (for example China), or not at all. Concern over access to maps is valid for both the environment and the security parts of GMES.
Pricing. Approaches to pricing are important signals to the market for environmental information. A common model used by environmental information providers is to set a market price. For activities that contribute to the public good, for example scientific research, environmental data are often free or made available at the cost of reproduction. The challenge here lies in the transition from research to operational systems.
Privacy and confidentiality. Some environmental data collected in Europe is not available to a wider audience because of commercial sensitivity, ecological protection and national security. This may mean that some data sets are not available to GMES, and therefore provide GMES with only a partial coverage.
Public good. The concept of public good is common in many organisations that provide environmental data of value to GMES. It is typical for there to be few restrictions on dissemination of data if the application or use of the information is for the public good, while there is control of the data if provided for commercial applications. In many areas of GMES there is a strong public good case, although it is essential that this case is considered in parallel with the need to ensure a sustainable funding base for GMES.
Standards and metadata continue to present problems because many different systems are used and convergence is limited.
Recommendations on data policy
1. Purpose of a GMES data policy
During the year 2003 a working group of the GMES Steering Committee has been examining data policy in the GMES context and has identified the following six issues as the purpose of a GMES data policy.
108
• Promote the use of services, information and data in order to maintain/reach leadership in spatial data and related technologies.
• Promote collaborative use and multiple use of services, information and data.
• Take into account the existing and emerging data policies of the main actors such as ESA, the EU, national institutions and commercial providers.
• Promote European business in order to maximise commercial investment and to attract private funding.
• Promote the availability of convenient and consistent standards, calibration and metadata, also including aspects such as rectification, calibration, atmospheric correction, accuracy assessments, product advice and specifications of the analysis process.
• Ensure long term archiving, particularly in the case of commercial data suppliers as the market value of data often falls with age.
2. The recommendations of the DPAG project
Recommendation 1: GMES should use as many of the INSPIRE principles as possible.
Because of the close nature of the relationships between GMES and INSPIRE it is highly desirable for GMES to gain from the experience of INSPIRE in developing and agreeing its principles and policies. The five main INSPIRE principles (reproduced below) should be adopted by GMES.
• Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively.
• It must be possible to combine seamlessly spatial information from different sources across the EU and share it between many users and applications.
• It must be possible for spatial data collected at one level of government to be shared between all levels of government.
• Spatial data needed for good governance should be available on conditions that do not restrict its extensive use.
• It should be easy to discover which spatial data is available, to evaluate its fitness for purpose and to know which conditions apply to its use.
• During the INSPIRE consultation phase 85 per cent of respondents agreed with the need to establish a common data policy framework to share data sets between public bodies. A challenge for the short term is to agree a definition of base data that will come under the wing of INSPIRE and the thematic data and value added information that comes under the wing of GMES.
Recommendation 2: GMES should control the data, products and services it supplies by space, time and type of product.
Recommendation 3: GMES should use encryption/decryption as a technical means of achieving control.
• New technologies are developing sufficiently quickly to allow GMES to build a system to transmit all the data it has available. However, at face value this could mean a loss of control over the data. We recommend that GMES uses the ESIS to institute a system of encryption and decryption to control access to GMES data and products. All real time GMES data could be transmitted to all users in a broadcast mode, but in an encrypted form. Access to the true data could then be controlled by decryption keys, which could be made specific by a number of
109
criteria including space, time, product and use or user category. The encryption and decryption strategy can take advantage of the valuable experience of EUMETSAT and the plans for the Galileo initiative.
The Internet offers the most suitable standard option for encrypted data dissemination in GMES. For high volume data transmission the current developments in e-GRID technology provide even greater opportunities for rapid data dissemination. Where there is a foreseeable difficulty is the use of the Internet in some parts of the Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs), in particular in sub-Saharan Africa. Some regions in LEDCs have only limited telephone connectivity and therefore limited Internet access, and yet these areas could substantially benefit from an operational GMES, in particular the humanitarian aid and regional development activities envisaged for GMES. An alternative is the use of Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) satellite systems to support high speed Internet and distribution of data. DVB satellite broadcast using encryption/decryption offers opportunities for GMES to provide data to all parts of the world that falls within its competence.
Recommendation 4: GMES should insist that users of the European Shared Information Service adhere to agreed metadata standards.
The European Shared Information Service should consider at least two tracks in adopting and encouraging the use of standards:
• The developments in metadata standards in the International Standards Organisation and in the Open GIS Consortium.
• Market standards, such as XML and those used commonly in Geographic Information Systems.
It is wise for the ESIS strategy to adopt widely used standards and not specific approaches that might be technically appropriate but are not widely employed by users. In parallel with the agreement of standards GMES should work to promote the use of standards by the GMES community and make the adoption of standards as easy as possible for the users.
Recommendation 5: The European Shared Information Service should support user-oriented portals to access both real time data and the searching of data and product archives.
As GMES plans to be an operational service then real time data flows are likely to form the backbone of its infrastructure, at least in terms of capacity. Many data sets will be updated only occasionally, for example land cover maps, population censuses and statistical summaries, which means that many users will require access to the GMES archives and therefore the search facilities. Efficient portals that are user-oriented are essential for an effective GMES.
Recommendation 6: Copyright and licencing should be used in GMES as a mechanism to protect the quality of the GMES data and products.
Copyright and intellectual property rights should not be seen in GMES solely as way of controlling access to data and information, but as a positive means of declaring the quality of GMES data and products. Licencing agreements can be used to document the rights and responsibilities of supplier and user, to protect the quality of products and to increase recognition and branding of GMES data and products. The use of copyright, intellectual property rights and licencing to improve quality and branding is even more valid for the model outputs foreseen in GMES.
Technical dissemination is closely linked with copyright, intellectual property rights and licencing because these characteristics provide the legal framework for data dissemination and use.
Recommendation 7: The European Shared Information Service should allo w for some data and products to be provided free of charge as well as for charges to be made for other data and products.
110
GMES should be able to provide some data sets free of charge. Medium and low spatial resolution Earth observation data, statistical data and some map data are examples of data that could be provided at no cost to the user. The data policy for GMES should allow the European Shared Information Service to be flexible: data for humanitarian aid purposes may be made available free of charge at the time of the emergency and for authorised users, but the same data may carry a charge for other users. This could allow, for example, the inclusion of very high spatial resolution data in GMES both serving a humanitarian aid purpose and fulfilling the commercial objectives of the data supplier. A similar argument applies to value added services. Information products that are normally charged for may at times be made available for free by the value added product supplier, for example in cases of severe pollution events.
The encryption/decryption approach recommended in this report would provide the technical means of allowing control of the data and information products. Several different pricing models could be used, tailored to different circumstances. The continued use of copyright and licencing would mean that it is possible to control in a legal sense the onward dissemination of data and products that had been made available free of charge.
Recommendation 8: The European Shared Information Service should negotiate volume licence agreements with data suppliers.
A common complaint from users is that data sets acquired for one purpose by an organisation cannot be used for another purpose or on another project. The European Shared Information Service, as a central component of GMES, could usefully negotiate licences with data suppliers where prices are agreed for access by all members of the GMES community.
Recommendation 9: GMES should seek clarity on the role and use of different funding sources.
Funding in sponsorship mode is entirely appropriate for research and development activities. To achieve sustainable funding in the longer term it is desirable for GMES to One challenge for GMES before the full development of operational systems by 2008 will be in the transition from sponsorship funding, for example through the EC Thematic Projects and the ESA GMES Service Element projects, to customer funding where the user pays. There are already existing funding sources that could be mobilised for GMES, for example from national administrations for the monitoring of air quality, from EU policy programmes (e.g. the EU Natural Disasters Fund) and even from private sources such as industrial plant emissions. Achieving the right mix of sponsorship funding and customer funding will be an important challenge for the next phases of GMES.
Recommendation 10: The European Commission should establish a legal basis to assist with the preservation of environmental data for GMES.
The European Commission should establish an appropriate legal instrument to ensure that if substantial environmental data sets are to be destroyed by European organisations (public or private) then a public body is given the right to accept the data if it wishes.
111
4.2.3 Upgrading Observation systems: The imp lications of the Water Framework Directive
Philippe Crouzet, IFEN, Orleans, France
Scope of the presentation
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) demands reporting towards new indicators that have not been fully understood yet. Compared to previous Directives that demanded reporting on compliance (considering the enforcement of the directive for example), the WFD demand to assess results of ecological improvement.
However, the monitoring guidelines included in the directive are far from optimum, considering the very ambitious objectives of the assessments. First of all, the directive goal is the assessment of "good ecological status" of "water bodies". Second, the EEA is requested to assess the consistency of the directive itself; in other words EEA has to assess if the directive recommendations are consistent with the ecological goals.
This presentation suggests some ways of addressing the three most important issues of river water quality:
• to what extend is water composition driven by sector activity? And is this composition changing with time (with sector responses changes)
• what is the actual status (and what is the trend) of the different "water bodies", understood as rivers, river systems, categories of rivers? And is this status in relation with investment and running costs?
• is it possible to optimise monitoring, considering the different targets of monitoring? Is there a way of optimisation consistent with the two previous issues?
The issues referring to DPSIR
• Good ecological status is not, for the time being, fully defined nor understood. However, conditions for good ecological status can be defined and are monitored to some extend.
• Side objectives of the directive have been monitored fo ages, for example suitability to human uses, physico-chemical condit ions of rivers, etc.
• In parallel, many information, despite heterogeneous, are existing in relation with pressures and responses. This information is however often available at the administrative scale, whereas river information is available at the watershed scale.
The different assessment tools must help defining the measure programmes, not requiring either complex modelling and monitoring nor long time of development.
Use of DPSIR
The DPSIR assessment framework, designed by EEA at the opportunity of the first pan-European environmental assessment report is the framework recommended by the different guidelines written to ease WFD implementation insist on the usefulness of the DPSIR. However, it is generally impossible to address all its components at the same time. The approaches described here consider separately e.g., D/S/R or P/I. Monitoring optimisation aims at combining P/S/I, but stands as well on D.
112
Assessing
1. Water composition relationships
The Eurowaternet approach is the technical tool to fulfil one of the recommendations of the Guidance n° 3 "Analysis of pressures and impacts". Considering Driving forces and pressures that result of them, considering the major pressures (for example, plough land is present in every catchment, but the proportion of arable determines the reality of pressure) and deducing the potential impacts are the key steps of this recommendation.
The practical application consists in:
• defining the drivers that lead to significant pressures. Land cover aggregates, population density, livestock density are the key drivers to possible river pollution by nutrients and organic matters. Other pollutants, pesticides for example would require considering orchards, vineyards, intensive crop fields and roads for example. The rationale is that water composition is primarily driven by pollution density on its catchment (as kg km-2 y-1) leached by specific discharge (in m3 km-2 y-1) resulting in same population of concentrations (kg m-3).
• definition of drivers proportions in each catchment, thanks to ad hoc processing, cumulating along the catchment, with the Nopolu application results in earmarking each elementary catchment (6210 units in France in this application) with a "stratum type".
• existing monitoring stations are sorted according to their belonging to a stratum, applying EuroWaternet criteria of density, representativity and sufficient results to allow further statistics.
Data processing shows demonstrative and significant differences between strata and determinands. The indicator used is the yearly average of concentration per stratum, computed with special algorithm to eliminate biases resulting of uneven sampling schedules. Annual results are strongly affected by run-off. A filtering procedure tends to reduce the "noise" resulting of different run-off patterns. Therefore, significant trends of concentration vs. time (understood as representing responses already implemented) indicates forecast of compliance achievement "everything being the same".
For the time being, this method stands on a limited proportion of monitoring stations, since the location of theses stations responded to non-statistical and representativity criteria. The effectiveness of monitoring networks is discussed at the end of this presentation.
2. Waterbody quality
The previous method, despite being powerful and efficient, does not address water bodies. A stratum is a collection of monitoring stations sharing similar characteristics that may belong to very different water bodies. Hence it does not fully respond to the Guidelines.
113
An important issue is the assessment of relationships between pressures and impacts on the one hand and economic analysis on the other hand. To achieve this, the next prerequisite are to be fulfilled:
• economic values and impact assessment must be provided in units that compare. For example concentration and expenses do not compare, since the first is a ratio and the second an amount. Obviously, trying to compare change in concentration (or quality index) and monetary values in very different size rivers is impossible. Hence a common unit must be found (both ratios or preferably both quantities).
• the domain of comparison must be as identical as possible. Quality data related to water bodies are obviously computed at the watershed scale. Administrative scale almost never match to watersheds. Hence either economic data has to be re-aggregated at the catchment scale (with many possible errors) either the quality data has to be re-aggregated at the administrative scale . This second option has be retained because very easy and quite free of significant errors.
• Quality must be addressed instead of composition. Concepts are very different. Composition is an objective value, quality is a subjective judgment, based on composition and guessed impacts (this concentration is suitable, that concentration is not suitable). Quality targets can be understood as meeting requirements and objectives as response to pressures. Hence quality assessments are many, depending on the objectives (fish life is not tap water preparation).
If water body can be understood as a subset or collection of river systems, no obstacles remain, but technical application.
Water Quality Accounts (WQA): Example of results
Water Quality Accounts methodology (developed by Ifen on behalf of Eurostat) aims at computing "quantities of quality", proxied by the "quantity of river that owns a certain quality". Quality issues are beyond the scope of this presentation. It is sufficient to know the the recent quality assessment methods have been designed in order to make the same degrees of quality comparable. For example, degree X of quality defined by nitrogen contamination represent the same nuisance that of degree X of quality defined by organic matter content. Hence, any assessment of quality related to targets or to group of substances can really compare.
In the early 80's (Heldal J., Østdahl T., 1984. "Synoptic monitoring of water quality and water resources. A suggestion on population and sampling approaches”. Statistical Journal Of the United Nations. vol ECE2. pp. 393-406.) demonstrated that river sizing could efficiently be derived from L*Q, where L is reach length and Q a characteristic of liquid discharge. The final value (km m3 s-1) is a proxy of quantity of movement carried by the river. This unit is very suitable for counting the quantity of river, whereas the water is considered. Further consideration suggest that biological indicators could be related to the area of river (L*l) that shares similar characteristics with L*Q, namely constant value for any river, independent of the degree of precision of the assessment.
Practically, the calculation procedure implemented in the Nopolu system carries out calculation in three steps:
• interpolating discharge along the rivers,
• interpolating quality indexes along the rivers, using discharge data to this end,
• calculating accounts proper, against discharge data, that may refer to different reference.
After this, accounts proper are computed, from tabular reporting to production of aggregated indexes, as defined in the latest methodological release.
114
Problems mentioned address quality of information, since the monitoring network may be not optimum with respect to WQA. This is considered in the last part of the presentation.
• Networks must be designed to address both dimensions:
–Sector-Water composition assessment requires network optimised with respect to representativity vs. drivers
–Water bodies assessment requires representative monitoring of river reaches
• Designing method is however derived from EuroWaternet stratification procedure…
Non-impacted
Agricultural
Mixt (U. + A.)
Urban
Eurowaternet basic & impact networks:
Horizontal Stratification by
Driving force
=WaterdeterminandsStratistics per
stratum
Small rivers
Median rivers
Large rivers
Water Accounts :Vertical
Stratification by River size class
=Water qualityindicators per class
/ aggregation
Aggregation: All together
The two approaches presented are two dimensions of the issue of addressing properly water quality issues. The "horizontal" approach refers to stratification, that slices the river system into strata, the "vertical" approach describes the status of the river system from spring to mouth.
Networks must be designed to address both dimensions:
• Sector-Water composition assessment requires network optimised with respect to representativity of sampling vs. drivers
• Water bodies assessment requires representative monitoring of river reaches, including all possible sets of representative reaches.
The principle behind is to carry out an optimisation of network that could provide data for both (at least) data use.
Designing method is however derived from EuroWaternet stratification procedure…
Network design
Networks were designed scores ago to respond to the 1964 law demanding an "inventory of the degree of pollution of surface [river] waters]. Design was carried out according to knowledge at this time, including local requirements ("upstream water intake", "downstream WWTP outlet", etc.). Possibility to access river for sampling (presence of bridge for example) were as many reasons to design the network.
In 1986, a new concept "réseau national de bassin " (national basin network) was launched, and some rationales were introduced to improve network, but they were far from starting with representativity objectives. The main goal was to harmonise the 6 water agencies. Agencies felt anyway free to complement the national network according to their own priorities an needs. Practically, some
115
dramatically increased the sampling stations under their jurisdiction to better survey local problems (modelling, local assessment, discharge permits, etc.)
The rationales
Designing a monitoring network requires addressing three different issues, that can be considered independently:
• areal representativity (does the monitoring network provides information on spatial issues? Are all relevant / representative stretches monitored?, etc)
• target representativity (is the network designed to address flux calculation, compliance vs uses, general quality, etc),
• problem representativity (are the ad hoc determinands monitored at the correct density and relevant methods)
Issues 2 and 3 are just related to a correct definition and understanding of "target" and "problem". However, areal representativity is not weel understood in network design. This is the reason why this simple method has been designed.
The method is based on the concept of yield of the existing or forecast network. To this end, an "ultimate" network is built. Ultimate network provides total information with respect to objectives, and hence is has an infinity of sampling points. "Infinity" just means that any elementary unit (catchment, reach) inherits the exact proportion of information that it requires according to its share in the territory to monitor. In a second step, actual network, is designed? The actual network monitors information that is provided by a set of actual (finite) monitoring points (MP).
The yield of any actual network is computed by the distance between ultimate network and actual network, by linear correlation. The R2 coefficient measures the distance. vs. different needs is the distance between both networks.
The design of the actual network follows EuroWaternet procedure, apportioning the final number of points allocated to elementary catchments, each one having a single main drain (reach) and following the proportion of area belonging to a pressure stratum. The allocation algorithm apportion stations all across the whole territory.
Define the objectives:
• Represent sectors (as proportion of areas covered)
• Represent rivers (as proportion of main drains of elementary catchments fitted with MP)
116
Identifying the number of stations
Number of stations
• The optimum number of stations is considered by analysing the R2
coefficient. Tests were carried out between 250 and 6500 stations.
Objectif 500 stations (aire BV)Réalisé 457
y = 0.9301xR2 = 0.9072
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00Nb objectif
Nb
réa
lisé
Objectif 2500 stations (aire BV)Réalisé 2498
y = 0.9981xR 2 = 0.9934
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00Nb objectif
Nb
réa
lisé
Objectif 3500 stations (aire BV)Réalisé 3491
y = 0.9976x
R2 = 0.998
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00Nb objectif
Nb
réa
lisé
The optimum number of stations is considered by analysing the R2 coefficient. Tests were carried out between 250 and 6500 stations to be allocated. Graphs show that the gain in areal representativity sharply decreases between 2500 and 3500 stations, suggesting that 2500 stations would be enough to carry out:
• EuroWaternet assessments (trends in concentration) broken down into 12-20 major catchments groups,
• water accounts on main drainage (c.a., 70000-100000 km of watercourses)
For the main issues: nutrients and organic matter.
Supplementary stations should be added to bridge gaps related to pesticides, toxics, etc., by extending the application and merging results. Methodological paper is to be issued in next months.
The last graph shows the current yield of the network that does not pass over 60%, and quickly decreases if sufficient data is input in the selection (issue 3 of preceding slide):
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Number of stations
Adju
stm
ent R
2
Optimum
Existing stations
With data
117
Fulfilling guidelines
Next steps require emissions assessment that are underway. The slide is provided to give precision on the environment of impact analysis.
Comparison of results with pressures
Drivers are used to design network because they are stable vs. water composition. Hence a monitoring point belong to the same stratum during a long period. On the contrary, pressures (emissions for example) may vary rapidly within a stratum, because WWTP are installed and operated.
The sound way to compare results (state / impact) with pressures is to combine flux (mass loads) and emissions and reconcile loads from both sources.
Comparing DF and pressures
DF, national
criteria andthresholds
Stratification (withrespect to Agri. And
Urban drivers
Surplus calculationresultsof agri. Stats,
CL cover and Ifen /EEA model
118
The maps show clearly that intense agriculture (driver) and surplus (pressure) does not match precisely, because livestock number, agricultural practices, etc. are not in total harmony.
This remark confirms that stratification must be carried out at catchment level, as it is done in France.
Concluding - Stating the obvious or getting stock from experience?
• Sound results need complementary techniques that address the different faces of the problems and strengthen the outcomes,
• All these techniques require monitoring data, spatial data and statistical data, none of these sources being capable to replace other one,
• Synergistic approach depends on common infrastructure, GIS layers and innovative methodologies.
4.2.4 Upgrading observing networks: Integrated Global Carbon Observation
Anette Freibauer, Max Plank Institut Jean, Germany
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.2.5 Upgrading observing networks: Road to operational EO systems
Stefano Bruzzi, ESA
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.2.6 Upgrading observing networks: Cosmo Skymed Cons tellation
Giovanni Rum, Italian Space Agency, Italy
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.2.7 INSPIRE: Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
Marc Vanderhaegen, EC DG Environment
INSPIRE is an initiative launched by the European Commission and developed in collaboration with Member States and accession countries. Its purpose is to establish an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe to support formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Community policies with a territorial dimension or impact.
119
Why is a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI) needed?
The evaluation of the GMES pilot projects makes clear that action on a European scale is needed addressing in parallel all the key obstacles that exist today related to spatial data availability, data quality, accessibility, inter-operability and information services. Therefore the creation of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure (ESDI) is as a necessary step for further developments in the use of geo-information on a European scale.
The general situation on spatial information in Europe is one of fragmentation of datasets and sources, gaps in availability, lack of harmonisation between datasets at different geographical scales. As a result the current geo-information systems developed in different EU Member States and other organizations are not inter-operable. This can lead to important consequences when using available information, for example for defining the coast line. Between the coastline defined by the CORINE land cover 1990 and the coastline defined by SABE differences of more then 200 meter exist. Such obstacles makes it time-consuming and costly to provide information to support policy making and implementation, as the problems have to be solved over and over again for each application, in this case related to coastal erosion policy.
What is the purpose of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure?
The European SDI should help to overcome the problems related to inter-operability, but also deal with problems of accessibility of information. The purpose of a European SDI is to ensure implementation throughout Europe of the measures needed to address the obstacles to the use of spatial information across borders; to free the potential of the use of existing information currently locked up by the GI obstacles; to deliver the capacity to integrate information from different sources; to provide a framework in which information collected at the local and regiona l level can be used in a national and European context and vice versa.
Launch of INSPIRE
The INSPIRE initiative was launched in April 2002 by a Memorandum of understanding (MoU) between three European commissioners: Wallström (Environment), Solbes (Statistics) and Busquin (Research). This Memorandum of Understanding has provided the basis for continued co-operation between the services of DG Environment, EUROSTAT and the JRC for developing the INSPIRE initiative.
The MoU has led to 18 months of intensive voluntary collaboration of over 100 experts in Member States and accession countries. Expert working groups were established. They have contributed to the definition of the scope and measures of the legal framework for INSPIRE. They have also contributed to an assessment of the social, environmental and economic impacts of INSPIRE. During this 18 months process INSPIRE got a wide support from the experts involved.
The principles of INSPIRE
The principles that form the basis for INSPIRE have been agreed by the working groups. These principles are:
• Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively; combine seamlessly spatial data from different sources across the EU and share it between many users and applications;
• Spatial data should be collected at one level of government and shared between all levels of government;
120
• Spatial data needed for good governance should be available on conditions that are not restricting its extensive use;
• It should be easy to discover which spatial data is available, to evaluate its fitness for purpose and to know which conditions apply for its use.
Key measures of INSPIRE
Also the key measures needed to reach the objectives of INSPIRE have been identified. Existing spatial data should be documented to see what is already available. Stakeholders should contribute to standards for data and harmonise their data. A network of services should be set up to publish, discover, evaluate, view and access spatial data according to common standards. A framework should be created for sharing information between public bodies. And the institutional capacity should be created for the implementation of INSPIRE. A step-wise approach has been chosen for the implementation of these measures. They must eventually lead to a European network that makes available relevant, harmonised and quality geographic information for the purpose of formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Community policy-making.
Scope of INSPIRE
The Environmental Thematic Coordination Group of INSPIRE which included experts from (inter)national institutions, private companies and governmental representatives from different Member States defined the possible environmental data components to be defined in INSPIRE legislation. Seventeen themes have been selected by the experts that should be included: Geographical location; administrative units; properties, buildings and addresses; elevation; geo-physical environment; land surface/land cover; transport; utilities and facilities; society and population; spatial planning/area regulation; air and climate; water/hydrography; ocean and seas; natural resources; natural and technological risks and natural disaster; areas under anthropogenic stress. A number of these themes will be subject to full harmonisation, while for others only the spatial features will be subject to harmonisation (not the thematic content).
Internet consultation on INSPIRE
An open Internet consultation was organised in order to verify to which extent the envisaged INSPIRE measures are supported. The 185 respondents to the consultation represented the views of over 1000 organisations with different backgrounds (e.g. citizens, NGO’s, governments, private sector). Almost all respondents (97%) agree with the five INSPIRE principles also 97% agree with the five obstacles particularly the barriers to sharing and re-using spatial data and the lack of documentation. 81% of the respondents agree that the five obstacles mentioned in the internet consultation paper should be addressed by INSPIRE. According to the majority of respondents (79%), the general interest in the creation of an Infrastructure for Spatial Information justifies the public authorities dedicating specific funding to the implementation of INSPIRE.
Contribution to impact assessment of INSPIRE
The contribution to the impact assessment of the INSPIRE impact assessment working group showed that INSPIRE is a worthwhile investment. The cost at EU level is estimated to be around €6.9 million. The cost per MS are estimated to an average €8-12 million; this would represent an average costs per region of about 300 000 inhabitants between €120 000 and 175 000. The total benefits are considerable. Some of them have been quantified, adding up to between €1190 and €1800 million per
121
year, against a total annual cost of €200-300 million. Examples of these benefits are more efficient EIAs and SEAs, more efficient environmental monitoring, more cost-effective expenditure on environmental protection, improved delivery of health and environmental policies, etc.
INSPIRE and GMES
INSPIRE is fully complementary to GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security). The overall objective of GMES is to achieve by 2008 an operational and autonomous European capacity for global monitoring for environment and security. GMES will build upon space and in situ observation systems to deliver information and services to the users.
The results of the GMES initial period show that data integration and information management are key issues to be addressed if GMES is to succeed. Here INSPIRE could provide a major contribution and GMES therefore needs to support and contribute to the development and implementation of INSPIRE as an essential EU component of global monitoring capacity for environment and security.
The European spatial data infrastructure established through INSPIRE will allow streamlining and coordinating the spatial data so that they become a sound and efficient basis for building added value services and defining user requirements. GMES will in addition help to render existing monitoring system more efficient and will help to close existing gaps in monitoring. It will also support the processes needed to turn data into policy-relevant information, for instance by building models that themselves can lead to new insights and information. INSPIRE and GMES are therefore fully complementary.
Satus and future steps of INSPIRE
Most of the preparatory work for INSPIRE has been done. The lead Commission services are now considering their position on the political orientation for INSPIRE. Future steps and timing of INSPIRE remain therefore to be decided. Some participants to the GMES forum have suggested that INSPIRE would be “dead”. Taking as a measure the intensity of discussions on INSPIRE within DG
GMES Services
Space observing systems
European Spatial Data Infrastructure Data Standards Data policies Clearinghouse services (publish, view, query, access, trade) Co-ordinat ion
In Situ Observing systems
GMES
122
Environment, INSPIRE certainly is more alive than ever. Moreover, the demise of INSPIRE would be very bad news for GMES since a European spatial data infrastructure is a prerequisite to exploit economies of scale in Europe for information provision, to coordinate between users themselves across the policies and with the producers of information and to facilitate cross-border access to information. INSPIRE is furthermore an initiative where the users are taking the political lead and are engaging themselves to address the very difficult task of coordination of user requirements. Its demise would therefore also have a negative impact on the vocation of GMES as a user-driven initiative.
4.2.8 Interoperability, quality assurance, standardisation: the Metropolis experience
Valeria Dulio, Co-ordinator of Metropolis Network
Metropolis is a multidisciplinary network funded under the European Commission’s 5th Framework Programme for Research and Development (the “Growth programme”).
It brings together 17 countries and 38 participants from some of the most significant organisations dealing with environmental metrology in Europe.
The main goal of Metropolis is to gather information and knowledge about the problems/ shortcomings that we face today in environmental monitoring, thereby contributing to improve the performance of environmental measurement and monitoring systems in support of EU policies. Metropolis expertise is essentially in the field of in situ measurements.
There is indeed a growing need to improve the EU capability for large scale environmental monitoring. One key success factor for GMES will be the ability to build upon existing observation systems established at local, national and EU level.
Many (in situ) measurements are carried out at national level mainly to meet requirements set by EU and national legislation. These data represent a great source of potentially valuable information.
Unfortunately, the quality of the data collected is still highly variable and part of the collected data EITHER cannot be used because they do not meet the needs of the users OR at least have to be critically examined to establish whether the provide a suitable basis for decision-making.
Why is this so?
• First, there is the problem of a lack of traceability: it is impossible to base decisions on data that are not sufficiently documented (not traceable and therefore not reliable). This was probably more of a problem in the past than it is now….
• Then there is often a lack of harmonisation of the procedures applied by laboratories (starting with the sampling procedure, but also including the approach adopted for the calculation of the uncertainty). This lack of harmonisation makes the data obtained from different sources difficult to compare.
• Another problem is often the lack of representativeness: the data do not reflect the reality that we want to represent. The data collected are simply not fit for purpose.
When there is too high a level of uncertainty associated with the data collected, it may be impossible to base decisions on them. On the other hand, in some cases the uncertainty is not expressed at all!
123
What does Metropolis do to help with all this?
Metropolis takes a horizontal approach to the problems encountered in environmental measurements and monitoring.
The Metropolis approach is to bring together the actors involved in the process that we call the “measurement cycle” (see picture below) in the different countries and in the different sectors concerned (experts from different environmental fields - air, water and soil - but also experts from different fields of expertise - biologists, chemists, expert in risk assessment, GIS experts, etc. - and domains - academic researchers, but also experts from field laboratories, standardisation bodies, etc.). The starting point for their work is a look at the measurement cycle.
First of all we need to define:
• The purpose of measurement: what and why to measure?
• The measurement strategy: where to put the detectors? Where to collect the samples? When? With what frequency? How?
• The actual measurement operation, which includes the definition of field and reference methods, the definition of quality assurance and quality control systems, the standardisation process, the choice of the right reference materials, etc.
• Data processing: statistical analysis, modelling, interpretation and generalisation of the data collected.
• Finally, the presentation of data (delivery of the data) to the final user: we can present our data using maps and graphs, or we may prefer to create indices. The choice of data presentation technique is strongly related to the category of user. We will also need to present the uncertainty in a way that is understandable and useable by decision-makers. The results presented to the user will need to be consistent with the purpose for which the measurement was carried out.
All this seems very simple and logical, but the reality is very different, as we know. In current practice this process is very complex and presents many challenges.
The Metropolis network explores the main areas of concern throughout the measurement cycle and proposes a number of actions.
Here are some examples of the areas of concern identified throughout the measurement cycle and some actions that are going to be taken by Metropolis:
As for the measurement step, there is a lack of standardised methods (and / or simply a lack of guidance about harmonised procedures to be adopted) for the measurement of pollutants in the different environmental compartments and matrices.
Definepurpose
Measuringstrategy
Measuring
Dataprocessing
Datapresentation
124
On the other hand, some standardised methods prove to be inadequate: they do not meet the needs of users.
A practical example : (illustrative slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions)
For water samples with a high suspended particulate matter (SPM) content, the proposed environmental quality standards for organic substances are established on total concentration (dissolved fraction + particulate).
In a recent study, a partner of Metropolis, INERIS, selected 50 standard methods (ISO, EPA, AFNOR) for this type of analysis:
• Only 14 of those methods (out of 50) mentioned the problem of SPM.
• Moreover, out of these 14 methods only 5 gave a defined protocol on how to treat water samples with high levels of SPM (above 50 mg/L). And in any case, also in these 5 standard methods the pollutant was analysed only in the dissolved fraction!
The type of approach adopted by the laboratory will make quite a difference to the final results! The results will be different, depending on whether the analysis of such pollutants is performed on the unfiltered sample OR after separation, the analysis is performed on the SPM themselves, using solvent extraction methods designed for solid phases. The difference will be even greater if we consider that the type of substances we are speaking about are organic substances (e.g. PCBs, PAH, etc.) that have a high affinity for the solid phase.
What are the possible consequences?
• First of all we will have a problem of comparability between data from different laboratories (due to the difficulty of interpreting the indications given in the standard methods available).
• Secondly, the analysis conducted on the unfiltered sample will provide underestimated data of the concentration of the pollutant (compared to the second approach). What will the consequence be when we use these data for decision-making?
This practical example shows that it is sometimes necessary to re-examine the recommendations given by the standard methods as to how they fit users’ needs.
Metropolis is developing a database to collect information about analytical chemical methods and bio-monitoring assays that are currently available for measuring priority substances regulated by national and EU legislation in the different environmental compartments and matrices.
What is the added value?
One strong point is that the information contained in the database includes comments given by experts/researchers about the limitations of a given method/assay and its applicability.
As for standardised & non-standardised methods - the database will allow a systematic identification of what is available and what is needed.
The database also provides an opportunity for improving the exchange of information between the legislator and practitioners, including academic researchers as regards the knowledge currently available and the appropriate analytical responses available today.
In conclusion, although we accept that there is always room for further improvement, we believe that the database we will produce by the end of the project will be a very valuable resource for identifying available information and current knowledge & data gaps in measurement techniques.
125
Another area of concern is about quality assurance and the improvement of Proficiency Testing schemes.
In recent years, both testing laboratories and accreditation bodies have realised the importance of proficiency tests as tools to demonstrate and assess the performance of laboratories with regard to specific measurements, testing, and analytical tasks - and in the final analysis, Proficiency Tests are to be regarded as an essential tool to assess the comparability of measurements. However, because of the diversity of environmental analysis, some improvements are needed.
Returning to the subject of water quality monitoring, there are some good examples of quality assurance via proficiency testing that are carried out within some member states, regions and river basins. These programmes do not, however, include all priority substances. Moreover, these exercises will need to be carried out at EU-wide level in order to achieve better comparability of analytical results across Europe.
Metropolis is carrying out a study on the status of PT schemes in the environmental field in Europe. As a follow-up to the EPTIS database, this study will contribute to:
• Identifying compounds and matrices for which new PT schemes need to be developed
• Giving recommendations for their interpretation by the laboratories
• And in general identifying the current gaps and research needs.
Metropolis will also explore the area of measurement uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty has significant implications for the interpretation of analytical results.
The work of Metropolis will focus on:
• A critical analysis of currently applied documents and standards for uncertainty calculation and the areas where there is a need to improve harmonisation
• The problem of measurement uncertainty in relation to decision-making, in particular when dealing with large uncertainties.
I have mentioned just a few examples of the outcomes of Metropolis. All final documents will be available on the Metropolis web-site (http://www.metropolis-network.net/) in June 2004, which is when the project ends. But, in line with its ultimate objectives, we are taking actions to encourage metrology experts to become involved in the development of these documents, by expressing their critical opinions and making proposals via the Internet discussion fora.
Some conclusions:
The integration of measurements from space with in-situ information and data from models is crucial. As for the in situ measurements, many measurement data are available. However they need to be critically examined to establish whether they provide a suitable basis for decision-making. The quality of these data is often unsatisfactory; all of which emphasises the role of metrology as a means of ensuring the quality (traceability and therefore comparability) of the data obtained from the various monitoring programmes carried out in Europe. The application of metrology principles in environmental measurements is relatively recent but it is crucial for the use that we make of the data collected.
Metropolis is a two-year project. It will run until June 2004. One of its objectives is to prepare the ground for further integration of research expertise and resources in environmental monitoring across Europe. We are working to make these two years of work a solid basis for a follow-up to the activities of Metropolis. Would it be possible to envisage a role of Metropolis as an operator for the quality of in situ measurements?
126
4.3 Parallel Session 3 : RTD role and capacity building
4.3.1 Generic needs for research and exploitatio n of knowledge.
David Briggs, Imperial College, United Kingdom
In his introductory presentation, Prof. David Briggs described the research needs in relation to GMES. These fall under four main categories, as illustrated at figure 1:
• substantive/basic research;
• methodological research;
• integration methods and tools;
• production of information for decision making and use of information.
Figure 1: Research areas in relation to GMES.
Key domains were identified for each of the areas of research and concrete examples were given.
Details can be found at http://www.gmes.info/library/files.
Interdependent research needs
Substantive/basic Ø
process/fate §
susceptibility/impacts §
Integration Ø
data/models §
hazards/media/sectors §
Capacity building and knowledge exchange
Methodology Ø
monitoring/survey §
modelling/analysis §
Information into policy Ø
information §
decision -making cultures §
127
Conclusions:
• Many of the research areas related to GMES are issues of science and technology covered by current research programmes. What is missing is a systematic exploitation of the results.
• However in a number of domains research needs to be reinforced and possibly initiated. New approaches indeed are needed to deal with complexity, uncertainty and the multi-dimensional nature of the issues to be addressed.
• Perhaps the greatest need, however relates to ways in which science and information are used to support policy – GMES itself illustrates the problem. Action has to be taken to improve the understanding of policy-making by scientists, but much more to improve understanding of science, and attitudes to science and information, by decision makers.
4.3.2 Integrated Observation Networks of the future : a prospective view
Prof. Peter Hoogeboom, Dr. Philippe Steeghs, TNO, The Netherlands with contribution from Emile Elewaut from EuroGeoSurveys.
Integrated Observation Networks
A number of technological developments is dramatically changing earth observation. These developments will have important consequences for each of the three components of the information chain –the sensor; data transmission; and data analysis. Most of these developments will be well known to this audience. However, in this presentation we will give a, within the limited time frame, rather sketchy overview of some of the consequences for earth observation for monitoring the environment and security.
Some developments of consequence for earth observation are:
• Communication networks: increased bandwidth, reliability, and access.
• Sensors: miniaturization, mass production, new modalities.
• Platforms: autonomous, intelligent systems: UAVs, UUVs, robo-vehicles.
Earth observation can greatly benefit from these developments. One could envisage that we may have the capability to monitoring almost everything, everywhere and in real-time. The benefits for society and economy may be tremendous. However, besides economical restraints, there is also a number of technical challenges to be overcome. In this presentation some of the future capabilities will be indicated. However, we will also point out some challenging problems for the R&T community.
What is an Integrated Observation Network ?
Observation networks come in a great variety, ranging from a centralized in-situ sensor network connected to a main computer, to a combination of in-situ and space-based or airborne sensor network with a fully decentralized ‘web’ architecture.
The configuration can be tailored to the application and will show broad variations. TNO’s expertise is based on military and civil applications of integrated observation networks.
Some possible network architectures and features are shown below.
• Sensor-web of in-situ sensors (e.g. for measuring ground motion). The web architecture that is used here has several advantages: low power communications (each sensor communicates with
128
the nearest other sensor, so the distance (=power) over which signals need to be transported can be kept as low as possible. Other possibilities include: distributed computing by each of the network nodes; triggering of the network by a moving event that is first measured by a nearby sensor (e.g. vibrations, movements, gas emissions).
centralized network
sensor web
communications sat
EO satellite
UAV
calibrator
communications network
• Cross-cueing of networked sensors: A radar EO satellite detects changes, providing cues for optical UAV-based sensors. Or an event is detected by an in-situ network and a UAV is directed to where the event is taking place to provide extended spatial coverage.
• Calibration of space-borne or airborne sensors by direct communication with (a network of) ground-based calibration devices (e.g. for soil moisture, soil movement).
Application : automated mapping
An example of a future application: rapid detailed geological mapping by a combination of remote sensing and in-situ sampling and sensors.
The geology of the African continent has been partly mapped on a scale of 1:200.000. However, this scale is not sufficiently detailed for these maps to be suitable for the exploration for minerals and ore, or ground water.
In the future it will be essential for the development of the African continent, as well as for humanitarian reasons (e.g. settlement of large numbers of refugees) to carry out a more detailed and complete geological mapping. This will be a tremendous costly effort, that with the present technological means may not be completed within 50 years time.
Future geological mapping
The effort may be greatly reduced by first investing in new technology. For instance, remotely controlled or autonomous vehicles could be used for taking measurements and sample collection. By
129
direct communication with a largely automated mapping system a geological map can be constructed in synchronous with the sampling and measurement process.
The effort may be greatly reduced by first investing in new technology. For instance, remotely controlled or autonomous vehicles could be used for taking measurements and sample collection. By direct communication with a largely automated mapping system a geological map can be constructed in synchronous with the sampling and measurement process.
The geological map will be constructed using templates (hills in a desert are in first instance interpreted as sand dunes, not as volcanoes). From the computer-generated map it will be clear if the data is of sufficient quality and if there is sufficient data to provide the desired detail. The interpretation will be linked to EO data, that will provide clues with respect to the subsurface complexity. In this way the geological map will be constructed before the geologist goes into the field to make more detailed assessments for specific tasks, such as mineral exploration.
Sensors
A good example of sensor developments is in the field of inertial positioning sensors. They used to be very expensive and were used only in aeroplanes for navigation and control. Nowadays, airbags in cars and GPS-based car navigation systems use these sensors in miniaturised and low-cost, mass-produced versions.
A big challenge in integration is interoperability of systems. A crucial factor in network integration, as turned out from military experience.
Communications
Data encryption and compression are important factors here, as are privacy, autonomy, and interoperability.
Developments
• 3G wide-band (wireless) communication systems
• Increased connectivity between systems and networks (standards and protocols)
• Access to satellite communications will continue to grow
130
Challenges
• Bandwidth will remain scarce (partly because of allocation on the basis of priority);
• data reduction, compression will always be needed
• Power consumption (remote locations)
• Security
Challenges : underwater communication
Above is an example of a challenging R&T problem in networked sensor communication In certain areas it is not possible or undesirable to use “standard” RF communication networks. For instance, for oceanographic data collection in accessible areas or in busy shipping lanes it is often not feasible to use cable or wireless RF networks.
In order to overcome this problem an underwater acoustic modem has been developed, which transmits small quantities of oceanographic data (temperature, currents, salinity) using the acoustic spectrum in a similar way as a standard RF modem uses the electromagnetic spectrum. The system has been tested recently in the Westerschelde and it proved to be possible to transmit data reliably over a long period. Advanced acoustic communication techniques are currently being developed (advances time and frequency division multiplexing, etc.).
Information processing
Currently, most information is pushed to the users, thereby jamming the information channels. Information pull by the user from dedicated web-sites is a more effective and efficient of information dissemination.
Information analysis has made tremendous progress. For instance, in the field of over-determined systems, models, and data sets. You will be amazed what your supermarket extracts from the use of a customer card.
In our field rapid/real-time assimilation of information is important.
131
Some places to look for the future
Today’s MP-3 player was announced as a future development in the 1960s! Could you believe it then?
Some interesting developments that may have an impact on the way earth observation systems will function in the future are listed here.
A trend that can be observed in a number of fields is the increasing use of feedback of (real-time) sensor information into process or system control systems. The following slides will show two examples: real-time monitoring the subsurface for oil production and military network centric operations.
The instrumented oil field
Where a network of in-situ (subsurface) sensors (seismic, temperature, pressure, fluid flow) and remote sensing from the Earth’s surface is used to monitor oil production.
The sensor data is then directly fed into a model of the reservoir to predict the result of water or steam injection at certain locations in the reservoir on oil production. In this way the production process can be optimised, improving the efficiency and the lifetime of the production system.
Military network centric operations
The effort of the military to increase effectiveness of their operations by adapting their structure to a networked environment may create some interesting spin-off technology and concepts for the civil world.
At present tremendous progress is being made in the areas of autonomous, networked, and real-time observation systems.
In the security pillar of GMES there is a great number of applications that could benefit from cross-fertilisation with the military technology community. For instance, in the GMOSS (Global Monitoring for Safety and Security) 6th FP Network of Excellence a number of predominantly military research and technology organisations co-operate with civil organisations in research for civil security.
132
Concluding remarks
• Our capabilities for real-time, integrated, automated monitoring will increase dramatically. Starting with present-day partly automated integrated observation systems this will lead to truly autonomous, intelligent, observation webs
• Several R&T challenges are still ahead:
– network architectures
– reducing power consumption
– communication in remote areas
– data mining technology
– network maintenance strategies
– low -cost sensors for high-tech applications
4.3.3 Specific needs for research and technological development: Land
Anton Imeson, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
See slides at http://www.gmes.info under Forum Reports and Contributions
133
4.3.4 Specific needs for research and technological development: Sea
Nadia Pinardi, Giovanni Coppini and Claudia Fratianni, INGV, Italy
See slides at http://www.gmes.info under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.3.5 Specific needs for research and technological development: Atmosphere
Geir O. Braathen, GATO, NILU, Norway
See slides unter http://www.gmes.info under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.3.6 Capacity building in the framework of GMES
Jan Stel1, ICIS, Maastricht, the Netherlands
Abstract
Capacity building has not yet received much attention in the GMES initiative. Yet, with a wide variety of capabilities present in the 2004 Europe, there will be a need for both capacity building activities within the Member States involved in GMES as well as in selected areas outside the European GMES membership. In this presentation some elements of capacity building activities are discussed focussing on one key element of GMES, being ocean space. Moreover it is concluded that there is a need for a GMES education programme.
Introduction
The concept of capacity building encompasses a country’s human, scientific, technological, organisational, institutional and resource capabilities. Capacity building is as a consequence, multidimensional, multidisciplinary, multiscale and multilevel in nature. It is a complex activity with many actors involved. Within GMES there always will be a need for building capabilitie s in the various domains of the system, both at a European and a national to local scale. An essential element, however, will be the development of human resources through education and training. Both scientific and technical training is needed to ensure that the necessary volume of well-educated professionals and technicians will be available to run GMES. This will facilitate the social-economical return of the GMES investment. At the Baveno Forum the issue of capacity building was addressed for the first time. The presentation is based upon my experience in executing oceanographic expeditions and has therefore a focus on marine science. A comparable partnership type of approach should be developed within the second phase of GMES.
1 Jan Stel is professor of Ocean Space and Human Activity at the International Centre for Integrative Studies of the University of Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 WD Maastricht, the Netherlands. In different functions he was as a science manager involved in capacity building activities and initiated the ‘Partners in Science’ concept, which was applied in bilateral marine science cooperation programmes of the Netherlands and Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan and the Seychelles.
134
Capacity building in ocean sciences
There are no clear-cut procedures for capacity building. As a rule capacity building is a tailor made process. Yet, a number of elements can be defined at different levels, being: human resources or the level of the individual scientist and technicians (microlevel), the necessary institutions (mesolevel) and an enabling national environment that is willing to support and sustain the activity (macrolevel). These levels must be seen in relation to each other. They express different elements of a single system (Stel, 1998).
On the level of the individual scientist, the following capabilities and requirements are important:
• Capacity to formulate a research problem and to carry out the entire research cycle.
• Appropriate qualifications through further academic training (Master and PhD).
• Motivation, and the opportunity to undertake research.
• External contacts (national and international), networks, and memberships of professional associations.
• Access to information (libraries, databases, etc.) and scientific equipment.
At the level of the institutions, capacity is needed for:
• The development of a research policy.
• The development and management of research projects and programmes (priority setting, research coordination, monitoring and the publication and dissemination of results).
• Adequate infrastructure in terms of buildings, equipment, research vessels etc.
• The acquisition and management of research funds.
• The training of researchers, technicians and staff development.
• The provision of adequate incentives and working conditions for researchers (time, financial resources, salaries, libraries, laboratories, equipment, funds for travel, housing etc.).
• A network of external contacts, which provides links to other research centres, funding agencies, voluntary organisations, business, governmental bodies etc.
• Monitoring and evaluation.
An ‘enabling environment’ concerns aspects such as:
• Commitment at the national level to a policy and a set of measures aimed at promoting and maintaining a research capacity, including adequate funding of institutions and programmes.
• Mechanisms for directing research towards topics that are of relevance to economic, social, cultural and political development of a society and possibilities for various groups to articulate their interests.
• Mechanism for bilateral and multilateral partnerships and, in general, provisions for international cooperation, particularly on a regional basis.
• Links between research, policy, and practice (involvement of research users in prioritising, implementing and disseminating research).
• A professional environment, including formal associations, standards, mobility, incentives, and a research tradition.
135
Capacity building is a process in which three phases can be distinguished. In the initial phase research capacities are still rather limited. This is often the case in poorer countries. In the transitional phase the local research capacity is developing at one of the three levels discussed before, but progress is still uneven. So, although a research community is available, its development is haphazard as regular funding, research planning and a (national) research policy are lacking. In the developed phase, the research system and the research community have become rather dynamic, well linked to society and the economy, and is self supporting.
As a consequence of the considerable differences in the starting situation in various countries, capacity building activities have to be tailor-made to the specific needs of a country and / or a region.
Operational oceanography and operational meteorology
Presently a major transition to operational oceanography is taking place in the framework of the implementation of the Global Ocean Observing System. GOOS is a permanent global system for observations, modelling and analysis of marine and ocean variables to support operational ocean services worldwide. It will provide accurate descriptions of the present state of ocean space including its living resources. GOOS will continuously forecast the future conditions of the sea for as far ahead as possible and will form the basis for forecasts of climate variability and climate change. GOOS is developed trough a network of regional organisations such as EuroGOOS. The latter was founded in 1994 and is an association of agencies with the aim to develop operational oceanography in the European seas and adjacent oceans. EuroGOOS presently has 31 members from 17 European countries.
The Netherlands has assisted South Africa in the development of Seawatch Southern Africa. Seawatch, a state-of-the-art, off-the-shelf marine information system, is already successfully used in the seas of countries such as Greece, Indonesia, Spain and Thailand (Hansen & Stel, 1997). Technology transfer of this kind should be implemented through a partnership approach with the following characteristics:
• Five year planning in a ten-year setting.
• A taylor-made approach for the region or country.
• Joint planning and implementation by the partners.
• Involve training and education.
• Apply the concepts of ‘Learning by Doing’ and ‘Teach the Teachers’.
• Address capacity building at all levels.
• Backed by political commitments.
For operational oceanography the WMO training activities form an excellent example for capacity building activities related to operational services, aiming on underpinning the quality of the WMO products at a global, regional and national level. Through its Education and Training programme WMO ensures that the needed body of well educated and trained professionals and technicians is available. The programme encompasses activities such as the organisation and sponsoring of training events, the award of fellowships, the production of training publications, the provision of audio-visual training material and the support to a network of 22 Regional Meteorological Training Centres.
Conclusions
The following suggestions to be addressed during the second phase of GMES were made to the GMES Forum in Baveno:
136
• Education and training for the different GMES systems (Atmosphere, Ocean Space, Land, Socio-Economic and Earth Observations techniques) should start now.
• A focussed capacity building programme with assessing countries, with Russia, and in developing countries through pilot projects ArcticGOOS, Black Sea, North and Southern Africa) should be developed as soon as possible.
Literature
Stel, J.H., (editor), 1998. Marine capacity building in a changing global setting. Marine Policy, 22, 3: 175 – 280.
Hansen, S.E. & J.H. Stel. Seawatch, performance and future. In Stel, J.H., (editor), 1997. Operational oceanography, the challenge for European cooperation. Elsevier, Amsterdam: 101-110.
4.3.7 The GMES Russia network component
Dr Nicolai Dobretsow, Geoinformation, Novorsibirsk, Russia
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions
4.3.8 Additional Contribution: An introduction to EuroSDR
European Spatial Data Research, Paris
For the General Information see at http://www.gmes.info/library under Forum Reports and Contributions Parallel session 3
137
4.4 Parallel session 4: Multi-level cooperation (local, regional, national,
international)
4.4.1 The European Information and Observation Network (EIONET) and related changes in the Belgian environmental network
Jan Voet, IRCEL, Brussels, Belgium
See slides at http://www.gmes.info/library under section Forum Reports and Contributions
4.4.2 Viewpoint from the non governmental organisation: EUMETNET – Lessons from the EUCOS project
Claude Pastre, EUMETNET Co-ordinating Officer
EUMETNET favours the idea of GMES being implemented as an operating partnership, and is willing to consider active participation for the provision of operational services in the domain of risk management.
EUMETNET is itself a sort of operating partnership focussed on the collective management of basic meteorological infrastructures. It is composed today of eighteen European Meteorological Services, nineteen in 2004 when the Hungarian Service becomes a Member. A good illustration of EUMETNET capabilities can be found with EUCOS (EUMETNET Composite Observing System).
EUCOS is the EUMETNET Programme to manage the in-situ component of the European meteorological observing system for the large scale, i.e. the European component of the Global Observing System coordinated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). This in-situ system is used together with the space segment to feed numerical weather predictions for one to ten days ahead as performed by National Services and ECMWF. It is also used for the monitoring of global climate change as concerns the atmospheric component. The most important parameters are wind temperature and humidity. The typical horizontal distance between stations is 100 to 500 km and measurements are performed typically one to eight times per day. The design and content of the in-situ network is being periodically revisited to take into account the evolving capabilities of the space segment. While some characteristics of the atmosphere such as sharp temperature vertical gradients or gradient discontinuities will escape remote sensing for long, it is clear that the horizontal density requirements may be relaxed at least in those part of the world where they are the denser. At the same time nevertheless, the horizontal density of meteorological measurements remains insufficient over oceanic areas.
Over the continent, the EUMETNET network is composed of coordinated independent national networks. The central EUCOS unit provides integrated monitoring, quality control, network design changes and performs studies to support design evolution. Over the oceans, EUCOS is an integrated system in the sense that the EUMETNET members provide contributions to a centralised budget and the systems are operated under the responsibility of the central EUCOS unit. This central responsibility is delegated to one member of the network – currently, the Met Office, UK – to avoid duplicating existing national capabilities.
138
The maps of figures 1 and 2 provide a concrete view of EUCOS capabilities. These show the location of radio-sounding (column measurements of wind, temperature and humidity). The continental network (figure 1) provides measurements twice per day.
Figure 1 : EUCOS Upper Air Continental
Figure 2 display all the measurements effected over the Northern Atlantic during one month. This number is insufficient to ensure the best quality of numerical weather prediction over Europe one to two days in advance.
Figure 2 : EUCOS Upper Air Oceanic
This is a very relevant concern for risk warning in our countries. It is an objective of EUMETNET to increase the density of these measurements over the ocean. The difficulty is not technical, it lies in limited funding.
The EUMETNET/EUCOS operating partnership brings a number of strengths. It is resilient, because the responsibilities and capabilities are distributed. It is cost-effective because it allows operating at European scale without duplication of existing national assets and know-how. It is a European structure that is very well supported by its constituency because the structure is the constituency. Its current weakness lies in the lack of an integrated political ownership and the consequent lack of visibility. This makes the financial support for atmospheric observations over the oceans more difficult to obtain.
Based on the European Meteorological infrastructure managed by EUMETSAT, ECMWF and EUMETNET and the service capabilities of the EUMETNET members, it is possible to develop with limited effort and cost an efficient operational capabilities to satisfy the GMES requirements related to management of natural risks. To this effect EUMETNET is actively involved in the establishment of the EURORISK partnership comprising also civil protection, hydrology and relevant industry.
139
However, beyond the coming years of the development phase, the actual long term operational implementation will depend on the availability of a reference institutional framework at European level. This framework would best take the form of a European institution that would act as the “owner entity” for European scale risk management. This entity should ensure both the political ownership and the overall programmatic management to consolidate user requirements, ensure the necessary funding of the operating partnership and the evaluation of processes and results. The European Commission and its General Directorate for Environment would appear to be the most obvious choice to play this role.
4.4.3 The European Sea Level Service (ESEAS): Potential Contributions to GMES
H.-P. Plag for the ESEAS and ESEAS-RI Consortium, Norwegian Mapping Authority, Norway
The European Sea Level Service (ESEAS, see http://eseas.org) started its work in June 2001 and has the major objective to provide sea-level and sea-level related information for the European waters to scientific and non-scientific users both from inside and outside Europe. The ESEAS aims to achieve this goal in cooperation with other relevant organisations such as the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), EuroGOOS, GLOSS, EUREF and {\em International GPS Service} (IGS). The ESEAS strives to guarantee and co-ordinate the long-term monitoring activities and data exchange along the entire European coastline. This includes, among others, tasks like setting up standards for observations and data processing, quality control of the large European database of hourly sea level data, upgrading of the ESEAS Observing Sites, collocation of tide gauges with CGPS, and provision of derived products such as secular trends and estimates of extremes.
The ESEAS is based on three networks:
• The physical network of Observing Sites including National Centres is largely existing. However, cooperation between different authorities was on a low level and is strongly promoted through the ESEAS.
• The institutional network of the ESEAS is based on voluntary commitments of national authorities, who have to provide the necessary funds both for running the physical network and setting up the application network. The institutional network is represented through the Governing Board, the Central Bureau and the Technical Committee.
• The application network uses the data from the physical network to produce products relevant for users of the ESEAS. The link between the application network and the users is primarily through the ESEAS web side.
In Europe, the physical network for observing sea level at coastal sites is well developed in most geographical regions. However, in some crucial parts (particularly Arctic Sea, the Eastern Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea), the network needs upgrading of the gauges to modern standards. Augmentation of the observing sites with equipment to monitor the stability of the tide gauge and vertical land movement is another urgent issue. Currently, access to more than 50 individual sea-level databases in European countries is still severely hampered due to national diversity in operation, uneven technological developments, non-standardised products, and different levels of quality assurance. The ESEAS is in the process of building up one integrated virtual sea-level information source. Eventually, this source will provide a standardised access to most of the sea-level data and information available in Europe, through both national sea-level databases and quality-assured high-level products derived from the ESEAS tide gauges, GPS and satellite altimetry.
140
The EU-funded ESEAS - Research Infrastructure project (ESEAS-RI, see http://eseas.org/eseas-ri) started on 1 November 2002 with participation of 25 institutions from 17 countries. The project runs over three years and provides substantial resources for improving the observational network as well as the tools for exploitation of the data. In particular:
• Work Package (WP) 1 (Quality Control of Sea Level Observations) will make available a quality-controlled data set of hourly tide gauge data from most ESEAS Observing sites.
• WP2 (Absolute sea level variations) concentrates on the determination of vertical land motion at the ESEAS Observing Sites.
• WP3 (Decadal to inter-decadal sea level variations) will produce as main result an empirical model of the sea level variations in the European Seas for the last hundred years.
• Finally, in the frame of WP4 (Improving the sea level observing system), a number of ESEAS Observing Sites are being upgraded and/or augmented with CGPS.
The primary technological objective of the ESEAS-RI project is to support the ESEAS research infrastructure as a major research infrastructure for all aspects related to sea-level, and to facilitate the transnational coordination, the upgrading of the network of observing sites and the standardisation of the network, operational routines, databases, and quality-control as a prerequisite for a full scientific exploitation of the present and future sea level observations. The primary scientific objective of the project is to study sea level variations at inter-annual to century time scales and to quantify potential future changes in mean sea level. In order to reach the objectives, the following main steps are necessary:
• quality control of the hourly tide gauge data accessible through the ESEAS;
• determination of vertical land movements at tide gauges in order to decontaminate the relative sea level records for this bias;
• determination of sea level variations on inter-decadal time scales in the North Atlantic and the semi-enclosed European seas as well as assessment of secular relative sea level trends for the European coasts;
• improvement of the network of ESEAS Observing Sites through upgrading of selected tide gauges and co-location of gauges with continuous GPS.
The availability of a quality-controlled database of hourly tide gauge data, and the successful upgrading of the ESEAS network as well as a major improvement of the research infrastructure comprised in the ESEAS are major milestones. The research carried out in the project will result in an empirical model of sea level variations, which provides a unique basis for future studies of climate processes at decadal to inter-decadal time scales, particularly the North Atlantic Oscillation, as well as a coherent description of the occurrence of extreme sea levels.
The project embedded into the ESEAS is stimulating the integration of European sea level research community into a larger network and thus promotes coordinated research. The ESEAS directly contributes to environmental assessment reports, and also gives information with respect to obstacles for the exploitation of existing multi-national databases in terms of e.g. technical, data quality and policy, legal and organisational issues.
In terms of potential contributions of the ESEAS to the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme, it has to be pointed out that the ESEAS is a non-governmental organisation representing the European "Sea Level Domain". As such, the ESEAS is the partner for addressing sea level related topics in the frame of GMES. In the operational phase, ESEAS could contribute with several aspects, namely:
141
• Operational contribution to GMES with extreme sea level forecasting. This application requires real time or near-real time sea-level data in relevant areas.
• Assessment of risks with respect to long-term sea level changes. Here we point out that security has not only a near-real time component but also long-term, precautionary aspects. A question to be answered is whether the present sea level observing system has sufficient monitoring capacity for this application.
• Global monitoring. The ESEAS is the European implementation of GLOSS and as such contributes to GOOS.
• Capacity building. The ESEAS is actively involved in support for sea level monitoring outside of Europe, particularly in the frame of GLOSS.
The work described here is supported by the European Commission under Contract EVR1-CT-2002-40045. Responsibility for the contents resides with the authors.
4.4.4 Viewpoint from EUROGEOSURVEYS
Emile Elewaut, Secretary General of Eurogeosurveys, the Association of the geological surveys of the European Union
For over 150 years, the National Geological Survey Organisations have had the legal mandate to collect, archive, interpret and disseminate geoscience data in their home countries.
These vast sets of in-situ data of all kind of disciplines: resources, soil, georisks and -hazards, groundwater or land use, now form the basis for validation and interpretation of new Earth Observation data. The combination of data from different disciplines, linked by the powerful prospect of new Earth Observation techniques will result in the development of new knowledge.
Major impact can be expected in lesser explored areas where the combination and networking of new techniques will help to overcome the lack of the human resources, to detect new natural resources, or to mitigate natural disasters. One of the examples of a possible close cooperating of in-situ measurements and remote sensing data in the area of civil protection, is the monitoring and prediction of land subsidence, land slides or mass movements, thus contributing to a reduction in damage and loss of lives.
Therefore, the European Geological Survey Organisations see the need for:
• Improved access to Earth Observation data,
• Standardisation and integration of in-situ datasets.
• Improved cooperation between stakeholders
• Identification of problems and opportunities needing pan-European action.
The combination of data from different disciplines, will result in the development of new knowledge, based on:
• A joint European, multi-stakeholder action plan
• A European shared information capacity.
142
This will not come about only by investing more money in the development of new Earth Observation Tools, sensors or satellites. Linking-up to in-situ data is indispensable to valorise Earth Observation data.
In the opinion of the Geological Survey Organisations a pan-European data standardization as well as the development and execution of a multi-stakeholder action plan, can only be achieved through the establishment of a European Geological Agency.
Such Agency would provide the expert input needed by the member states Geological Surveys to
• standardize and integrate their vast data sets.
• identify problems and opportunities for cooperation in the fields of natural resources, groundwater monitoring, natural hazard mitigation, soil protection, etc.
• to monitor, coordinate and plan the joint efforts of the member states in the field of earth sciences and related applications.
4.4.5 Multi-stage Cooperation: Sharing assets
Yves Desaubies, Ifremer, France
See slides at: http://www.gmes.info/library under section Forum Reports and Contributions
4.4.6 Building re gional institutional partnership: the MAMA Pilot experience
Silvana Vallerga, MAMA co-ordinator and MedGOOS Chair
See slides at : http://www.gmes.info/library under section Forum Reports and Contributions
143
5. PLENARY SESSION 3: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF
RESULTS
5.1 Reports on the parallel sessions
5.1.1 Report on the 1st parallel session: “Information requirements on EU and national policies role and meeting the users needs”
Rapporteur: Marc Doherty, European Space Agency, EOP-S
Just a clarification: The parallel session that I am going to give you the report from is actually the information requirements on EU and national policies and does not extend to meeting the user needs.
Basically, I think the first and possibly the most important thing to say is that, as regards the report - many things were said, but as regards the report - there was rage consensus in this group. There was no particular point where a point of issue was brought up, there were quite a number of observations made, but the major outcome, the key points I want to put to you, are actually six points. Their indications were where the report could be strengthened and these points were recurrent in some of the presentations.
The issue of capture and use of non-environmental data is widely recognized throughout the discussions, as being critical and typically that would be socioeconomic data, demographic data, cadrastal data and there was a feeling that, although recognized, that issue could be further strengthened in that report and that it would be beneficial to do so.
In almost all of the discussions, it is recognized that for GMES and for modelling systems the services and information to be of use, really do require that there are forecasting and prediction capabilities that would allow scenarios to be set up and evaluated. That requires not only the monitoring capability but underlying that there is a tremendous demand for diverse modelling capabilities that we do not currently have.
Although this issue is identified in the report, there has been a statement and there seems to be a strong feeling that anything that could be done to take that through to more specific requirements regarding the modelling activities would also be beneficial. It is recognized that GMES is a monitoring, not a research activity but likewise the underlying research, the linkage between the research and the operation of monitoring is absolutely essential.
Although the report is talking about gaps etc., anything that can be done to strengthen this point and actually get more to address the issue of how the linkages can be articulated in practice between operational monitoring and ongoing research programmes would be valuable.
At this stage, the importance of the user pool: user requirements are recommended but in fact we are talking about major infrastructures that have to be developed and the observation is made that the user pool alone is not sufficient to bring us to achieve those investments.
The issue is how to achieve the strategic decisions that will get this infrastructure, the investments necessary. That also should be strengthened in the report: how to achieve the strategic investment and infrastructure.
Access to data: again, it is clearly there in the report, but it needs to be more than a statement of principle .
144
There is a feeling that identifying and being explicit in concrete steps to the implementation steps, that would guarantee that the access to the data is correctly implemented, is also vital.
It is unfortunate that the presentation on regional information needs from DG Region could not take place, but in the discussion quite a number of questions came up concerning the involvement of regional governments and regional authorities, both in terms of their needs, their resources. They have existing infrastructures, they have responsibilities. Their role and how they can be properly involved in the coordination between European, national and regional level is something also that could and should be made more explicit in the report.
5.1.2 Report on Parallel Session 2: The GMES Observing and Servicing Technical Capacity
Rapporteur : Michel Cornaert, European Commission, DG Research
Scope of the session
The presentations and discussions in this session, chaired by Chris Steenmans (EEA), addressed the conditions that have to be met for the chains of production of information for end-to-end services to perform efficiently. Examples of information chains and their individual components were examined. Furthermore, the data policies needed to support the efficient functioning of information and data services were examined.
Highlights of discussions
The discussions confirmed the main results from GMES Thematic Projects, i.e. that any improvement in the production of policy relevant information requires the consideration of the whole chain/system of information production, as well as their key component and related issues :
• Observing systems (EO satellites Airborne systems - In situ networks - Socio-economic statistics - Basic data),
• Data quality (Standards - Error reporting - Network design),
• Modelling (Knowledge - Error reporting – Data Assimilation),
• Interoperability (Data calibration/validation – Model inter-comparison),
• Access to data and information (Data services - Metadata - Archives - Practicalities - Data policies),
• Information and Data Services ,
• Research and technological development (knowledge and tools on above issues).Action is needed on all of the above elements within an overall frame allowing to address in priority the limiting factors.
Observing systems
• Current observing systems do not, in general, generate the data needed to produce information for European or Global policies. European or global observing systems are made of the juxtaposition of elements of national or regional systems. With the exception of the most recent
145
legislations (e.g. FWD), there has been little or no consideration in selecting the national elements of their adequacy and representativeness to become part of European networks.
• Scientific and technical knowledge is available to allow the design of Observing Systems which are fit for purpose, i.e. which meet the needs for data for policies at various levels (national, European, Global). However, the transformation of current systems into coordinated and complementary networks requires considerable structural changes and investments and can only be achieved progressively. Furthermore, it only makes sense to secure long term monitoring:
– If complementarity between the observing systems and other data sources is guaranteed (EO satellites, in situ network, socio-economic statistics, basic data);
– If the design of the observing systems – individually and across systems - seeks economic efficiency.
Modelling. Combining data into information.
More perhaps than for any other domain, the production of environmental information requires the combination of a wide array of types of data using various models and techniques. This is currently limited by:
• The knowledge basis of the models and methods (our understanding of the functioning of the ecosystems and their relations with human activities) ;
• Insufficient documentation of the models available ;
• Lack of interoperability of models.
Data quality
Data is poorly documented. There is a lack of traceability in the characteristics of the measurements. Intercomparisons are occasional rather routine practice. As a result, data exists but only a small fraction of it can be used to produce reliable information.
Access
Data exists but its access is poorly organised. All GMES Thematic Projects faced practical problems in locating and acquiring data, which resulted in significant consumption of project resources. Action is needed to improve metadata, archives and services of access to data.
Data policy
GMES Thematic Projects were confronted with data policy issues. Differences in data policy between countries or between sources of data, or the absence of data policies, made the acquisition of data more complicated than necessary. In some instances data were not accessible at all and had to be substituted with data set of inferior quality. Action is needed to put data policy at the service of information producers and users. Examples of how data policy can help quality information were given (e.g. copyright used as branding label ; en/decryption Keys to protect ownership while encouraging data exchange).
The GMES Thematic Projects, as well as experiences presented at the Forum, confirmed the need for easy access to EU-wide data sets (products and services). Especially important are good quality well documented “raw” data and generic products (e.g. albedo, radiation balance, land cover, DTM and basic topographic features, observation data, basic socio-economic statistics). European action to improve the situation was deemed necessary to develop and maintain data services.
146
Information products and services.
It was recognised that the current lack of quality in existing information services for policy support was due to the issues discussed under the above points, acting most often in combination. Progress on all of these thus is necessary. However, the need at this time for a specific European action on information services - beyond support to pilot projects - was not demonstrated.
Transversal aspects
• Clarity in funding sources
It was recognised that all of the components of the information production chain discussed above (points 3-8) deserve action at the European level. Furthermore the point was made of the need to use the right funding source (for example, routine data collection exercises should not be funded from RTD budgets).
• European Shared Information Capacity
Furthermore, given
– the wide range of actors, of programmes, of funding sources, as well as of institutions concerned with the information production and use,
– the need to ensure cooperation and complementarity between all these,
– the need to decide on priority actions while keeping a consistent approach over the long-term,
– an overall frame of reference and of action is indispensable : this is the function of ESIC, the European Shared Information Capacity.
• Dialogue
Finally, it was strongly felt that progress in information production and use needed a permanent feed back from final and intermediate users, and more generally an organised dialogue between all those involved.
5.1.3 Report on Parallel Session 3: RTD needs and cap acity building
Rapporteur: Alan Edwards, European Commission, DG Research
The 3rd parallel session of the 4th GMES Forum, chaired by Stephen Briggs (ESA), considered the role of RTD and capacity building in GMES.
The session started with presentations on the role of research in the exploitation and dissemination of knowledge. These talks showed that we often have an over simplistic of view how research fits into the operation of GMES and its principle task of delivering information to policy-makers.
There was a very interesting presentation on a longer term view of how technology can help GMES. At present the main focus is on the period 2004-2008, which is natural. However, technology is continually revolutionising our lives and Professor Hoogeboom gave a very interesting presentation on the technological horizons in the period of 2008 and beyond. It will be important for GMES to follow the developments in technology and to plan how these can be integrated into GMES, because these technologies could revolutionise observing systems in the longer term.
147
As well as observing system technologies, full account must also be taken of developments in the world of IT. This domain will be an essential component of GMES. However, it is an area that is often taken for granted. We have the Internet, we log on to it, a few clicks and there we are. If we are stuck then we type something into GOOGLE and normally we find the answer we want. Such concepts need to be taken forward and built into GMES. High-powered grids are likely to become the backbone. But a “GMES User” will only want to use this system at the highest level when accessing data, without concerning himself or herself with the underlying data-bases, so that they can have access to GMES information in a similar way to that which they now use to find data via the Internet. This points to a need for conceptual research in the IT domain.
The session then looked at specific research needs in the areas of land, sea and atmosphere. The most important point with regard to research raised by the participants in this session was a general perception that the research effort has not been fully integrated into the operational delivery of information services within the overall GMES concept. The report presents a slightly simplistic view that one carries out research and then simply transfers this knowledge into operational services. Professor Briggs demonstrated very clearly that is not the case in his talk entitled “Generic needs for research and exploitation of knowledge”. He showed that there is a continual interaction between research and the associated operational services. And so there is a need to much more fully integrate the research effort into the overall operational delivery of information services and products within GMES.
The participants to this session also expressed strong support for the need to increase the visibility of modelling within GMES. The importance of modelling came out very clearly from the discussions. Modelling has to be recognised as a central element within GMES, not a peripheral one. And to verify the correctness of the models high quality data is needed, in particular in-situ data. Topics such as data-assimilation into the models, and the calibration and validation of the models, also need to be fully addressed. As the models develop it should also be recognised that there is often great benefit to be gained by going back and reprocessing data. This is a topic that is not referenced anywhere in the GMES Report.
The last point raised in this session with regard to RTD needs concerned the need to recognise that much research of great relevance to GMES takes place outside the direct GMES funding framework. Take for example research funding put into understanding ecosystem functioning. This is a vital topic for GMES. And although it is not central to GMES research funding, work in this domain will have a tremendous impact on how we can develop the models that are relevant to GMES. And so we need to find a mechanism not only to benefit from the research that we fund directly in GMES, but for all the other research efforts that are undertaken, so that we gain the maximum benefit for the GMES operational services.
The final part of the session then concentrated on capacity building. Everyone in this session agreed that what is missing so far within GMES is a GMES education and training programme. We've been very remiss in not thinking about this, in not debating this, in not including this. Education and training should start now in the various areas of the different GMES systems – a very clear message from this session. And planning also has to start immediately for focused capacity building. It was the view of this session that this could be best achieved through pilot projects, initially focused on the Accession States, Russia and the Newly Independent States and the developing countries, in particular those in North Africa.
148
5.1.4 Report on parallel session 4: Multi-level cooperation (local, regional, national, Europe an, international)
Ronan Uhel, European Environment Agency, International Co-operation
Some twenty persons gathered in session 4 to discuss multi-level cooperation. This is less than ten percent of the participants in the Forum but we all know that small is beautiful.
Multi-level cooperation: What do existing co-operations tell us that is relevant to the current
discussions on GMES?
Based on the presentations, the results of the GMES projects, and on the experience of the participants, the discussions addressed the value-added that the partners at different levels can expect from multi-level cooperation.
Networking has many facets. It ranges from gentle general gatherings and discussions to distributing and sharing capacities, resources and tasks. It is the latter that eventually GMES wants to achieve, which requires stability of the networks and cooperations.
However the question is: where partners agree to cooperate, do they have the appropriate procedures and techniques to do so in practice? Once partnerships are in place on the different levels and between levels, once there are principles agreements to share tasks and resources, the need is for a mechanism that allows common priorities to be identified and agreed. Do we have a system-oriented action plan, do we have the organisation to go ahead with cooperation?
Knowledge driven networking
Networking is the main tool. To get it working, what is needed is to share an overarching goal. In our case this is building knowledge, sharing this knowledge and making sure that this knowledge really has feed-backs on the way we all operate at the different levels.
At the European level the various levels, from the local to the international, are mutually committed by legislation or policy programmes. Some have to provide data, others have to produce synthesis reports. However the current difficulties in the reporting system show that these commitments cannot be implemented in the absence of a clear understanding of the data flows and of the bottlenecks in the system. Once this is understood, one can begin to organise and optimize the common resources to meet the commitments.
Gaining expertise is becoming one of the main factors stimulation the organisations to invest in networking. Shared and exchanged expertise is the first step towards wider exchanges and building a sense of common ownership.
Presentations have illustrated that organisations are increasingly interested in sharing distributed capacities. They see that this approach can increase not only the overall efficiency but also the resilience of the system.
Organisations also realise the need to better integrate the scientific and the operational capabilities
Conditioning factors: Techniques, legal frameworks and financial resources
Techniques are available to produce better information, but their optimal use is hampered by a number of factors:
149
• the simple decision to make use of these techniques in the appropriate mix;
• the complexity of the legal frameworks concerning data collection or use, and sometimes the lack of an adequate frame;
• the involvement of the end users in the processes of information production
Link to contents of GMES draft report (version 3.5)
Participants in 4 session expressed disappointment due to lack of discussions in previous sessions.
Participants agreed that many elements are present in the draft report, but there is a definite lack of articulation between the elements. This does not allow to explicit in a transparent way how priorities are going to be set. Also the report lacks indications on the implementation means.
The report should be explicit about the criteria for the selection of priorities for action. It should also include a workplan which would include indications about the role of the different organisations and their responsibilities.
5.2 Discussio ns
Chair: Christian Patermann, European Commission , EC DG Research I Director
The chairman introduced the members of the panel:
• Three persons of the so-called author group of the report:
– Timo Mäkelä, from the European Commission,
– José Achache, from the European Space Agency,
– Herbert Von Bose, from the European Commission.
• Three persons closely associated to the issues addressed by the Working Groups of the GMES Steering Committee:
– Tillman Mohr, Director General of EUMETSAT,
– Brian Routledge, Deputy director from the EU Satellite Centre,
– Jean-François Minster, Director General of IFREMER.
Introductory comments:
José Achache:
The GMES Draft Final report and the Reports from the Working Groups constitute a good starting point. However, the aim is to build a system which will grow between now and 2008 and is therefore likely to be operational in 2008/2010 and will continue developing thereafter. So the GMES system will be operated in 10 years from now. Clearly between now and 2010-2020 things will change and the system to be designed will have to be capable of evolving. The challenge thus is to design a process, to design something which can evolve and adapt with IT technologies and new research. Research will provide new knowledge, modelling capabilities will improve, IT technologies will improve and still GMES has to be maintained throughout these changes.
150
Clearly GMES is about exchange and transfer of information and data. The data will be collected in situ here, there will be socio-economic data there and there will be space data. All these data will have to be transferred, from one place to another, exchanged, used by different groups of persons and eventually transformed into information for decision makers, politicians or management people. So all is about fluxes, changes, transfers and the focus needs to be on: how can this be made fluent, efficient and up gradable.
Timo Mäkelä:
What is needed is services to users. However, the provision of such services is currently hampered by considerable problems in access to data, data policy, quality of the data. However, it is essential to start delivering information soon even if it is not complete, comprehensive and ideal at the outset. The process will need to be incremental. GMES is now entering into the point of no-return. Political commitments are needed rather soon and not only at the country level, but also in regions and local governments. There needs to be a system which delivers comprehensible information on environment and security to a wide audience, not only to the authorities, but also to the man in the street.
Questions and Comments:
Claude Pastre, EUMETNET:
GMES now needs two main things:
• an action plan indicating how the design is going to be produced and how the problems are going to be addressed ;
• a management structure.
In this respect, section 3 point 2 of the Draft Report is very unsatisfactory. It does not allow to understand what is proposed for GMES.
Ray Harris, University College London:
The draft final report clearly needs to be improved. What is going to happen over the next few weeks and months to achieve that improvement ?
Timo Mäkelä:
Certainly the report is to be developed. First this is going to be discussed at the 7th GMES Steering Committee, where representatives of the countries both of the European Union and of ESA will give their comments. After that, the European Commission will prepare a Communication to the European Council and the European Parliament as a basis for discussion and further work.
Philippe Crouzet, French Institute of the Environment:
Many presentations and all the rapporteurs stressed that Global Monitoring for Environment and Security cannot be achieved unless data from multiple sources are combined (space, in-situ monitoring, statistics, socio-economic data). The current draft seems to leave aside the improvement of the non space data sources. My concern, as a user belonging to a National Institution in charge of Reporting and providing data to the European Environment Agency, is that we may end up with a
151
completely disconnected and a wrongly-articulated system, which will not help improving the information. Also, as already mentioned, it is not clear from the report how the activities will be performed and coordinated.
Jean-François Minster:
The point has been made clearly that we miss concrete elements on the way forward which could be discussed and introduced in the work plan for the next steps. Let me put forward three ideas.
• One is that the GMES Steering Committee should discuss the establishment of an independent assessment panel which would analyse the EC and ESA projects, assessing whether these are mature enough in terms of users, technology and other criteria, to determine whether routine services can be implemented in the near future.
• Second, most of the on-going projects are not addressing the architecture in terms of organisation, identifying what needs to be done at the national, regional, local levels and what has a clear European dimension. One should learn from these projects what are the essential needs for the architecture of the European GMES capacity to be established by 2008.
• Third, -“subsidiarity”. We know that GMES will also built on national investments and involvements. The GMES Action Plan for the years to come should foresee assessments of the Member States clarifying what are the subsystems, what are the funding sources, what are the organisations which are ready to be committed, based on the overall plan. The aim should be to establish these commitments within a year with a view of the actual GMES components. This is urgent because we are at the same time contributing to the GEO mechanism, which is set to agree a 10 year Implementation Plan for Global Earth Observation Systems within a year from now.
José Achache:
Subsidiarity is indeed a Key principle for GMES. GMES is not going to replace working elements but intends to be an infrastructure which will support existing and future organisations involved with information provision. It is intending to improve and make more efficient the provision and processing of the data as well as the access to information. Furthermore, through the ESA-GSE projects as well as the EU-FP-5 and FP-6 projects, important progress has been made. However, current results are not all reflected yet in the draft final report and these projects will have to be further exploited.
Concerning the implementation period, we will need to have commitments from the owners regarding the necessary investments. We need also to continue developing services because it is through the development of services that the practical implementation of each element of GMES will progress, not by designing on paper an overall architecture.
Peter Ryder, BICEPS team:
Several interventions have stressed the need for prioritisation of actions. The BICEPS project developed a mechanism for prioritisation, both at the system level and at the service level which has been presented at the second parallel session.
My criticism of the current draft GMES report, in relation to the proposed mechanism of prioritisation, is that it has been applied to some extent, however only to identify space priorities and not for the other equally important components of GMES. For example, the ARGO float system is providing data that is being used now by a number of centres in order to produce services. Yet the way that the report
152
is written suggests that what is now next needed is some further study of in-situ monitoring. This completely overlooks the fact that the situation of in-situ networks has been already analysed by themes (e.g. ocean, atmosphere, climate change). Many other examples have been documented and presented in this and the previous GMES forum.
Timo Mäkelä:
In-situ monitoring systems are obviously indispensable data providers. As indicated a lot is in place but dispersed and in need of rationalisation and improvement. GMES should build upon and help organise existing systems.
José Achache:
There are indeed commending reasons to deal with in-situ monitoring systems in parallel with space ones even if for the latter ones the situation was fairly easy to assess because of the low number of actors. In oceanography, the ARGO project is also well world-wide organised and supported by EU. However, this is not the case for most other in-situ networks which are mostly organised at the national if not regional level. And therefore we should really take GMES as an opportunity to perform where needed Europe-wide evaluations of the in-situ monitoring capability in order to define priorities for improvements or new developments.
Gerard Jennings, National University of Ireland:
What needs to be clear in the report are the essential ingredients, the essential building blocks that need to be there to ensure the success of information provision, e.g. data accessibility to name just one.
Tillman Mohr, EUMETSAT:
The purpose of the report which is being finalised is to make the case for a European capability for GMES and to get political commitment. However, you will only get political commitment if you are very clear about the system design, the key building blocks and the organisational structure. You should only come with one solution and one alternative, avoiding too many options.
Potential partners are known. Action has to be taken between now and the GEO European Summit. Enough is known to allow action to be taken.
Jean-François Minster:
Let me stress again that the resources to be devoted to in-situ are of the same order of magnitude than those for satellites space systems. For example the cost of ARGO, which has been mentioned, is 15 to 20 million Euros per year. And Europe should take responsibility for one third of it. The cost of coastal monitoring, in France alone, is 10 million Euros per year. We should not convey the idea that the in-situ systems are cheap, that is not the case.
The same applies to modelling. The implementation of climate models of the next generation will require substantial investments. Fox example, the cost of the European Earth simulator is of the order of 150 million Euros.
153
Mr Kostopoulos, Ministry of Research from Greece:
Given the scope of GMES, funding will be required for operational activities. The Research budgets therefore can provide only a fraction of the total expenses. In this respect, it is of utmost importance that GMES is going to be addressed by the Environment Council and not only by the Competitiveness Council.
Timo Mäkelä:
Indeed, GMES is of central importance to Environment policies and recently, at the initiative of the Belgium Minister, GMES was discussed among the senior officials of the Environmental Ministries.
85% of the legislation of the new member states stems from the European Union policies. This legislation imposes substantial reporting obligations in all environmental domains from air quality to discharges, to the biodiversity, etc.. In addition, the European Environmental Agency prepares annual reports on the State of the Environment in Europe and for that work data are needed. For these reasons, we see a key role for GMES in contributing to improve the situation. The conditions need to be created for a seamless flow of data between the various territorial levels of competence, local, regional, national. If data can flow freely, the reports that legislation imposes will become a kind of by-product: they will be obtained at no or very little additional cost. This is not the case at present because of the lack of comparability and accessibility of the data.
Herbert Von Bose, EC-Unit Space Research:
Stressed that GMES had been mentioned recently at Council level in two instances: Space policy and the growth initiative. So it was important to finalise a Communication to the Council even on the basis of an imperfect report to take advantage of the political “window”.
Guy Weets, EC-DG INFSO:
The ISTD programme will continue to contribute to pilot testing the Information Technology aspects of the GMES European shared information capacity in the coming 3 years. This will also be consistent with and support the INSPIRE initiative.
Ms Vallerga, National Research Council of Italy, Chairperson of GOOS:
In parallel to infrastructures development, the support to human resources have to be an integral part of the planning and investments.
Gabor Remedith, European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic Information:
There is a need to clarify how GMES and INSPIRE will complement and mutually support each other. Also the relations to European non-governmental organisations should be more explicit.
Hans-Peter Plag, European Sea-level Service:
154
Previous interventions stressed the lack of clarity on the priorities. In this respect, we have, to take account of the users requirements in 2008. This cannot be perfectly determined. However action needs to start and adjust as we move. Similarly, technical capacities (e.g. communications) are changing very fast. The report lacks a prospective vision on the potential evolution of user requirements and of technological capacities.
Ezio Bussoletti, Ministry of Environment:
Stressed that, in parallel to improving the report, there was an urgent need to get the GMES message across at the political level both EU and nationally.
Tom Allan, Satellite Observing System:
Stressed the need for widening the communication and inputs to GMES to be sure to take account of past experience and avoid duplications. This will help meeting the already identified needs for the required tools, such as a new altimeter.
Jan Stel, Professor in Ocean Space and Human activities:
In communicating with politicians, it may be useful to select one of the Earth subsystems as a demonstration case. Ocean could be such a good case: users are identified ; gains are identified ; costs are identified ; education, training needs, capacity building needs are also identified.
Tony Hollingsworth, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts:
A large community of researchers and operational institutes are looking forward to the development over the next few years of a capability to measure and to forecast atmospheric composition: trace gases, reactive gases, the fast gases, aerosol and to make good estimates of fluxes. However, in order to be operational, they will have to rely upon better and sustainable observing systems. Action is urgently needed.
Jan de Leeuw, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, POGO the Partnership of Observations of the Global Ocean:
The in-situ observation component is being underestimated and overlooked. A lot of implementation is going on already, especially in the oceans, the arc of Floats, the equatorial mooring buoys, the ships of opportunity and continuous plankton recording. Three examples:
• First the thermohaline current, the global conveyer belt is of utmost importance to our climate change, not only for the whole globe, but especially for Europe. And most of the variability in that system has to be observed by mooring systems at very crucial places.
• Secondly, a new group of organisms have become known in the deep ocean: the crenarchaeota represent 30 to 50% of the biomass. They fix CO² as their Carbon source.
• Third, the so-called gas-hydrates represent a carbon pool which is twice as much as all the fossil fuels known at the present and they are highly dynamic.
These examples just illustrate that in-situ monitoring is as important as monitoring from space. Often they are complementary but sometimes they cannot, they have to exist in their own right.
155
Ray Harris, University College of London:
The provision of information for Security- as much as for Environment- requires integrating the data sets together to produce information services.
Brian Routledge, EUSC confirmed the way information for Security has to be produced and indeed is already produced by EUSC with EC JRC for humanitarian aid and Petersberg’s tasks.
Christiana Schmullius, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena:
Users requirements from Universities point at the need for high level products form the available space instruments similarly to what is done in the US. Currently many data is lying in the archives because no one can pay to process this on a continental level. An important task for GMES thus is to provide Data Services.
José Achache:
ESA had to limit itself to providing level 2 data. But in the framework of GMES we begin to provide level 3 data and to set up the operational chain in order to provide the data in a format which is usable by users.
Jean-François Minster:
Operational systems and research have to be much better connected and articulated, with transparent allocation of tasks. One has to find principles and rules. For example, reprocessing and re-analysis by numerical modelling are best done inside the operational systems. Ways should be found to allow operational systems to contribute to research and technological development, for each specific need.
Euan Nisbet, London University:
We need to propose actions to improve the mechanisms for getting information to the decision-makers. In certain rare instances such as the discovery of the Ozone hole and its follow up in the Montreal Protocol it worked very well, but generally it doesn’t.
Timo Mäkelä:
In fact the situation in Europe is not that our governments are uninformed and ignorant of the situation, it is rather that there is not a shared European assessment of these issues. GMES should contribute to the provision of this type of EU-wide information.
Jean-François Minster:
Concerning the flows of information, the connection between scientists and decision makers and politicians are not linear and single, there are many different situations. There are cases where scientists discover something and they have to transmit the information. There are situations where
156
there is a reglementory basis which requires research. There are crisis situations. These cases need different kinds of connections and organisations in the relationship between scientists and decision makers. And more and more this has to be done on the European level, rather than on the national level. In addition, scientific expertise has to remain totally independent from decision. And this means that the decision may differ from the scientific assessment for political, economical or other reasons.
Elizabetta Penova, JRC:
Stressed that accession countries could have been involved systematically in all aspects of GMES.
Johnny Johannessen, Nansen Centre:
There is a need to seek maximum integration within the observing systems for the benefit of both climate monitoring, operational activities and basic research, i.e. multiple purpose observing systems. For example, a comprehensive observing system for the entire European coastal area cannot technically and financially be deployed. Rather what should be done is to agree, implement and operate a series of observatories around Europe that could service both the coastal areas and the hinterland, both for the land, the atmosphere and the ocean.
Joachim Hill, Trier University:
Many data archives deteriorate and get lost or unusable because there is no mandate to care about their maintenance. An action should be taken within GMES to secure data archive maintenance and access.
Ray Harris, University College London:
Archiving is currently linked to programmes and missions and thus exposed to terminate with the programmes. Instead we should try to shift it to the public policy responsibility.
Christiana Schmullius, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena and Hans-Peter Plag:
Expressed concern about the disappearance of the research topic on observing systems in the coming calls of the Global Change and Ecosystems Programme of FP6.
Tony Hollingsworth, European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts:
Confirms the validity of the principles presented in the results of the parallel session on RTD and illustrated these on the basis of the ECWMF experience
Chair:
Concluded, thanking the participants for a lively and well documented debate, indicated that the results of the 4th GMES Forum would be presented at the next GMES Steering Committee (see below “De-Briefing of the 4th GMES Forum, Christian Patermann, EC DG Research I Director).
157
De-briefing of the 4th GMES Forum presented at the 7th GMES Steering Committee Meeting
Christian Patermann, European Commission, DG Research Dir. I, Director
Forum purpose
The purpose of the 4th GMES Forum was to present and discuss the results from the GMES Initial Period.
First the GSC Co-Chairs, Mr Achache and Mr Makela gave a synthesis of the GMES IP Report v.3.5.
Then key European and US actors then gave their views on GMES. Of particular interest was the intervention of Adm. Konrad Lautenbacher who underlined the necessary synergy between GMES and GEO and the importance of the European initiative for GEO.
This was followed by detailed presentations on results of the GMES Thematic Projects and the ESA GMES Service Elements, which revealed a wealth of findings essential to the progress of GMES.
Complemented by illustrations of experience from Global, European, National and Regional levels.
In the First and Second Plenary Sessions , time was devoted to presentations
Good discussions took place in the second part of the Forum (parallel sessions and Final Plenary)
Results: Presentations and discussions led to concrete suggestions for complementing and finalising the GMES Initial Period Report. These results constitute the main part of this de-briefing presentation.
Parallel Sessions
There were 4 Parallel Sessions:
• Meeting the users needs. Information requirements of EU & national policies.
• The observing and servicing technical capacity.
• RTD role and capacity building
• Multi-level co-operation (local, regional, national and international).
It is most interesting to note that a number of common themes were highlighted in the discussions within the 4 parallel sessions. I shall first describe specific topics from the individual sessions and then go on to consider the common themes.
Parallel Session 1 - Meeting the users needs
A number of points were identified as important for the final version of the GMES Initial Period report:
• The importance of the user-pull approach in the definition of the requirements for information and services is of course recognised. However, the user-pull is not sufficient to lead to the provision of all major GMES components that must be developed. A strategic investment in infrastructure is also required.
158
• Regional information needs must be properly recognised, including the involvement of regional governments and authorities. The need for dialogue with and involvement of regional authorities should be strengthened in the report. This is all the more important since that level is also key in data collection.
• Other points emerged which were common to other sessions and on which I will come back in a moment.
Parallel Session 2 – The observing & servicing technical capacity
A number of points were identified as important for the final version of the GMES Initial Period report
• Adequacy of observing systems (both in situ and space) is known well enough to define the actions needed during the GMES Implementation Period (think of water quality or air quality observations linked to EU Directives or to the Global Integrated Carbon Strategy).
• The lack of representativity of observation networks (European and Global) is a central issue. Too many observations at places, gaps at other places. Action on networks design is urgent.
• Data from space, in situ, socio-economic statistics and basic data are all indispensable and complementary. In very few cases can information be produced from one source alone. ‘Beauty contests’ between organisations in charge of the one or the other data source have to be replaced by active co-operation and joint planning if GMES is to succeed.
• Data quality: data exist but is not usable. Key words about the issues identified are: comparability, standards, design of observation networks and measurement protocols, error reporting.
• Access to data and data policy : data exist but is very difficult to access. Key words about the issues identified are: data documentation, archives, data policy (different policies between countries and between themes – or worse, absence of policies). The European Commission is part of the problem: some of Commission data sets proved not to be accessible to Thematic Projects. Charity to begin at home.
Services
The transformation of ‘raw data’ into information for end-user services involves many many steps. In this process two categories of services, corresponding to different users, can be identified:
• Data services: Such services deliver multiple -purpose data products. Existing European examples include: EUMETAT SAF’s (surface albedo; vegetation parameters); EEA CORINE Land Cover; Eurostat statistics on human activities; GISCO basic geographical data.
• End-user services: these build upon data products and services to provide sythesis information: SD indicators, Report on the state of the environment.
Parallel Session 3 – RTD role & capacity building
Research
It should be recognised that whilst funding for dedicated GMES research is imperative, other research of great relevance to GMES is also being funded from EU and national programmes.
A mechanism should be put in place to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from all sources of research that are of relevance to GMES
Capacity Building
159
A GMES Education and Training Programme has been identified as an important missing component.
Education and Training should start now in the areas of the different GMES system components.
Planning should start immediately for focussed capacity building through e.g. pilot schemes under the relevant EU Policies, in particular the Development policy (Cotonou Agreement is set to contribute to SD and has a strong focus on capacity building) or specific Programmes as TACIS and MEDA, or indeed the Regional Policy.
Parallel Session 4 – Multi-level co-operation (Global, European, National, Regional)
It was confirmed that co-operation and partnerships generate tangible benefits, in that they:
• lead to better information services;
• increase the economic efficiency of information production (multiple purpose products, reduction of duplications)
• increase overall stability of the distributed capacities;
• stimulate transfer of knowledge and expertise.
Co-operation however do not happen and function automatically. A number of conditions have to be met:
• Each partner has to see its own interest through gains in e.g. expertise
• There must be an agreed repartition of tasks
• Long term commitments have to be in made
• A ‘shared ownership feeling’ has to develop and mutual benefits be recognisable;
In order to secure ‘buy-in’, The GMES Initial Period Report will have to be explicit on:
• The specific roles and tasks of potential partners and stakeholders within the Action Plan of the Implementation Period
• The Mechanism for priority setting
• The systems and technical capacity underpinning and enabling the production of information and the continuity of services
Common Themes 1-2-3-4. Issues lacking in IP Report
A number of themes appeared to be common to the different Parallel Sessions, which highlights their importance for the preparation of the GMES IP Final Report.
Data Issues
• Non-environmental data, (socio-economic, demographic and topographic), is indispensable to the production of information for environment and security policies. The capture and use of such data should be properly dealt with in the IP Report.
• Access to data was found to be a hindering factor to information production. The report needs to identify implementation steps to improve the situation.
• Data policies or their absence were found to hamper the production of information. GMES report should propose ways to put data policies at the service of information production.
160
• Costs of data issues. The EUROSION Project example: On the specific request of the European Parliament for action on Coastal Erosion Management, DG Environment undertook the EUROSION Project.
One of the main aims was to put in place a European Coastal Data base. One of the lessons learned in developing the data base is quite eloquent on the magnitude of the data issues:
The difficulties of Access to Data and the lack of Interoperability meant that 8% of the budget had to be spent on these tasks instead of 30% initially budgeted. This left only 9% for the work useful to the end-user instead of the 25% of the initial budget.
Nature of expenses Initial breakdown Final breakdown Variation Data acquisition 15% 24% +9% Post-processing (interoperability)
15% 26% +11%
Updating 45% 36% -9% Production of policy relevant information (indicators)
25% 14% -11%
Table. Comparison between initial and final budget breakdown of EUROSION database
Avoided costs = GMES benefits
Actions on Access to data and Interoperability are vital elements of GMES and represent significant potential benefits in terms of avoided costs.
Modelling
The combination of data into information to deliver services requires the use of modelling. More specific reference to the modelling requirements should be made in the GMES Report.
Calibration / validation; data assimilation into models; re-processing of data are topics that also need to be fully addressed.
The need for high quality data to verify the correctness of the models (in particular in-situ) should be described.
Research Issues
There is a need to fully integrate research into the operational delivery of information services and products within GMES.
161
European shared information capacity
The GMES Forum demonstrated that a European shared information capacity would require “an Observation component”, “a data processing component” and “a data exchange and dissemination component”. This finding is shared by the GEO working groups.
Concluding points
In presenting his views about the GMES results at the 1st Plenary session, Colin Hicks identified 10 possible ways in which GMES can fail. I grouped these in 3 blocks establishing links with the results of the discussions of the Parallel and Final Plenary session.
1. Cooperation and dialogue
• If GMES is used by some to advance their interests at the expense of others;
• If GMES is driven from the supply-side, rather than being led by users;
• If GMES is taken forward by Europe alone, neglecting international co-operation
In relation to these risks, GMES IP Final report should include proposals for action providing for:
BALANCE - DIALOGUE - COOPERATION
2. Data and information
• If the GMES capacity is accessible to users for some purposes, but is withheld from others who want to use it elsewhere
• If GMES leaves essential long-term datasets and archives at the mercy of the research community
• If GMES neglects data traceability, quality, policy and the assimilation of data into models
In relation to these risks, GMES IP Final report should include proposals for action providing for:
DATA ACCESS - DATA QUALITY - DATA POLICY - ARCHIVES - INTEROPERABILITY
3. Programme strategy
• If GMES waits for agreement on everything, before doing anything, i.e. GMES must take a progressive approach
• If GMES does not address services from end-to-end, adapting and using existing structures wherever possible
• If GMES neglects global issues, because early users of GMES have a priority focus on European issues
• If there is a failure to agree on the next steps and then endless months and years are spent discussing GMES.
In relation to these risks, GMES IP Final report should include proposals for action providing for:
A COMPREHENSIVE but PROGRESSIVE plan allowing activities to be FRAMED within a Shared European Information Capacity and to agree TASKS ALLOCATION between PARTNERS
162
A clear message was given to act on the discussions from the parallel sessions and final plenary. Amongst other points raised were:
• GMES must be open, flexible and dynamic taking account of technological, institutional and user needs;
• Training & education needs must be included in GMES
• Data issues: data traceability, conditions of data combination, data policy must be properly addressed;
• Whilst the space section is well developed, the importance of the in-situ component of GMES must not be underestimated. The in-situ section should therefore be properly developed, including funding issues.
5.3 Concluding remarks
5.3.1 Final Remarks by MIUR
Umberto Giovine, MIUR representative in the GSC
The Fourth Forum, according to the Action Plan, is the final step of the GMES’ Initial Period. The Steering Committee’s Final Report will introduce the Implementation Period of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security, starting in 2004. That was our schedule: I think we all did a good job.
The scenario that opens the second Period in the lifetime of GMES looks much more promising than what we could have expected only a while ago. At the end of October 2003 the EU Council approved the Framework Agreement between the EU and the European Space Agency. The Agreement opens up a number of opportunities for cooperation between the EU and ESA, as well as the possibility of specific, complementary agreements for certain activities. A “Space Council” at the ministerial level will supervise all these activities.
ESA will become – in the words of José Achache – the Space Agency of the European Union.
Shortly after that, the European Commission said that funding for EU space programs would need to increase at twice its current level to avoid that Europeans become dependent on third parties for space technology.
The ESA budget amounts to about €2bn per year; the EU has a €400m budget for space programmes – all included. The Commission proposes that the financing of space policy be increased considerably, to match NASA’s budget, for example, even after the US Congress made painful cuts to the latter.
Meanwhile, after a wide-ranging Space Green Paper consultation that Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin rightly defined “unprecedented”, the European Commission adopted the Space Policy White Paper, “an ambitious action plan” as it has been called by the media. All the relevant space players, many represented at this Forum, have been involved, from top-level government representatives to space agencies, to industry and research communities, to groups of citizens.
On the heels of the launch of the White Paper, the Italian minister for University and Research Letizia Moratti, president of the EU Council, signed the Framework Agreement with the Commissioner Busquin and with ESA’s Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain.
Immediately after that, the GMES’ Fourth Forum started at Baveno.
163
As the representative of the Italian Ministry of Research – the Ministry primarily responsible for GMES in Italy - in the GMES Steering Committee, I am glad that all these very concrete steps took place during the semester of Italian Presidency of the EU Council, as the Hon. Stefano Caldoro remarked at the opening of the 4th Forum.
We produced an “Italian Assessment” for this Forum and, after further consultation, a final edition including the Forum’s results with the Italian Position Paper will be presented to the Steering Committee before the final meeting on 4-5 December.
The Italian GMES Group met several times during 2003, involving other Agencies of the Italian Government, the Ministries for the Environment, Foreign Affairs, Production, Defence, together with Universities and Research Centres, Companies, Regional Agencies and groups of potential users. The Vice-Minister for Research Guido Possa intends to summon a national conference on GMES, while the networks of Italian organisations are getting in touch with other European networks to participate at the next FP6 call and at ESA’s GSE initiatives.
Italy has a wide range of monitoring needs for environment and security, as well as an established experience in key-areas. As we explain in our Assessment, we are keenly aware of the new needs for security – very well highlighted by Iain Shepherd and by Brian Routledge in their presentation “GMES and the Besoins Opérationnels Communs” – and we are ready to contribute to these important tasks of GMES starting with the Implementation Period, when our schedule will merge into the multiannual plan foreseen by the White Paper.
But this will fall under the term of the Irish Presidency. We would like to wish our Irish friends good luck and to confirm our readiness to cooperate from now on.
5.3.2 Statement on behalf of the Irish Presidency
Frank Mc Govern, Environmental Protection Agency Irland
Mr Govern thanked the Italian Presidency for having hosted this last Forum of the successful Initial Period. As representative of the forthcoming Irish Presidency, he indicated that the Presidency wishes to be able to help GMES make progress during the forthcoming six months for the next phase.
As a priority for the future, he emphasised the need to create an agreed GMES management structure and to have a secured funding framework in place. He expressed the hopes that political will makes GMES a success.
164
ANNEXES
165
Agenda of the 4th forum Global Monitoring for Environment and Security
General objectives of the Forum
The GMES Forum is a key element of the GMES Action Plan. Its aim is to build a shared understanding of the issues facing the establishment of a European Capacity for Global Monitoring of Environment and Security and to develop a common approach of the actions to be undertaken during the Implementation Period of the GMES Action Plan (2004-2008).
Aim of the 4th Forum
The 4th GMES Forum is organised jointly by the Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio, the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell Università e della Ricerca, the European Commission and the European Space Agency.
The 4th Forum will focus on the results achieved under the Initial Period of GMES Action Plan (2002-2003) and on the actions to be taken to develop a European capacity for Global Monitoring of Environment and Security. The basis of the presentations and of the discussions will be the Draft Final Report of the Initial Period of the GMES Action Plan, as well as the supporting detailed reports. The 4th Forum will be followed by the second meeting of the GEO ad hoc Group (28 p.m.-29) which highlights the complementarity of the initiatives.
Structure of the 4th Forum
26 November 12.00 - 14.00 Registration
14.30 - 15.30 Introductory addresses
15.30 - 18.00 Plenary Session 1 : GMES : Objectives, content and recommendations for actions 2004-2008
27 November 8.30 - 12.30 Plenary Session 2 : Some lessons learnt
8.30 - 9.30 Overview
9.30 - 12.30 Selected projects. Presentations and discussion
14.00 - 15.30 Poster Session
15.30 - 18.30 Parallel sessions
28 November 9.00 - 12.30 Plenary Session 3 : Presentation and discussion of results
Discussion panel
12.30-13.00 Concluding remarks
166
26 November
12.00 – 14.00 Registration
14.30 – 15.30 Introductory addresses
Chair: Ezio Bussoletti, MATT Minister Advisor
• Altero Matteoli, Ministro dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio
• Stefano Caldoro, Secretary of State - Ministry of Education University and Research
• Corrado Clini, Director General del Servizio Protezione internazionale, MATT
• Catherine Day, European Commission Director General for Environment
• Jean-Jacques Dordain, Director General European Space Agency
15.30 – 18.00 : Plenary session 1: GMES : Objectives, content and recommendations for actions
2004-2008
The GMES’proposal’ :
• Timo Mäkelä. European Commission, Director DG Environment
• José Achache. European Space Agency, Director Earth Observation
Views on GMES :
• Colin Hicks, Chairman of the GMES Steering Committee Drafting Group
• David Williams, Eumetsat
• Jacky Mc Glade, Director of the European Environment Agency
• VADM Conrad Lautenbacher, GEO co-chair
27 November
8.30 – 12.30 : Plenary Session 2 : Some lessons learnt
Chair : David Wilkinson. EC, DG JRC
8.30-9.30 Overview
• GMES Thematic projects. Michel Cornaert. EC, DG RTD
• Earthwatch GMES Services Element. Mark Doherty. ESA, EOP-S
• The JRC’s contribution to GMES. Jean-Paul Malingreau, EC, JRC
9.30-12.30 Selected projects. Presentations and discussion.
• EUROSION. Stéphane Lombardo. Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee, Den Haag, NL
• MERSEA. Johnny Johannessen. NERSC, Bergen, NO
• METHMONITEUR. Euan Nisbet. Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
167
• GSE FOR VEGETATION AND WATER. Thomas Hausler, GAF and Birgitte Mohaupt-Jahr, UBA
• GSE FOR RISK. Arnaud De Saint Vincent. Astrium. Chris Browitt. EMSC. Ulf Bjurman. SRSA
• GSE FOR MARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENT. Roberto Aloisi, Alcatel. David Palmer, UK Environment Agency. François Parthiot, CEDRE.
14.00-15.30 Poster Session
The Posters Exhibition will be displayed in adjacent room/lobby and can also be visited during the whole GMES Forum as well as GEO meeting.
15.30-18.30 Parallel sessions
• Parallel session 1 : Meeting the user needs
• Parallel session 2 : The observing and serving technical capacity (situation, adequacy, proposal)
• Parallel session 3 : RTD needs and capacity building
• Parallel session 4 : Multi-level co-operation (local, regional, national, international)
28 November
9.00 – 12.30 : Plenary session 3 : Presentation and discussion of results
Chair: C.Patermann, European Commission, DG Research
The results of the four parallel sessions will be presented by the rapporteurs and will be followed by questions from the floor and comments by the discussion panel.
Discussion panel:
• Timo Mäkelä, European Commission Director DG Environment
• José Achache. European Space Agency, Director Earth Observation
• Herbert von Bose, European Commission, HoU DG Research
• Tillmann Mohr, Director General of Eumetsat
• Brian Routledge, Deputy Director EU Satellite Centre
• Jean-François Minster, Director General IFREMER, FR
12.30-13.00 Concluding remarks
• Umberto Giovine, MIUR representative in the GSC
• Frank McGovern, Environmental Protection Agency, IRL
168
Detailed agenda of the parallel sessions on 27 November 2003 15.30 – 18.30
Parallel session 1: Meeting the users needs
Information requirements of EU national policies and their role in information
Production mechanisms for dialogue between users and other parties
Chair: Anver Ghazi, European Commission, DG Research
Rapporteur: Mark Doherty, ESA, EOP-S
• Analysis of information needs for European Environment and Security Policies and implications for GMES. Barry Wyatt, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, NERC, UK
• Developing the European Geographic Basis : the potential offered by the Common Agricultural Policy control and reporting obligations, Eric Willems, EC DG AGRI and Els De Roeck, EC JRC
• EU Regional Policy : Needs for information. Michael Albas, DG REGIO
• Security related European policies information needs. Christine Bernot, EC DG Research
• Meeting the needs of different users : a regional viewpoint. Prof. Carlo Maria Marino, Environment Protection Agency Regione Lombardia, IT
• Outreach programmes: the example of Canada. Ron Brown. Canadian Space Agency
• A user perspective on remote sensing techniques for environmental monitoring applications in Finland. Timo Pyhälahti, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, FI
Parallel session 2: The observing and servicing technical capacity
Chair: Chris Steenmans, European Environment Agency
Rapporteur: Michel Cornaert, EC DG Research
• Components and priorities. Peter Ryder, Environmental Information Services, UK
• The role of data policy. Ray Harris, University College London, UK
• Upgrading observing networks :
– Example : the implications of the Water Framework Directive. Philippe Crouzet, IFEN, Orleans, FR
– Integrated Global Carbon Observation. Anette Freibauer. Max Plank Institut, Jena, DE
– Operational EO systems: How to get there? Stefano Bruzzi, ESA
– Example : Cosmo-Skymed. Giovanni Rum. Italian Space Agency, Roma, IT
• The need for a European spatial data infrastructure : the INSPIRE initiative. Marc Vanderhaegen. EC, DG Environment.
• Interoperability, quality assurance, standardisation : The METROPOLIS experience. Valeria Dulio, Institut National de l’Environnement et des Risques, FR.
2
1
169
Parallel session 3: RTD role and capacity building
Chair: Stephen Briggs, ESA
Rapporteur: Alan Edwards, EC, DG RTD
• Generic needs for research and exploitation of knowledge. Introduction by D. Briggs, Imperial College, UK
• Integrated Observation Networks of the future : a prospective view. Prof Ir. Peter Hoogeboom, TNO, NL
• Specific needs for research and technological development :
– Land. Anton Imeson, University of Amsterdam, NL
– Sea. Nadia Pinardi, University of Bologna, IT
– Atmosphere. Geir Braathen, GATO, NILU, NO
• Capacity building, Jan Stel, ICIS, Maastricht, NL
• The GMES Russia network component. Dr Nicolaï Dobretsov, Geoinformation, Novosibirsk
Parallel session 4: Multi-level cooperation (local, regional, national, international)
Chair: David : David Williams, EUMETSAT
Rapporteur: Ronan Uhel, EEA, International Co-operation
• The European Information and Observation Network and related changes in the Belgian environmental network. Jan Voet, IRCEL, Brussels
• Viewpoint from some European non governmental organisations:
– Claude Pastre, Eumetnet : lessons from the EUCOS project.
– Hans-Peter Plag, ESEAS.
– Emile Elewaut, Eurogeosurveys.
• Sharing assets. Yves Desaubies, Ifremer, FR
• Building regional institutional partnership : the MAMA Pilot experience. Silvana Vallerga, MAMA co-ordinator and MedGOOS Chair
3
4
170
List of participants
BELGIQUE-BELGÏE
Ms Brigitte Decadt [email protected] Federal Office for Scientific, technical and cultural affairs Co-ordination Unit Rue de la Science 8 B 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 23 83 570
Mr Peter Gutierrez [email protected] European Service Network (ESN) rue du Collège, 27 B 1050 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 (0)2 639 02 70
Mr Herbert Hansen [email protected] KEYOBS s.a. Rue des Chasseurs Ardennais B 4031 Angleur +32 (0)4 384 63 15 Mr André Jadot andré[email protected] Eurosense Belfotop N. V. +32 24607000 Ms Annie Lalé [email protected] SQUARIS Consultants 82a, Avenue de l'Armée B 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 286 80 38 Ms Diane Luquiser [email protected] Top Strategies Rue Robert Scott, 6 B 1180 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 346 25 98 Ms Carine Petit [email protected] Services fédéraux des affaires scientifiques, techniques et culturelles Rue de la Science 8 B 1000 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 238 34 11 Mr Rob Postma [email protected] European Space Imaging +32 16640024
171
Ms Joelle Smeets [email protected] Federal Service for Environmental Affairs Environnement CCIM Bld Pacheco 19 Bte 5 B 1010 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 210 44 33/4532
Mr Jo Van Valckenborgh [email protected] Flemish Land Agency Supporting Center GIS Flanders Gulden Vlieslaan 72 B 1060 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 543 7393 Mr Jan Voet [email protected] IRCEL-NFP Kunstlaan 10-11 B 1210 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 (0)2 227 56 76 Mr Frank R. Wiemann [email protected] Nothrop Grumman Integratde Systems International +32 27720409
CANADA
Mr Bruce Angle [email protected] Meteorological Service of Canada CND +1 8199973844 Mr Ian Becking [email protected] Office of Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness CND +1 6139917740 Mr Ferdinand Bonn [email protected] Université de Sherbrooke Centre d'applications et de recherches en té lélédection (CARTEL) 2500 bould. Université CND J1K 2R1 Sherbrooke +1 819 821 8000 ext 2964 Mr Ronald Brown [email protected] Canadian Space Agency Applications Program Development 240 Sparks Street 7th Floor, West Tower CND K1A 1A1 Ottawa, +1-613-991-1415 Mr Jean-Marc Chouinard [email protected] Agence spatiale canadienne 6767, route de l'aéroport CND J3Y 8Y9 Saint-Hubert, Québec +11 450 926 4456
172
Mr Ko B. Fung [email protected] Geomatics Canada CND +1613 9471234 Mr Florian Guertin [email protected] Ambassade du Canada 35, avenue Montaigne F 75008 Paris +33 (0)1 44 43 28 12 Ms Christine Hutton [email protected] Canada Centre for Remote Sensing CND +1-613 9473593 Mr Gordon Reichert [email protected] Statistic Canada CND +16139513872 Ms Lauren Small [email protected] Canadian Space Agency CND +1450 9264329
DANMARK
Mr Peter Braun [email protected] Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Dept. of Agric. Sci. Sct. Horticulture Agrovej 10 DK 2630 Taastrup +45-35 28 35 34 Mr Per Knudsen [email protected] National Survey and Cadastre Rentemestervej 9 DK 2400 Copenhagen
DEUTSCHLAND
Ms Irena Bido [email protected] Federal Ministry of Education and Resarch +49 1888573729 Mr Gerald Braun [email protected] Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) e.V Königswinterer Str. 522-524 D 53227 Bonn +49 (228)447-633 Mr Dmitri Denissov [email protected]
173
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Institut für Geographie Loebdergraben 32 D 7743 Jena +49-3641948852
Mr Nikolaus Faller [email protected] Infoterra GmbH +49 754589969 Ms Annette Freibauer [email protected] Max-Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry D +49 3641576164 Mr Thomas Haeusler [email protected] GAF AG Arnulfstr. 197 D 80634 Muenchen +49 (0)89 121528-20 Mr Joachim Hill [email protected] Universität Trier Faculty of Geography / Geosciences Remote sensing department Behringstraße 15 D 54286 Trier +49 651 20 14 592 Mr Franz Jaskolla [email protected] Infoterra GmbH D 88039 Friedrichshafen +49 7545 8 9965 Mr Alexander Kaptein [email protected] Infoterra GmbH +49 754584377 Mr Andreas Keuhnen [email protected] HUGIN GmbH +49 36413518-0 Mr Werner Kleine-Beek [email protected] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen Robert-Schuman-Platz 1 D 53175 Bonn +49-(0)228-300-4853 Ms Gerlinde Knetsch [email protected] Federal Environmental Agency Bismarckplatz 1 D 14191 Berlin +49-30-8903-2249 Mr Ernst Koenemann [email protected]
174
DLR Space Management +49 228447627 Ms Birgit Mohaupt-Jahr [email protected] Federal Environment Agency Berlin +49 3089032751 Ms Karin Remeikis [email protected] Spacebenefit +49 3061076494 Ms Christina Schmullius [email protected] Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Institut für Geographie Lehrstuhl für Geoinformatik Loebdergraben 32 D-7743 Jena +49-3641948852 Mr Gunter Schreier [email protected] German Remote Sensing Data Center +498153281375 Mr Olaf Trieschmann [email protected] Federal Institute of Hydrology POBox 20 02 53 D 56002 Koblenz +49 (0)261 1306-5395 Mr Pier-Giorgio Zaccheddu [email protected] c/o Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie Richard-Strauss-Allee 11 D 60 598 Frankfurt am Main + 49 69 6333 - 305
ELLAS
Ms Athena Bourka [email protected] Ministry of the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works (YPEXODE) Environmental Planning Division Patission 147 GR 12251 Athinai +30 210 86 43 737 Ms Alexia Maria Homata [email protected] Ministry for the Environment Physical Planning and Public Works +30 2108643786 Ms Evangelia Nicoloyanni [email protected] Ktimatologio S.A. 339 Mesoghion Avenue GR 152 31 Athens, Haladri +30-210 - 65 05 824
ESPANA
175
Mr José Luis Camacho Ruiz [email protected] Instituto Nacional de Meteorología - INM International Relations Service Ciudad Universitaria Leonardo Prieto Castro 8 E 29040 Madrid +34- 91- 5819 735 Mr Augusto Caramagno [email protected] DEIMOS SPACE E +34 918063450 Mr Daniel Carrasco [email protected] INDRA ESPACIO S.A. C/Mar Egeo, n4 Polígono Industrial I E 28830 San Fernando de Henares Madrid Mr Alberto De Pedro Crespo [email protected] GMV S.A. +34 918072100 Mr Bernard Denore [email protected] Project Technical Assistant to the European Commission +34 963922469 Mr Carlos Fernandez [email protected] DEIMOS SPACE E +34 918063450 Mr Carlos Pérez Núñez [email protected] INTA-Ministerio de Defensa. Dpto de Programas Espaciales Carretera de Torrejón a Ajalvir pk 4.5 E 28850 Madrid Mr Emilio Viedma [email protected] Indra Espacio Marketing Pol. 1 San FDO Menares E 28830 Madrid +34916269000
FRANCE
Mr Roberto Aloisi [email protected] Alcatel Space 100, Bd du Midi 99 F O6156 Cannes la Bocca cedex +33 4 92927812 Mr Philippe Bardey [email protected]
176
Ms Laurence Beau [email protected] Ministère des Affaires Etrangères 37, quai d'Orsay F 75007 Paris +33 1 43 17 44 65 Mr Alain Bories [email protected] THALES +33 157778228 Mr Olivier Boucher [email protected] Universite de Lille I UFR de Physique Laboratoire d'Optique Atmospherique F 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq +33(0)3 20 33 61 90 Ms Céline Bouhey [email protected] CNES DRI/RM 2, place Maurice Quentin F 75039 Paris Cedex 01 +33 1 44 76 79 87 Mr François Chirié [email protected] Institut Géographique National +33 143988225 Mr Philippe Crouzet [email protected] Institut Français de l'Environnement - IFEN 61 Bld Alexandre Martin F 45000 Orléans +33 238 797888 Mr Arnaud De Saint Vincent [email protected] EADS ASTRIUM +33 562197899 Mr Gil Denis [email protected] EADS Systems & Defence Electronics Direction Image et Géomatique DIG Département SIT 6, Voie l'occitane BP 171 F 31676 Toulouse Labège Cedex +33 5 61 00 35 39 Mr Yves Desaubies [email protected] IFREMER BP70 F 29280 Plouzané +33 298 22 42 75 Mr Guy Duchossois [email protected] F 78000 Versailles +33 1 39 55 65 27
177
Ms Valeria Dulio [email protected] INERIS +33 344556647 Mr Paul Gille [email protected] CNRS +33 238255206 Mr Jun Gomi [email protected] JAXA +33 146224983 Mr Paul Kamoun [email protected] Alcatel Space 100, Bld du Midi BP 99 F 06 156 Cannes la Bocca cedex +33 (0)4.92.92.32.47 Mr François Lefeuvre [email protected] CNRS/LPCE 3A, Av de la Recherche Scientifique F 45071 Orléans +33 (0)2 38255284 Mr Marc Leroy [email protected] MEDIAS FRANCE 18, avenue Edouard Belin F 31401 Toulouse +33(0)5 61 27 42 43 Ms Véronique Mariette [email protected] CNES 2 place Maurice Quentin F 75039 Paris Cedex 01 +33 (0)1 44 76 76 47 Mr Massimo Menenti [email protected] Universite Louis Pasteur Mr Claude Millot [email protected] CNRS Laboratoire de Océanographie et de Biogeochimie Antenne LOB-COM-CNRS - c/o IFREMER BP 330 F 83507 La Seyne/mer +33494304884 Mr Jean-François Minster [email protected] IFREMER 155, rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau F 92138 Issy les Moulineaux Cedex +33 146 48 22 87 Mr François Parthiot
178
[email protected] CEDRE +33 494304887 Mr Claude Pastre [email protected] c/o Météo-France 1, Quai Branly F 75340 Paris +33 1 4556 7445 Ms Anne Pavageau [email protected] FDC 10, cours Louis Lumiere F 94300 Vincennes + 33 1 53 66 11 11 Mr Jean-François Petit [email protected] Alcatel Space Industries 100 Bd du Midi F 06156 Cannes la Bocca cedex +33 (0)4 92 92 31 07 Mr Alain Podaire [email protected] CNES Direction des Programmes et des Affaires Industrielles Délégation à l'Etude et à l'Observation de la Terre 8, avenue Edouard Belin F 31041 Toulouse Cedex 4 +33 561274418 Ms Sylvie Poliquen [email protected] Ifremer +33 298224492 Ms Claire -Anne Reix [email protected] Alcatel Space +33 0492 923491 Mr François Robida [email protected] BRGM F +33 238643132 Mr Bruno Roussel [email protected] FDC 10, cours Louis Lumiere F 94300 Vincennes + 33 1 53 66 11 11 Mr Patrick Rudloff [email protected] Arianespace +33 01 60876395 Mr Andreas Schwer Astrium rue des Cosmonautes F 31000 Toulouse
179
Mr Eric Vindimian [email protected];eric.vindimi Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable 20 avenue de Ségur F 75302 Paris +33 142 19 17 60 +33 620 52 04 15 Mr Michael Wlaka [email protected] Astrium 31 rue des Cosmonautes F 31402 Toulouse Cedex 4
HUNGARY
Mr Pál Bozo [email protected] Ministry of Environment and Water Department for Environmental Information System Fo u. 44-50 HU 1011 Budapest +36 13468369 Mr Gàbor Remetey-Fulopp [email protected] Hun AGI HU +36 13014052
IRELAND
Mr Gerard-Stephen Jennings [email protected] National University Of Ireland, Galway University Road IE Galway +35 391750452
Mr Brendan Kelly [email protected] Environmental Protection Agency +35 312680102
Mr Frank McGovern [email protected] EPA, Ireland +35 312680160
Mr Kevin Mooney [email protected] EUROSDR +35 314023730
Ms Helen Murray [email protected] EUROSDR +35 314023734
Mr Patrick O'Connor
180
[email protected] Geological Survey of Ireland +35 316782857
Mr Colin O'Dowd [email protected] National University of Ireland +35 391512229
ITALIA
Ms Tiziana Aielli [email protected] Laben spa +39 02/25075266
Mr Vladimir Baltaga [email protected] EIWA +39 02/2619055
Mr Carlo Bellecci [email protected] Università di Roma Tor Vergata -Facoltà di Ingegneria +39 06/72597201
Mr Armando Blanco [email protected] University of Lecce +39.0832/297501
Ms Alessia Borgonovo [email protected] Arpa Lombardia +39 02/69666362
Ms Maria Fabrizia Buongiorno [email protected] Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia -Rome Via di Vigna Murata 605 I 00143 Roma +39-0651860439
Mr Ezio Bussoletti [email protected];[email protected] Ministero dell' l'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio Gabinetto del Ministro Via C. Colombo 44 I 00100 Roma +39 065 7225 526 (-8)
Mr Cesare Campagnani [email protected] Navigate Consortium +39 02/2613210
181
Ms Laura Candela [email protected] Agenzia Spaziale Italiana +39 0835/339005
Mr Giovanni Cannizzaro [email protected] Telespazio Via Tiburtina 965 I 00185 Roma +39 0640793384
Mr Giorgio Cesari [email protected] APAT Agenzia per la Protezione dell’Ambiente e per i Servizi Tecnici Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48 I 00144 Roma +39 06 50072257
Ms Claudia Cesarini [email protected] CLU srl +39 059/958525
Mr Alessandro Cespa [email protected] T.R.E.srl +39 02/4343121
Mr Mario Cirillo [email protected] APAT +39 06/50072801
Mr Giovanni Coppini [email protected] INGV +39 051/4151442
Mr Cesare Corselli [email protected] CONISMA +39 0264484331
Mr Stefano Corsini [email protected] APAT (Italian Agency for the Protection of the Environment and for Technical Services) Via Curtatone, 3 I 00185 Roma +39 06 4444 2248/2410 Ms Maria Dalla Costa [email protected] APAT Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48 I 00144 Roma
182
+39 06 500 72 160 Mr Antonio De Maio [email protected] APAT +39 06/50072450
Ms Mirella Di Carlo [email protected] Navigate Consortium +39 02/2619055
Mr Alessandro Diotallevi [email protected] Ministero dell'Ambiente e Tutela del territorio +39 06/57223800
Mr Giuseppe Etiope [email protected] INGV +39 06/51860394
Mr Maurizio Fargnoli [email protected] Telespazio spa +39 06/40793061
Mr Stefano Federico [email protected] CRATI SCRL +39 0984/401744
Mr Paolo Gallo [email protected] CSI
Mr Filippo Gemma [email protected] IPT informatica per il territorio srl Viale Mazzini, 96 I 00195 Roma +39 (0)6 37714295
Ms Chiara Gervasi [email protected] T.R.E.srl +39 02/4343121 Mr Umberto Giovine [email protected] Navigate Consortium
183
Via Soperga 39 I 20127 Milano +39-02-2613210 Ms Maria Ioannilli Università di Roma Tor Vergata +39 06/72507086
Mr Yeghis Keheyan [email protected] CNR-ISMN +39 06/49913963
Ms Maria Lanfredi [email protected] CNR +39 0971/427284
Mr Oronzo Limone [email protected] University of Lecce +39 0832/2585
Mr Paolo Manunta [email protected] Planetek Italia s.r.l. Via Massaua, 12 I 70123 Bari +39 080 5343750
Mr Carlo Maria Marino [email protected] Arpa Lombardia +39 02/69666210
Ms Maria Paola Mauri [email protected] SIGEA +39 06/3294827
Mr Tiziano Mazzoni [email protected] GALILEO-AVIONICA BU Space and Electro-Optics +39 055/8950631
Mr Maurizio Migliaccio [email protected] Università di Napoli +39 081/5475224
Ms Lucia Mona [email protected] IMAA-CNR
184
+39 0971/427257 Mr Sandro Moretti [email protected] Università di Firenze +39 055/2756246
Mr A Musone [email protected] Intecs HRT GIS/ Earth Observation Via Livia Gereschi 32 I 56127 Pisa +39050545226/545200
Mr Antonio Navarra [email protected] National Institute for Geodesy and Volcanology Via Filippo Schiassi, 58 I 40138 Bologna +39-051-6398014
Mr Fabrizio Novali [email protected] T.R.E.srl +39 02/4343121
Ms Nadia Pinardi [email protected] University of Bologna, INGV Via Donato Creti, 12 I 40128 Bologna +39 051 4151412
Mr Gianfranco Ragazzoli [email protected] Euroways Srl +39 226826465
Mr Gianni Riccobono [email protected] Osservazione della Terra +3906-40793777
Ms Gaia Righini [email protected] i.it Università di Firenze +39 055/2756221
Mr Federico Rossi [email protected] DATAMAT S.p.A. Via Laurentina, 760 I 00143 Roma +39 06 5027 4787
185
Mr Giovanni Rum [email protected] ASI - Agenzia Spaziale Italiana COSMO-SkyMed and Earth Observation Unit Viale Liegi, 26 I 00198 Roma +39-06-8567251
Ms Luisa Valeria Sandri [email protected] EIWA +39 02/2619055
Mr Pasquale Schiano [email protected] CIRA +39 0823/623140
Ms Carla Sepe [email protected] Ministero dell'Ambiente e Tutela del territorio +39 06/57223800
Mr Emilio Simeone [email protected] Flyby s.r.l. Via Molise 24 I 57124 Livorno +39 0586-860.314
Ms Tiziana Simoniello [email protected] CNR +39 0971/427284
Mr Domenico Solimini [email protected] Università Tor Vergata +3972597423
Mr Giovanni Sylos Labini [email protected] Planetek via Massaua, 12 I 70123 Bari +39.0805343750
Mr Roberto Tamborini [email protected] EIWA +392619055
186
Mr Brian Tittley [email protected] Serco S.p.A. Via Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati +39 06 941 80574
Ms Liliana Tomarchio [email protected] APAT +39 06/50072873
Mr Roberto Trucco trucco.roberto@spacegate -altec.it Altec
Ms Silvana Vallerga [email protected] IMC & CNR Loc. Sa Mardini I 09072 Torregrande- Oristano + 39 07 83 22 136/+ 39 335 303 130/+ 39 07 83 22 027
Ms Ulla Vayrynen [email protected] Serco S.p.A Via Galileo Galilei snc I 00044 Frascati +39 (0)6 941 80 658
Ms Monique Viel [email protected] APAT +3950072412
Mr Lorenzo Visca Ist.Naz.Fisica Nucleare Mr Alessandro Voli [email protected] Telespazio spa +39 06/40796230
Mr Lanfranco Zucconi [email protected] Carlo Gavazzi Space Spa +39 02/380481
LATVIA
Mr Ilgmars Lustiks [email protected] Latvian Environment Agency + 37 17811493
187
NEDERLAND
Mr J.C Borst [email protected] Ministry of Public Works and Water Management Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee P.O. Box 20907 NL 2500 Den Haag +31 70 31 14 311
Mr Nico Bunnik [email protected] Netherlands Agency for Aerospace Programmes (NIVR) P.O. Box 35 NL 2600 AA Delft +31 152787328 Mr Gerrit de Leeuw [email protected] TNO PHysics and Electronics Laboratory 96864 NL 2509 JG s'-Gravenhage
Mr Frank Grooters [email protected] Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Observations and Modelling Department P.O.Box 201 NL 3730 AE De Bilt +3130 2206 691
Mr Peter Hoogeboom [email protected] TNO Radar Concepts and Signal Processing 96864 NL 2509 JG s'-Gravenhage +31 70 374 0041
Mr Anton Imeson [email protected];[email protected] University of Amsterdam Physical Geography Institute for Dynamics of Ecosystems and Environment Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam +31-20 5257431
Mr Hennie Kelder [email protected] Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute PO Box 201 NL 3730 AE De Bilt +31-30-2206472
Mr Stéphane Lombardo [email protected] Ministry of Public Works and Water Management Rijksinstituut voor Kust en Zee Kortenaerkade 1 P.O.Box 20907 NL 2500 EX Den Haag +31 70 311 4369
188
Mr Jan H. Stel [email protected] Netherlands Marine Research Foundation Dutch Councilof Earth and Live Sciences Laan van. N.0. Indië 131 NL 2509 AC Den Haag +31 70-3440794 / 31 43 388 3943 (Maastricht)
Mr Hans Van Leeuwen [email protected] Synoptics Remote Sensing & Gis Applications +31 7421221
NORGE
Mr Geir Braathen [email protected] Norwegian Institute For Air Research Instituttveien 18 N 2027 Kjeller +47-63898000
Mr Johnny Johannessen [email protected] Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center Edvard Griegsvei 3a N 5059 Bergen +47-55297288
Mr Peter Plag [email protected] Norwegian Mapping Authority +47 32118474
Mr Per Erik Skrovseth [email protected] Norwegian Space Centre Skoyen 113 N 0212 Oslo + 47 22 51 18 25
Mr Rune Solberg [email protected] Image Analysis and Pattern Recognition Norwegian Computing Center P.O. Box 114 N 0314 Oslo +47 2285 2500
Mr Sandven Stein [email protected] Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center Edvard Gr iegsvei 3a N 5059 Bergen + 47 55297288
Ms Helge Tangen [email protected] Norwegian Meteorological Institute/ICEMON project manager
189
+47 77621300
ÖSTERREICH
Mr Christian Hoffmann [email protected] GeoVille Informationssysteme und Datenverarbeitung GmbH Museumstr. 9-11 A 6020 Innsbruck +43-(0)512-562021-0
POLAND
Mr Marek Banaszkiewicz [email protected] Space Research center PASS +48228403766
Ms Katarrzyna Dabrowska Zielinska [email protected] Insitute of Geodesy and Cartography +48 223291900
Mr Maciej Podemski [email protected] Polish Geological Institute European Union Programmes 4 Rakowiecka Str PL 00-975 Warszawa +48-22/8495351 ext 221
Mr Miroslaw Rataj [email protected] Space Research Centre Polish Academy of Sciences Remote Sensing Department Bartycka 18a str. PL 00-716 Warszawa +48 22 8403766 ext.211
PORTUGAL
Ms Graça Cabeçadas [email protected] Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar, IPIMAR Av. Brasilia P 1449-006 Lisboa +351213027006
Mr Mário Caetano [email protected] Instituto Geográfico Português Rua Artilharia Um, 107 P 1099-052 Lisboa +351 21 3819600
Ms Ana Sousa [email protected] Ministério das Cidades, Ordenamento do Território e Ambiente Instituto do Ambiente Serviço de Informação e Acreditação/ Rua da Murgueira - Zambujal Apartado 7585 Alfragide P 7585 Madora
190
+351.21.472.83.60
RUSSIA
Mr Boris Belan [email protected] Institute of Atmospheric Optics SB RAS 1, Akademicheskii Avenue RU 634055 Tomsk +7-3822-259738 Mr Vladimir Chvedov [email protected] Rosaviakosmos +7 0959719979
Mr Nikolai Dobretsov [email protected] Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences United Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineralogy Center of Geoinformation Technologies 3, Koptyug Avenue RU 630090 Novosibirsk +73832 342637
Ms Inessa Glazkova [email protected] Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center +70951459328
Mr Gennadii Matvienko [email protected] Institute of Atmpspheric Optics +7382-2 259738
Ms Nina Novikova [email protected] Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring (NTs OMZ) Possession 51, building 25 Dekabristovstr RU 127490 Moscow +7-095-105-0411
Ms Larisa Permitina Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring (NTs OMZ) Moscow
Mr Sergey Tashchlilin [email protected] Institute of solar - terrestrial physics SB RAS Lermontovstr, RU Irkutsk +7 3952 425865
SOUTH-AFRICA
Mr Mothibi Ramusi [email protected] AMEX 377094008016022 scad 09/04 ZA
191
+27123345162
SUISSE-SCHWEIZ-SVIZZERIA
Mr Maurice Borgeaud [email protected] Swiss Space Office Halluystrasse, 4 CH 3003 Berne +41 31 323 8738
Mr Peter Knopf [email protected] EDA, PA III Bundesgasse 32 (Büro B 13) CH 3003 Bern +41 324 24 17
SUOMI-FINLAND
Mr Antti Herlevi [email protected] Tekes P.O.Box 69 FIN 00101 Helsinki +358 10 521 5852 +358 50 5577 852 Mr Timo Pyhälahti [email protected] Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Data and Information Centre Geoinformatics and Land Use Division Mechelininkatu 34 A PO BOX 140 FIN 00251 Helsinki +358-(0)9-40 300 662
SVERIDGE
Mr Ulf Bjurman [email protected] Swedish Rescue Services Agency Skyttevägen 4 S 181 46 Lidingö +46 70 680 2864
Mr Göran Boberg [email protected] Swedish National Space Board P.O. Box 4006 S 171 04 Solna +46 86 27 64 83
Mr Stigbjörn Olovsson [email protected] Metria Miljöanalys Karlavägen 108, 4th floor. P.O. Box 24154 S 104 51 Stockholm +46-8-57 99 72 72
Mr Mats Olsson [email protected], Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
192
S 10648 Stockholm +46 8 698 10 00
Ms Anna Rathsman Swedish Space Corporation
TURKEY
Mr Yurdanur Tulunay [email protected] Instanbul Technical University +90 2122852929
UKRAINE
Mr Oleg Fedorov [email protected] National Space Agency of Ukraine
Mr Oleksandr Kolodyazhnyy [email protected] Space Research Insittute of NASU and NSAU +380 442663008
Ms Gennady Korotaev [email protected]() National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine +380(692) 55768
Mr Vsevolod Kuntsevych [email protected] Space Research Insittute of NASU and NSAU +380442662124
UNITED KINGDOM
Mr Tom Allan [email protected] Satellite Observing Systems (SOS) UK Surrey +44 (0)1483 421213
Mr David Briggs [email protected] The Imperial College Of Science, Technology And Medicine Epidemiology & Public Health Imperial College Medical Faculty Norfolk Place UK W2 1PG London +44 (0)20 759 43 329
Mr Adrian Broad [email protected] International Branch Met Office London Road-Bracknell UK RG12 2SZ Berkshire +44 (0)1344856427
193
Mr Richard Browning Department Of Geography 26 Bedford Way UK WC1H 0AP London
Mr Ren Capes [email protected] NPA Satellite Mapping Crockham Park UK TN8 6SR Edenbridge, Kent +44 (0)1732 865023
Mr Phil Curtis [email protected] VEGA Group PLC +44 1707391999
Mr Arwyn Davies [email protected] Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA 3/927 123 Victoria Street UK SW1E 6DE London +44 20 79 44 52 71
Mr Jerzy Graff [email protected] British Maritime Technology Limited Orlando House 1 Waldegrave Road UK TW11 8LZ Middlesex Teddington +44 (0) 20 8943 5544
Mr Mike Grimmett [email protected] British National Space Centre 151 Buckingham Palace Road UK SW1W 9SS London +44 207 2150884
Mr Raymond Harris [email protected] Department Of Geography 26 Bedford Way UK WC1H 0AP London +44 20 767 94 283
Mr Colin Hicks [email protected] British National Space Centre 151 Buckingham Palace Road UK SW1W 9SS London +44 2072150877
Mr Paul Longley [email protected] University College London +44 2076791782
194
Mr David Ludlow [email protected] University of the West of England UK Bristol
Mr Euan Nisbet [email protected] Royal Holloway And Bedford New College Geology Department Egham Hill UK TW20 0EX Egham +44 17 84 44 38 09 0027-45- 962-1165
Mr David Palmer [email protected] Head of National Centre for Environmental Data & Surveillance (Environment Agency) Lower Bristol Road UK BA2 9ES Bath
Mr David Park [email protected] Nottingham Scientific Ltd University Park UK NG7 2RD Nottingham +44 (0) 115 846 6034
Mr Nigel Press [email protected] NPA Satellite Mapping Crockham Park UK TN8 6SR Edenbridge, Kent +44 (0)1732 865023
Mr Michael Rose [email protected] Europe Environment Division +44 2070828564
Mr Peter Ryder [email protected] Environmental Information Services 8 Sherring Close UK RG42 2LD Bracknell Berkshire +44 (0)1344 423380
Mr Andrew Shaw ()[email protected] ESYS plc UK +44 (0)1483304545
Ms Zofia Stott [email protected] 6 Queen Eleanor's Road UK GU2 7SL Surrey +44 (0)1483 822694
195
Mr Matthew Stuttard [email protected] Logica Wyndham Court, 74 Portsmouth Road UK KT11 1HY Cobham +44 (0)20 744 64504
Mr Jon Styles [email protected] ESYS plc 1 Occam Court, Occam Road Surrey Research Park UK GU2 7YJ Guildford Surrey +441483 30 4545
Mr Barry Wyatt [email protected] Natural Environment Research Council Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Abbots Ripton Monks Wood - UK Cambs PE28 2LS Huntingdon +44 1487 772 515
USA
Mr Thomas Allen [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) +1301 4130100 3892
Mr William J. Brennan [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) +1202 4826076
Mr Gary J. Foley foley.gary@epa,gov United States Environmental Protection Agency +1919 5412106
Mr Robert Hopkins [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) +1202 4825647
Mr John J. Kelly, Jr [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOOA +1202 4824569
Mr Conrad Charles Lautenbacher Jr [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOOA +1202 4823436
196
Ms Linda Moodie [email protected] GEO Secretariat +1301 7132024,211
Mr Scott Christopher Rayder [email protected] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOOA +1202 4823436
Ms Carla Sullivan [email protected] United States Department of Commerce USA +1202 4823436 Mr Gregory Withee [email protected] NESDIS USA +1301 7133578
EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MEDIUM-RANGE WEATHER FORECASTS
Mr Tony Hollingsworth [email protected] Shinfield Park UK RG2 9AX Reading +44 118 949 9005
EU SATELLITE CENTRE
Mr Brian Routledge [email protected] EU Satellite Centre Apdo de Correos 551 Torrejon de Ardoz E 28850 Madrid +34 91 678 6002
EUMETSAT
Mr Tillmann Mohr [email protected] Am Kavalleriesand 31 D 64295 Darmstadt +49 61 51 807 600/633
Mr David Williams [email protected] Am Kavalleriesand 31 D 64295 Darmstadt +49 61 51 807 603/633
EUROGEOGRAPHICS
Mr Nick Land [email protected] 6-8, avenue Blaise Pascal F 77455 Marne la Vallée +33 164 15 32 65
197
EUROGEOSURVEYS
Mr Emile Elewaut [email protected] The Association of the Geological Surveys of The European Union Rue de Luxembourg 3 B 1000 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 474 277 338
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Mr Alessandro Annoni [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 033/786166.
Mr Vittorio Barale [email protected] Joint Research Centre H05 Via Enrico Fermi, 1 27b/120 I 21020 Ispra +39.080936 9274
Mr Tony Bauna [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/786290
Mr Alan Belward [email protected] Joint Research Centre H03 Via Enrico Fermi, 1 44/030 I 21020 Ispra +39.080936 9298
Mr Lars Bernard [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/785103
Ms Christine Bernot [email protected] DG Research H03 J79 02/45 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 29 92 670
Mr Peter Breger [email protected] DG Research H03 J79 02/49 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 29 62 720
Mr Philippe Carreau [email protected] Joint Research Centre
198
+39 0332/785486
Mr Michel-Henri Cornaert [email protected] DG Research I02 LX46 2/76 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 29 68 813
Ms Catherine Day [email protected] DG Environment
Mr Hugo De Groof [email protected] DG Environment G04 BU5 04/121 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 29 961 83
Ms Els De Roeck [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/789987
Mr Alan Edwards [email protected] DG Research I03 LX46 2/130 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 29 58 301
Mr Nisso Gargir [email protected] DG Research H03 J79 02/59 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 29 59 827
Mr Anver Ghazi [email protected] DG Research I02 LX46 02/114 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 29 58 445
Mr Guido Lemoine [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/786239
Mr Errol Levy [email protected] DG Research H03 J79 02/68 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
199
+ 32 2 29 67 934
Mr Timo Makela [email protected] DG Environment +32 22995393
Mr Jean Meyer-Roux [email protected] Joint Research Center H07 Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) Via Enrico Fermi, 1 26a/145 I 21020 Ispra +39 080936 9514
Mr Thierry Negre [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/786102
Ms Béatrice Parizot-Duteurtre [email protected] DG Research I02 LX46 2/28 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 29 52 772
Mr Christian Patermann [email protected] DG Research I LX46 01/119 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 2 29 51 815
Ms Elisaveta Peneva [email protected] Joint Research Centre +39 0332/789204
Mr Francesco Pignatelli [email protected] Joint Research Center H03 Via Enrico Fermi, 1 26a/014 I 21020 Ispra +39 080936 6319
Mr Guido Schmuck [email protected] Joint Research Centre H07 26a/212 I Ispra +39 080936 5313
Mr Iain Shepherd [email protected] Joint Research Centre G02 IPSC Via Enrico Fermi, 1 26b/132 I 21020 Ispra
200
+39. 080936 9489
Mr Paul Smits [email protected] Joint Research Centre + 332/785279
Mr Marc Vanderhaegen [email protected] DG Environment G04 BU5 04/124 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 29 90 771
Mr Guy Weets [email protected] DG Information Society C05 BU31 05/83 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 296 35 05
Mr David Wilkinson [email protected] DG Joint Research Centre A00 SDME 10/20 B 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel +32 229 56 187
Mr Eric Wille ms [email protected] DG Agriculture +32 22960025
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Ms Jacqueline Mac Glade [email protected] European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 5 DK 1050 Kopenhague
Mr Chris Steenmans [email protected] European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 DK 1050 Copenhagen +45 33 36 71 16
Mr Ronan Uhel [email protected] European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv, 6 DK 1050 Copenhagen +45 33 36 71 30
EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK
Mr Carillo Rovere [email protected]
201
L +35 243792478
EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Ms Niamh Connolly [email protected] Marine Board 1 Quai Lezay Marnesia F 67080 Strasbourg Cedex +33 388 76 71 00
EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY
Mr José Achache [email protected] Earth Observation Programmes 8-10 rue Mario Nikis F 75738 Paris +33153 69 76 54 Mr Olivier Arino [email protected] CP 64 Via Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati +39 06 941 80 564
Mr Josef Aschbacher [email protected] 8-10 rue Mario Nikis F 75738 Paris +33 1 53 69 77 07
Mr Philippe Bally [email protected] VIa Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati +390694180537
Mr Jean-Charles Bigot [email protected] International Relations Division
Mr Stephen Briggs [email protected] ESRIN Earth Observation Applications Dpt Via Galileo Galilei I OOO44 Frascati +39 06 94180401
Mr Stefano Bruzzi [email protected] 8-10 rue Mario Nikis F 75738 Paris cedex 15 +33 1 53 69 72 81
Mr Gordon Campbell [email protected] Via Galileo Galice I Frascati +39 06 94 18 04 06
202
Ms Simonetta Cheli [email protected] ESRIN Via Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati +39 06 94180350
Mr Stephen Coulson [email protected] Via Galilei I 00044 Frascati +39 06941856/552
Mr Mark Doherty [email protected] ESRIN Directorate of EO Programme Via Galileo Galilei CP 64 I 00044 Frascati +39 06 941 80 550 Mr Diego Fernández Prieto [email protected] ESRIN EO Applications Department Via Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati + 3906 94180 676
Mr Alain Fournier-Sicre [email protected] Moscow Office RU Moscow +7 0959287529
Mr Luigi Fusco [email protected] ESRIN Via Galileo Galilei I 00044 Frascati +39 06 94180530
Mr Amnon Ginati [email protected] NL +31 715654430 Mr Ola Grabak [email protected] I +39 06/94180639
Ms Jeanne -Pierre Guignard [email protected] ESRIN Via Galileo Galilei I Frascati +39 06/94180511
Mr Pierre -Philippe Mathieu [email protected] Earth Observation Science & Applications (ESRIN - EOP/SE) Via Galileo Galilei Casella Postale 64 I 00044 Frascati +39 06 941 80 568
203
Ms Monica Mezzadri [email protected] NL +31 715653656
Ms Franca Morgia [email protected] I +39 06/94180951
Mr Marc Paganini [email protected] ESRIN I 00044 Frascati +39 06 94180 563
Mr Simon Pinnock [email protected] I +39 06/94180573
Mr Peter Regner [email protected] I Frascati +39 06 94 18 05 58
Mr Frank Martin Seifert Earth Observation Apllications Department ESRIN Via Galileo Galilei Casella Postale 64 I 00044 Frascati
Ms Micheline Tabache [email protected] F +33 153697304
Mr Michel Verbauwhede [email protected] 52, avenue de Cortenbergh B 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel + 32 2 743 30 93
Mr Claus Zehner [email protected] Earth Observation Applications Engineer Via Galileo Galilei CP. 64 I 00044 Frascati +39 06 94180 544