Presentation on theme: "FP7 BalkanGEONet: Scenario Development, Roadmap and Recommendations"— Presentation transcript:
1FP7 BalkanGEONet: Scenario Development, Roadmap and Recommendations Vassilis Tsagaris1, Vesna Crnojević-Bengin21IRIDA Labs Ltd, Greece2Univeristy of Novi Sad, Serbia
2Balkan GEO Network Towards Inclusion of Balkan Countries into Global Earth Observation Initiatives Coordination and Support ActionFP7-ENVNovember 2010 – October 201316 partners from 13 countriesThe project aimed to provide a mechanism for the assessment of the needs, and of the potential contribution of the whole geographic area to environmental monitoring and to address the challenges of the GEO societal benefit areas in the Balkans. This included data collection, archiving, access and availability, as well as working to promote free, open and timely access to Earth observation data and information. A key aim is to improve government and public awareness, by undertaking proper dissemination and training activities with a view to ensuring a movement towards free access in Balkan countries to all the advantages of Earth Observation techniques
3BioSense-UNS, Serbia (Coordinator) B.GN Project PartnersBioSense-UNS, Serbia (Coordinator)EAA, AustriaUGent, BelgiumIIASA, AustriaGET, HungaryPSAWF, SerbiaJR, AustriaROSA, RomaniaJSI, SloveniaNIGGG, BulgariaUoS, CroatiaUNSA, Bosnia and HerzegovinaUNS – University of Novi Sad, Serbia; JR – Joanneum Research, Austria; JSI – Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia; IRIDA – IRIDA Labs, Greece; UoS – University of Split, Croatia; EAA – Environemental Agency Austria, Austria, IIASA – International Institute for Applied System Analysis; UGent – University og Gent, Belgium; ROSA – Romanian Space Agency, Romania; NIGGG – National Institute of Geophysics Geodesy and Geography; UNSA – University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; UoM – University of Montenegro; UPT – Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania; BFSD - Balkan Foundation for Sustainable Development, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; PSAWF - Provincial Secretariat for Agriculture, Water Economy and Forestry, SerbiaGET – Geonardo Environmental Technologies Ltd. (left the Project in June 2012)UoM, MontenegroBFSD, FYR of MacedoniaUPT, AlbaniaIRIDA, Greece
5Main GoalsTo derive scenarios of participation of various Balkan countries in the global EO activitiesTo assess their potential future contribution to EOIn addition:To derive scenarios of participation in ESA, EUMETSAT, etc.To perform SWOT analysisTo present case studies and identify best practicesResults of previous WPs have been analyzed in order to derive scenarios of participation of various Balkan countries in the global EO activities. Scenarios provide information on potential future contributions of Balkan countries to these initiatives.Additionally, the participation of Balkan countries in European organizations and initiatives related to EO was examined in order to derive scenarios regarding the participation of Balkan countries in ESA, EUMETSAT and specific programmes like ESA Climate Change Initiative (ESA-CCI) or the Earth Observation Envelope Programme (EOEP by ESA) and related programmes in the time of the Project. Case studies and best practices have been analyzed.
7Current participation to EO initiatives B.GN MethodologyScenario developmentShort term (1-2y)Mid-term (5y)SWOT analysisIndicatoranalysisWP4Gap analysisCurrent participation to EO initiativesThe analysis of gaps and future potentials is mainly based on the SWOT analysis, the indicator analysis and the outcomes of WP4. n order to derive significant information about the EO potential of the wider Balkan area in this section we discuss the prospective contribution of each Balkan country to current EO related initiatives in line with the outcomes of tasks 4.1 and 4.2 WP4. Apart from the gap analysis performed within WP4 in this task (5.1) we have studied additional potential gaps based on the analysis of indicators along with the SWOT analysis for each country
8Participation to EO Initiatives The initiatives presented GEO, GMES, INSPIRE, ESA and EUMETSAT. Then a visualization of the participation of each Balkan country (participating in B.GN), grouped in GEO and non-GEO, is presented.Example: Serbia
9SWOT Analysis Performed per country and across the Balkans as a whole S&W regarding the capabilities, participation to EO initiatives, etc.O&T for further EO involvementS&W regarding the capabilities, participation to EO initiatives, etc.O&T for EO involvement.
10Indicators Existing national datasets Participation to research programsNational remote sensing data distribution centers (Y/N)Organizations (public, private) providing various spatial datasets and servicesLevel of interoperability / coordination among institutionsIncrease of investment into EO-related activitiesNational budget allocation to EO programsEducational programs and trainings
11Additional Indicators Institutional and public awareness on benefits of EOFunding initiativesUse of EO data/applications in environmental decisions and/or political coordinationCost of data (Freely available data)Infrastructure of spatial data productsCompatibility with EU standards (Laws and regulations)Implementation of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)Processing capability of various EO dataLevel of conformation with the INSPIRE directive
12Indicator AnalysisIndicators grouped in three major thematic categories to provide information about the current level of integration and the future potential.We proposed three main categories: capacities, data and the level of integration, that were expected to provide some useful information about the current level of integration and future potential. A categorization of the indicators in these three categories was proposed according to their expected results, as shown in this Figure
14Participation to EO Initiatives GEO member countriesNon - GEO member countries
15SWOT Analysis Per Country SWOT for Greece (example):Population11,Area131,990 km2 GDP per capita$26,293StrengthsWeaknessesGreek organizations have already obtained results and produced services in EO projects.Land monitoring, atmosphere – climate change, natural hazards and marine monitoring are key application areas for Greece.Greece draws profits from its participation in ESA.Greek EO organizations fail to transform good research results in innovative and sustainable products and services.There is a limited amount of national funding in EO related activities.There is a strong need for determination of EO policy on national level.OpportunitiesThreatsGreek organizations have acquired an adequate sufficient volume of EO data during the past five years.There are small scientific and technical teams with qualified EO personnel both in public as well as private organizations.The public awareness for Earth Observation has significantly increased.The potential role of Greece in Balkans, or South East Europe is at risk by the lack of an EO national policy.Greece may lose investments in the commercial EO service sector if there is not a clear national landscape with EO priorities and budget.
16SWOT Analysis for the Balkans StrengthsWeaknessesLand monitoring, environmental monitoring, climate change and natural hazards are key EO applications for most Balkan countries.Organizations involved in research programs or other EO related activities have already developed results and services in this field.Lack of defined national policies and priorities regarding EO. It is important in order to develop a regional strategy for EO activities and priorities. Also, it would be essential for the allocation of financial means for the establishment of a regional EO system.Interoperability among organizations providing or using EO data in national and regional level is not solid and could be improved.Transformation of EO research results to sustainable and innovative products.There is limited amount of regional funding in EO related activities.Low level of public and in some cases institutional awareness on EO benefits.OpportunitiesThreatsThrough participation to European or global initiatives, collaboration among academic institutions is increasing.The level of interests within specialized research organizations dealing with EO issues is increasing.Networking between existing data providers in each country and within the broader Balkan community could be beneficiary for all Balkan countries.Weak countries in EO related activities could benefit from best practices study cases from stronger countries.In public and in private sector there exist well trained or/and highly qualified EO personnel.The majority of the Balkan countries are in a process of integration to the EU (some countries are currently potential candidate members or candidate members).Other fields are going to benefit from the above mentioned key EO applications through regional collaborations among organizations.Economic crisis along with already low or non existing national funding.Difficult access, cost of data, and not well defined distribution policies.Not all the countries have adopted EU standards for EO data, thus compatibility of data is disputed among different organizations at regional level.Collaboration among Balkan countries and former Yugoslavian Republics is weak and should be improved and increased, mainly in terms of sharing regional datasets.The collaboration among academic institutions and decision makers for EO data development could be improved.
17Current Situation in Each Country GEO countriesNon GEO countriesGREECE: Increase of investment in EO fieldCROATIA: Allocation of funds dedicated to EOSERBIA: Opportunities arise through IPA funds No compliance with INSPIREGREECE, SERBIA, SLOVENIA: Stronger countries in EO field.Becoming more aware on benefits of EO applications.ALL: Large involvement in EO projects.BULGARIA, MONTENEGRO: Increase of investment in EO fieldALBANIA, MONTENEGRO: Allocation of EO dedicated fundsBiH: Opportunities arise through IPA fundsBiH,FYROM: No compliance with INSPIREMONTENEGRO: Only non-GEO country that participates in the INSPIRE directiveBULGARIA: Large involvement in EO projects
18Identified Challenges in GEO Balkan Countries Lack of a defined national EO policy.Weak interoperability among the organizations involved in EO related activities.Low institutional and/or public awareness about Earth Observation activities.
19Identified Challenges in Non-GEO Balkan Countries Lack of a defined national EO policy.Lack or limited amount of national funding allocation.Lack of increase of investment into EO related activities.Poor or zero level of conformation with INSPIRE Directive.Lack of permanent educational programs.Low institutional and/or public awareness about EO activities.Very poor coordination between the organization.Lower number of EO related projects wrt. GEO countries.In the majority of non-GEO member Balkan countries occasional programs and trainings are provided mainly through the ongoing projects in each country.In Bosnia & Herzegovina awareness of public and academic society is increasing. Probably this is mainly due to the participation of the BiH to the CORINE 2000 Land project.and this hampers the use of EO data on environmental decision or/and political coordination.
20Example 1: Scenario Development for Serbia Strong tradition in in-situ monitoring & expertise in geodetic data collectionCould play a key role in the region and provide best practice to others, if empowered in:Mid-term (5 years)Short term (1-2 years)National level:Define a cooperation model for share and use of EO dataVertical communication among institutionsParticipation to EO initiatives:Membership to ESAFollow INSPIRE directiveFull integration to EUBecome a regional poleTransfer of expertise and knowledgeShort-term (1-2 years)Serbia has a strong tradition and history in in-situ monitoring activities and great expertise in geodetic data collection for various purposes. Serbia could play a key role in EO and provide its best practice cases to other less developed in the EO field Balkan countries. In order to empower its current potential in a national level, it is important to define a model for cooperation and provide good condition for share and use of EO data. Another result will be that vertical communication will be developed within national institutions, thus technical capacity will be improved. Initiatives related to EO activities and standards are coordinated at the political and legislative level, but there is a lack of respective measures and funds at the implementation level. Although Serbia is a member of the GEO initiative, its full integration to EU and a membership to ESA would be of great benefit for the country. In this context, Serbia should also participate in the INSPIRE directive. These steps will provide opportunities for increasing the involvement of public and private organizations to more research activities and thus enhance EO funding.Mid-term (5 years)Achieving these objectives Serbia will succeed to become an example of goodpractices in EO field and transmit knowledge and expertise in the wider Balkan region.
21Example 2: Scenario Development for Greece Has the capacity to become a regional leader in EO, if empowered in:Mid-term (5 years)Short term (1-2 years)National level:Capitalize existing knowledgeDetermine national strategy towards EOTake advantage of participation to initiatives:GMES – acquire Sentinels dataIncrease participation to ESA, enlarge private sectorShort-term (1-2 years)Greece should try to become a regional, Balkan force in the field of EO. There is a need to capitalize existing knowledge and become a pole of excellence in the field of Earth Observation and GEO. Therefore a clear national strategy is needed. Another opportunity coming through the ESA participation is the availability of GMES – Sentinels data in the near future.Mid-term (5 years)Greece should try to increase its participation in ESA in order to enlarge its privatesector activity in space related applications.
22Recommendations for GEO Countries Increase exploitation of the existing infrastructure:Take advantage of the new Sentinel missions in 2013,Exploit the human potential.Create guidelines for a more targeted EO national policy:Define national goals towards EO,Dedicate specific funds.Fully integrate in global and European initiatives:Full membership in EU,Full membership in ESA.Improve networking among organizations in a country.highly-skilled personnel
23Recommendations for Non-GEO Countries Join EU and global EO initiatives:GEO, GEOSS and GMES.Participate in INSPIRE directive.Define EO national policy:Further implement National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI),Define priorities and budget.Enhance educational EO programs and trainings:Integrate EO related courses in curricula,Organize EO life-long-learning programs for professionals.highly-skilled personnel
25General ConclusionsBalkanGEONet results provide a good insight into the region.BalkanGEONet methodology for development of scenario and recommendations:Universally applicable,Applicable on various scales,Modifiable through selection of additional indicators.Life-long-learning programs in EO very much needed!