Category: Interview

As the newly appointed Head of Unit for GMES, could you briefly explain what GMES is all about?

As I’m sure you know, there are two European Flagship Programmes for space, Galileo and GMES. GMES stands for ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security’ and is a long-term Earth Observation (EO) programme jointly undertaken by the European Commission, the Member States, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). GMES aims at providing continuous and reliable information about the state of the environment to European policy makers, the business community and to the general public. GMES consists of three components: (i) a satellite constellation for the collection of EO data from space, (ii) an earth-based observation infrastructure (ground-based, airborne and ship- or buoy-based sensors) and (iii) a network of services which will deliver EO information relevant to six different domains (Atmosphere, Climate Change, Land Monitoring, Emergency Management, Marine and Security).

Could you briefly explain your daily activities in the GMES Unit and the liaison with other programmes, Units and Directorates?

My Unit is working on achieving the transition of GMES from a set of preparatory activities based mainly on R&D funding to a sustained and user-driven set of operational services. GMES has already progressed from a mere notion through numerous research projects to a more sustained operational programme. Indeed, today two GMES services are already operational. The GMES Unit is responsible for enabling and coordinating that development path.

This implies that we have to liaise with representatives from different user communities, listen to their needs, develop a policy and consult with various other parts of the European Commission. Of course we also deal with the budget issues and our aim is to establish services that deliver the information needed by the user communities when and where it is most needed. We should not forget that we are working for European citizens and that is why we are giving ordinary citizens an opportunity to see what GMES is all about by contributing to the European Space Expo exhibition, which is currently touring various European venues.

As a coordination unit, we develop our policies in close relation with the other units in our Directorate-General (DG), notably the Aerospace, Maritime, Security and Defence Industries Unit, and also with other DG’s. As an example, the new Emergency Management Service has been established in close collaboration with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the DG for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection (DG ECHO).

Can you comment on the evolution of GMES and the latest EC communication?

As I said before, GMES has moved from research to operations with the implementation of the GMES Initial Operations (GIO) in the period 2011-2013; two services are now operational, (1) the Land monitoring service for which the EEA ensures the technical coordination and (2) the Emergency Management Service. Other pre-operational services continue to be financed by the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (FP7) funding, for example monitoring the marine environment (MyOcean2) and atmosphere monitoring (MACC-II)

The Commission believe that GMES is so important that it warrants special budgetary provisions. This is why the proposal was made to finance it from a fund outside the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). We will require large investments over a long period to further develop the GMES space infrastructure, and, when taken together with the large budget foreseen for Galileo, this could be very problematic to achieve within the constraints of the MFF.

The Commission believe that GMES is so important that it warrants special budgetary provisions. This is why the proposal was made to finance it from a fund outside the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). We will require large investments over a long period to further develop the GMES space infrastructure, and, when taken together with the large budget foreseen for Galileo, this could be very problematic to achieve within the constraints of the MFF.

At the present time we are awaiting a decision on funding by the Member States in the Council and the elected representatives in the Parliament. This does not mean that we have stopped working, of course, as the Commission remains committed to preparing the necessary regulations on GMES operations in a timely manner, in order to avoid any disruption of the programme schedule caused by the funding debate.

What is your idea for the governance scheme and the related business model to be adopted?

One of the keys to success for the operational GMES services is to have an appropriate governance and robust business model. The business model for us is very clear. GMES will provide free and open information and in that sense it will trigger business initiatives.

In order to stimulate business development, we also need to create awareness about the programme and its potential benefits. This is why we developed the GMES Masters competition and this was also a motivation for us, together with the UK Space Agency, to organise the Space Solutions Days planned for London in December 2012.

The full, open and free data policy should allow businesses to exploit the market opportunities offered by GMES. Then it is up to industry to be entrepreneurial and translate the data into their business models. It is precisely here where EARSC has an important role to play by identifying business opportunities in order to further develop the downstream market.

What do you look for in cooperative efforts between European Institutions and Industry and in particular the GMES Unit and industry?

The GMES Unit is part of DG Enterprise and Industry, so the link with industry is strong. The focus of DG ENTR right now is to stimulate growth and employment and we are embracing that aim in our objectives.

The Earth Observation industry is made up of distinct segments. We should distinguish between the upstream sector, which includes space-based and earth-based infrastructure and data providers, and the downstream sector, which consists of the many services and market products that can be developed thanks to the availability of continuous and accurate EO information. In between, we have the midstream sector represented by those operators that exploit space-based and earth-based systems to produce and sell EO data. The GMES Unit has relations with representatives from all three sectors. Studies show that midstream and downstream can be eight times bigger than upstream. So there is a multiplication effect on the investments in the upstream sector.

In 2012, DG-ENTR launched several initiatives to support the development of downstream services, in the framework of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP). Some €2.5 million was made available through a call for proposals to support two demonstration projects at regional level, as well as the distribution of innovation vouchers for the development of innovative services relying on GMES information and GNSS signals (Galileo/EGNOS). This approach focuses on finding solutions and systematically creating entrepreneurial opportunities for the wider use of innovative technologies, goods and services by involving a wide range of stakeholders, industries and technologies. As a result, new skills may be shaped in the regions, leading to competitive advantages offering global market opportunities.

How could cooperation on space research be better integrated for the development of EU industry?

The Commission has financed through the FP7 programme the GMES Academy whose role it is to bridge EO-research with EO-industry. The Academy was launched in Salzburg, in September 2012. In order to facilitate the bridging, research sheets have been prepared on all projects oriented towards the business developers and will be made available through the GMES Academy website.

The Commission has proposed an ambitious programme for research and innovation (Horizon 2020), which will give a strong boost to the competitiveness and technological leadership of our industry. Horizon 2020, starting in 2014, will continue to fund space research projects at an enhanced level, with a focus on research and innovation, providing opportunities to top European scientists and engineers, and preparing the ground for next generation space systems. Within the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework (2014-2020) the EU proposes to invest €1.7 billion in space research and innovation.

What measures will be taken to ensure that there is adequate funding to maintain GMES operational activities and what do you see as the next steps for GMES?

I have described the current funding debate above. At this stage there is no reason to assume that GMES is under threat. As I mentioned before, the Commission clearly indicated in its budget proposals the importance of GMES, and hence we are committed to agreeing a solution for long-term funding.

While the Sentinel satellites are currently being developed specifically for the needs of the programme, the various GMES Contributing Missions are already providing a wealth of data for the services. There is no reason for the downstream sector to have to wait – it should already be proactive and look for business opportunities secure in the knowledge that the provision of long-term sustained services is being tackled by the Commission with its utmost conviction.

The first dedicated satellite, Sentinel 1A, should be ready for launch in October 2013. The Commission has always expressed itself in favour of the timely launch of Sentinel 1A as it will preserve the current launch schedule, avoid overruns and minimise the risk of discontinuity. The available budgets from FP7 and GIO allow the funding of planned activities until well into 2014. So, there is no reason to suppose that there will be any discontinuities. We are still on track!

So, you’re optimistic about the future?

“Optimism is a moral duty”, as Karl Popper once said, but there is indeed reason to be optimistic. Over the period 2014-2030, GMES is expected to lead to benefits estimated to be between 4 and 10 times bigger than the amounts invested. A huge number of applications are already developing, from such areas as better urban planning for housing, for public transport development, to finding best renewable energy sites, predicting pollution and implementing mitigation measures, etc. GMES is a unique programme which has huge potential for businesses and citizens alike. The European Union will be the first and perhaps the only organisation to have such a complete monitoring system and such a comprehensive set of operational services.

Dr. Reinhard SCHULTE-BRAUCKS joined the European Commission in 1981. He worked in a number of areas such as anti-trust, completion of the internal market, enterprise policy and space research.
In June 2012 he took up his present position as head of the GMES Unit in the Commission’s Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. He is responsible for the development of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security system (GMES). The latter consists of a space component as well as satellite based services in the areas of land observation, emergency, oceanography, atmosphere, international security and climate change monitoring.

Images provided by GMES Bureau

BACKGROUND

PRIMET was originally established in November 1999 under the name “Association of Environmental Data Users in Europe” (AEDUE) and changed its name to PRIMET in September 2003. With effect from 4th August 2010, PRIMET became a Company registered in England and Limited by Guarantee. The Company Number is 7335206 and the Directors for the time being are the members of the PRIMET Board.The association currently has 20 Corporate Members in 14 European countries.

Could you briefly explain your daily activities at the Association of Private Meteorological Services? What exactly is the role of your team?

The Meteorological Sector in Europe is still quite small and some of the major players are the commercial arms of the larger National Meteorological Services (NMS), (notably those of UK and France). These NMS are, of course, also the national monopoly suppliers of the basic observational and numerical output data that are essential for any value adding commercial operation to produce its products and services. On such a distorted commercial playing field there is a constant need for all of the players in the private sector (but especially the smaller companies) to have a voice in the battle to establish a timely, unrestricted flow of data at the marginal cost of re-distribution, and a genuine single market in which competition is open, fair and unrestricted across national boundaries. PRIMET provides that voice. However, the very high costs currently levied for much of the essential data and the embryonic state of the market in many countries means that funding such a voice is very difficult and so PRIMET keeps its costs very low – contracting only one staff member on a part time basis. As General Secretary, I spend most of my time interacting with members and on their behalf with organisations such as the European Commission, ECOMET (which is the data suppliers trade association), other trade organaisations (such as the PSI Alliance), national governments, and other international organisations.

How is the liaison with other international organizations as Eumetsat or ESA?

We currently have almost no contact with Eumetsat or ESA but we interact on a regular basis with ECOMET and are seeking to extend contacts with such as WMO, ECMWF and similar bodies.

Could you comment on the possible European policies which helped the private meteorological services to develop the meteo market?

The main European policies that contribute in this way are the drive towards a single market, the framework provided by the PSI Directive (which is currently under review, a process to which PRIMET is contributing) and the competition policies. However, the clear precedence of subsidiarity in the implementation of European policies is a severe restraint on the overall development of the market.

PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION

In the US, open and unrestricted access to public sector information has resulted in the rapid growth of information intensive industries particularly in the geographic information and environmental services sectors. Similar growth has not occurred in Europe due to restrictive government information practices. The scenario is being changed nowadays

In few words, how has PRIMET responded to the recent Commission Communication and proposals for amendments to the PSI Directive ?

PRIMET has a long record of drawing attention publicly to the benefits that would arise within the national economies of member states if the concept of “free” PSI were fully implemented. This has included, over several years, papers published in the open literature of peer reviewed journals, papers and presentations made to a wide range of conferences, consultations given to several formal enquiries set up by the likes of the European Ccommission and formal submissions to the Commission and to the European Parliament during their review of the Directive. It is vital that the evidence for the overall economic benefit that would accrue across the EU from the removal of “profit making” charges for PSI in all sectors is fully and robustly set out.

How do you see the evolution in Europe to open data policy?

There are some encouraging signs but there is still a long way to go. Increasing amounts of data have been and are being made available at the marginal cost of re-distribution but there remains a very great deal of data that is protected behind high tariff barriers. In the meteorological sector in particular it is important to distinguish the basic observational and numerical output data which are needed to generate value added meteorological products, from the issue by public bodies of processed (value added) products such as site specific general weather forecasts provided free to the public under the provisions of the National Meteorological Services’ “public task”. These latter are often claimed by governments to be part of the “free PSI” but in reality they do very little to add to the economic benefit arising from the sector. Only the “free” issue of the basic, underlying data can achieve that.

How could PSI affect the economic impact in making new business out of the meteo information?

The current high charges for the necessary basic data are a massive barrier to the development of new business and new businesses. These charges make the provision of weather services at the low price, high volume end of the market uneconomic for small players and prevent new businesses from breaking into the market. They are a form of the traditional “defensive marketing” ploy of erecting high entry barriers to exclude new competition. A small, start-up company located in, say, Luxembourg, would need to pay an absolute minimum of around 250,000 Euro annually to acquire the most basic set of data necessary to service a few contracts each likely to be worth around 10,000 Euro. If this data cost were reduced to the cost of re-distribution, such a company would have a chance to establish itself and to generate further business through innovative product development.

Will the private sector intermediaries be increasingly important players in the rapidly developing information economy?

While the present data charging regime remains in place, the prospect of rapid growth in the meteorological sector arising from innovative, entrepreneurial enterprise remains small.

How is the preservation of intellectual property rights treated in the re-use of PSI data?

The IP in the basic data belongs to the taxpayers who paid for it to be generated, collected and held. This right is vested in governments who have the power to license the use of the data at the cost of re-distribution. All re-users need licenses for the re-use so that they can establish clear contractual relationships with their customers and so that the data suppliers have clear obligations to supply the data. The IP in the value added products created from these data is vested in the producer and can be exploited as those producers see fit.

PRIVATE SECTOR

Meteo services providers are typically a team of highly qualified meteorologists who understand the effect that the weather has on the day to day operations of businesses of all kinds.

The majority of the people employed within the commercial meteorological sector are employed by the National Meteorological Services. These (principally the UK and France) also dominate the total turnover of the market. I can speak only for PRIMET members to which the figures below refer.

To understand the figures:
Estimated size (companies) of the European market, 30
Number of employees, They employ around 600 persons
The actual revenues? The most recent estimate (2009) for this is around 150 million Euro/year.
Range of meteorologically related products and services in different segments The range of products is very considerable, from media products (both print and on-line) to retail sector products to off-shore operational products and products to support a very wide variety of industry and commerce including sport and leisure.

How much time has the meteo industry taken to understand the business model, to give the information to other sectors in order to manage their business effectively and efficiently by offering solutions that are innovative, tailored, flexible and responsive?

There has been an active commercial meteorological sector in Europe for at least 20 years and the business model has been developed and refined more or less continuously for most of that time, reacting to changes in the trading environment such as the development of the internet, personal computing and mobile communication systems among many other market drivers.

Industries such as farming, construction, insurance, and transportation are all cashing in on the benefits of industry-specific weather information – the kind of information provided only by the private industry. In your opinion who is the key to access to those sectors?

This type of weather information is not provided only by the private sector. The commercial arms of the large National Meteorological Services compete fiercely and protect their market position vigorously in these markets. The key to access these (and indeed all) markets is to know the customer requirements and to provide high quality products that match those needs at a price that is commercially attractive. As in any sector, this means being close to your customers and understanding the economic structure of their business; there is no magic bullet!

Cost and effect analyses are crucial for companies in the infrastructure business where accurate forecasts for specific locations become crucial to companies financially. (Construction projects are only allowed a certain number of working days. When weather causes delays, companies can face late penalties…) how could these “cost and figures numbers” help to develop awareness of the capabilities of earth observation?

I am not really well qualified to comment on how earth observation products of the type you deal in can be applied within these areas. The need for accurate meteorological information, especially predictions, is more or less self evident. What is less clear is the true economic value of such products to the customers and this is where the need for good marketing information becomes vital.

QUALITY SCHEME AND STANDARDIZATION

How important is it for your industry to have standardized products?

In terms of the basic data, “standardization” is vital. Fortunately within meteorology there is an international structure of standards for observations to which all governments conform. There is much less requirement for standardization in value added products such as forecasts and these can be tailored to individual customer requirements.

Is there any development of a quality scheme for the meteo products? How important is the liaison with the users?

There is no general quality scheme associated with the sector. In the UK, the Royal Meteorological Society is pioneering a form of “kite mark” for companies who produce value added weather products but this is at an early stage and progressing very slowly.

How do you feel about the idea to have a library/ taxonomy of meteo custom tailored products?

Such a library/taxonomy already exists for the basic data. It is organised and managed by the National Meteorological Services through the World Meteorological Organisation . But for value added products the concept does not have much traction within the meteorological sector.

COOPERATION & PARTNERSHIP WITH EO INDUSTRY

In your opinion:

What type of dialogue mechanism could take place between “meteo” and “EO service industry” to develop innovative products and services?
This would be a matter between individual companies who have ideas and feel there may be merit in co-operation. It is possible that organisations such as PRIMET and EARSC could play a role in bringing such companies together but this has not been explored so far to my knowledge.

Do you have a view on the impact of possible new alliances of space companies on the competitiveness of European space industry? Did the meteo community experienced some similar business models?
The meteorological sector is quite small and fragmented. Amalgamation across national borders is very difficult because of the problems of data supply, which is held as a monopoly by the National Meteorological Services within their own national boundaries. This may be a lesser problem for the EO world given the international nature of much of the basic data and such alliances might make access to the data less complex in this case.

What are the lessons to be learnt from the meteo community?
Don’t expect rapid progress – the time frame for every initial business plan should be extended by at least 100%!

GMES

How importance is GMES for your business activities?

In general not very but this could change if there was a free flow of data available

What is the model of the meteo companies to access the data and deliver the products?

The model is peculiar to the Meteorological sector. The data are generated world wide under internationally accepted protocols and are exchanged freely between all National Meteorological Services. Some such services (notably the USA and Japan) make all of the data they have available free to any re-user but in order to protect their value-adding commercial business many of the European National Meteorological Services forced through a resolution of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO Resolution 40) that prevents, with the exception of certain agreed data sets, Services in one country giving away free data from any other country. They then set up an organisation, ECOMET, (very similar to a cartel but not quite) which controls the supply of all data to commercial players. Each Meteorological Service sets the price for its own data and anyone wishing to receive it can apply to ECOMET to set up the appropriate supply arrangements. This in theory provides all the commercial players with a single point of contact but also protects the National Services from the requirement to supply at a published price any data that they have not declared to be in the ECOMET catalogue. They sometimes will supply such data but negotiate prices on a case by case basis. No other sector has such a “closed” data supply system. It is unlikely that a similar data supply system would apply to GMES data as a whole.

FUTURE

In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges the commercial earth observation industry is facing in the years to come? What kind of downstream service industry would Europe benefit from?

Probably the biggest challenge in the next few years is going to be sustaining the funding that keeps the EO satellite systems running.

As for the kind of downstream industry that would benefit Europe, the scope is almost endless; from pollution episodes and control to land use and hundreds more. I am no expert in these sectors so would not wish to be more prescriptive than this.

BIOGRAPHY
Dr Richard Pettifer is the General Secretary of PRIMET. Richard has been a professional meteorologist throughout his entire career. He is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, a Chartered Meteorologist and a Chartered Environmentalist. After 28yrs working in the UK Met Office he moved into industry and was for 13 years the Managing Director of Vaisala (UK)Ltd. He then started his own Consultancy business. For 8 years he served as the Executive Director of the Royal Meteorological Society and also undertook a wide range of consultancy contracts. He now runs the PRIMET secretariat under contract to the PRIMET Board.

eomag.eu-articles-1855-interview-with-mr-richard-pettifer-secretary-general-of-t.pdf

ABOUT ESA VAE

Value Added Element (VAE) is a component of ESA’s Earth Observation Envelope Programme, Mr. Coulson, could you briefly explain your daily activities at the VAE office in ESA? What exactly is the role of your team? And how is the liaison with other programmes and divisions?

Two words come immediately to mind to describe daily life in the office; busy and hectic ! We are a team of 6, but at any one time we are handling 60+ small, very diverse activities in the VAE program, as well as finishing a few much larger activities in the GMES Services Element program (eg. Polar & Sea ice, Maritime Security, Coastal water quality, Land motion). The approach we take is pro-active; we work side-by-side with industry service providers to make sure that the users involved are getting the very best out of what European industry and European EO missions are capable of delivering, and that it is in line with their requirements. Each member of the VAE team has developed specialist technical expertise in specific areas of EO applications and services over the last decade, and they can bring that practical experience of working with a wide range of users to the benefit of new activities right at the start. We are operating at the ‘front-end’ of the EO applications development process. We are talking to user communities (both public and private sector) who need information solutions in order to carry out their daily activities, and we need to match up these requirements with what we know EO can deliver in terms of well-validated services where the performances, limitations and constraints are known and we are on solid ground. We have two other teams in ESRIN working further ‘down the line’ in the development process; one group working with 1000+ scientists in developing new algorithms and techniques, and another group building on this work developing new applications in support of international environmental treaties and conventions. We are in constant cooperation with these colleagues, both to know the technical status of what’s cooking, and to feed-back new ideas from users of what needs developing. In addition, we work with our colleagues in ESTEC who are running the Integrated Application Promotion (IAP, that makes use EO, Navigation and Telecommunications technologies) to ensure that their activities take full benefit of what has been done in EO before. Add on top of all this the frequent events where ESA participates or organises to share its experiences and develop this domain, and you can appreciate why I began with those two words; busy and hectic!

EOWORLD

Under the Eoworld title, ESA is committed to sustainable development initiatives in developing countries: what concrete progress in market development can industry expect? How ESA did the first approach to International Financial Institutions? How were the first links within the World Bank? Why the interest?

During the Spring 2011 EOmag issue, EARSC have learnt from Mr Anthony Bigio from the Sustainable Development Network at the World Bank that you are running a common project called “eoworld”, could you explain further the initiative?

eoWorld is a collaboration between World Bank and the European Space Agency to demonstrate the benefits that EO information can bring to Bank activities. We think there is a manifest need for reliable up-to-date and historical geospatial information in the planning, implementation, monitoring and completion phases of Bank investment projects. EO information can meet some (not all) of this need in a globally consistent manner.

With this in mind, eoWorld was started ‘bottom-up’ by focussing on 15 actual on-going Bank projects, and covering a wide range of EO information services in the land, marine and urban risk sectors, in different areas around the World. The Bank project teams specified what types of information were needed, and ESA then supported European providers (selected via open competition) to produce and deliver EO information services against these requirements. A first progress report has been published jointly by the World Bank and ESA (see Fig. 1). There has already been a significant investment in time and effort form the Bank in setting this initiative up. This has been led by Finance, Economics and Urban Development (FEU), both within their department but also across other departments of Sustainable Development Network (SDN). There is a huge interest in this both within the Bank and within the EO service industry. The attraction for the Bank is that ESA can provide independent technical guidance and oversight for non-experts to better understand and access the highly-specialised EO service sector. The attraction for industry is that ESA can facilitate access into a large organisation that would be otherwise be extremely difficult for small specialised companies. I think this is a good example of ESA opening new opportunity for both of these communities.

fig.1.eoWorld Progress Report

Which was the selection procedure to decide on the interest of a project among the sustainable development projects? How is today the status of these projects? How do you envisage future activities?

We are now finalising these first 15 projects. The EO services have been delivered and benefits are currently being assessed by the Bank and local users. The Bank took the decision to hold a special session on the eoWorld initiative and first results during SDN Forum held during February in Washington DC. This involved some of Bank teams (enthusiastically) informing their colleagues of what impact using EO information had in their projects. The event was chaired with the high-level commitment of the SDN-FEU Director, Zoubida Allaoua, and the ESA EO Director, Volker Liebig (see Figure 2).

fig.2. Opening Panel session ‘Earth Observation for Development’ Feb 29th World Bank Washington DC (center : Volker Liebig, ESA Director of EO Programmes, Zoubida Allaoua World Bank Director of Finance, Economics and Urban Development)

You can see more about this on the Bank web site dedicated to EO (www.worldbank.org/earthobservation). But the ‘acid test’ is what happens after the project completes? Here we are very pleased to say that in the majority of cases, the Bank wants more of what has been delivered, and they are actively pursuing this under their own resources. We could not have hoped for a better result. Furthermore, this has raised sufficient interest to start discussions on a longer-term, more strategic collaboration on EO (the next phase of eoWorld). The idea is to look at priority areas for the Bank, and then map out a 3-5 year plan of cooperative action where, together with industry, ESA can demonstrate the full potential of EO information on a larger scale. First discussions on these priority areas include (but are not limited to) : oceans, forestry, disaster risk reduction, urban, and fragile states. Over the next few months, ESA will interact further with the Bank to finalise what could be done in the longer term. We hope to be in a position to start this more strategic collaboration by the end of this year. I have to say that the World Bank is leading the way forward in the use of EO information for development investments, but the opportunity doesn’t stop there. We have just started a very similar initiative with the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg (supporting 10 projects), and are in first discussions with European Bank of Reconstruction and Development in London, and the International Finance Corporation in Washington. As the momentum builds over the next few years, this could and should turn into a significant development opportunity for the European EO service industry (but first, let’s demonstrate the benefit!).

OGEO

The goal of the OGEO group is to enable more and better business between the Oil &Gas industry and Earth Observation services industries how were the first steps of this initiative?How were established the goals for 2011 (Ogeo portal, Joint project industry and follow up workshop in Dec 2011)… and how ESA will measure the success of the OGEO group?How do you see the OGEO group developing and what can EARSC be doing more to help this?

The Oil & Gas industry is no stranger to EO. They have been using it for at least 20 years and go through phases of in-sourcing and out-sourcing this technology. Within my team, we have had several activities with individual companies to explore EO services, both in Oil & Gas and Renewable Energy. A good example was with Shell Canada to use high-resolution land cover mapping in support of land reclamation and sustainable development of the Athabasca Oil Sands (see Figure 3).

fig.3.Land Use Change 2005/2006, Athabsca Oil Sands Development (Jack Pine), based on SPOT-5 data

This made it into the company’s annual sustainable development report (see Figure 4) and led to a sustainable follow-on business in EO service provision. A few years ago, we decided that, in order to gain momentum in this sector we had to go beyond individual projects with individual companies and open up a dialogue with the complete industry sector. So we pooled all our results and organised a workshop attended by 40 companies in 2010 to figure out what could be done to grow adoption of EO information in more Oil & Gas companies (see Figure 5). That led to the set-up of OGEO – the Oil & Gas Earth Observation working group, including Shell, Exxon, BP, Total and Woodside – and to the establishment of an EO portal for the industry to better exchange information needs and EO capabilities. This initiative took a significant step forward in late 2011, when the OGEO members decided to formalise the group within the framework of OGP (the association of Oil & Gas Producers).

fig.4.Shell Sustainable Development Report (2006)

fig.5. ESA Oil & Gas Workshop Report 2010

We are now finalising the terms of reference and cooperation with both ESA and EARSC. A first task will be to provide guidance to the OGP on how EO could help in a new Joint Industry Project (JIP) on oil spill best practices, currently being defined in response to last year’s Deep Water Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico. This all may sound very bureaucratic, but it has put in place a formal mechanism for two industry sectors (Oil & Gas, EO services) to cooperate. We will be looking to further support this as the basis for long-term expansion in activity between the two communities. Again, this is something that is very difficult for individual EO service companies to do, and an example of how ESA can support the EO sector. As a final word, we are currently working with the Re/Insurance industry to start a similar initiative to this.

COOPERATION & PARTNERSHIP WITH EO INDUSTRY

What is your view on the future partnership between ESA and EARSC to foster the growth and development of the industry? How do you see these cooperation in the years to come?
 
EARSC is THE single trade body for the EO services sector at European level, and as such, the natural partner with which the ESA EO industry section should be working with. I think that in the last few years, EARSC has become more established and more effective, especially since the appointment of a permanent Secretary General, Geoff Sawyer. The collaboration between ESA and EARSC is closer, more interactive, and more productive. EARSC have been fully involved in both eoWorld and in OGEO, making valuable contributions and representing industry as a whole. I expect this cooperation to grow and develop even stronger over the next years (we have a lot to work together on!).

FUTURE

At the end of the interview, here is the opportunity for your final thoughts on your vision for the future tasks ahead for VAE-ESA and EARSC? In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges the commercial earth observation industry is facing in the next 3 years? Industry has recognised the importance of the value added programme as one of the major tools supporting the development of EO applications and services. In the new phase which is coming from 2013, which major issue you have in mind? Do you have overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC.

The single biggest challenge is to move the provision of EO information services on to a sustainable basis that the industry can develop by itself in the longer-term. The biggest users of this type of information are (and are likely to remain) Public sector : Government departments, organisations and agencies. Here, the joint EU-ESA initiative of Global Monitoring of the Environment and Security (GMES) should be the turning point. This should move EO from a science-driven R&D technology, to a source of data for operational monitoring of all aspects of the Earth’s environment (Land, Atmosphere, Oceans, Cryosphere). The Sentinels will be ‘data-monsters’, producing more data in 5 months than Envisat has produced in 5 years (even with 10 instruments). Sentinel-2 with A and B units operating together will give global coverage of the Earth’s land surface at 10m resolution every 5 days. This represents a phase-change for EO, but the raw materials (data) have to be easily and readily accessible, which is why a free and open data policy is crucial.

However, I don’t see any ‘killer app’ or overnight miracles. This is a process that took at least 25 years in Meteorology, and it will take time with EO for the environment. Nevertheless, GMES represents a tremendous opportunity for EO and the EO services industry. The work that we are doing together now with the Development Banks, the Oil & Gas and the Re/Insurance industries should be preparing the ground for the EO services industry to further exploit and expand these sectors with GMES in the near future. But where will the business opportunities come from? As a last remark, I would like draw attention to a simple statistic : in the last decade 6 out of the 10 fastest growing economies were in Africa, and this is predicted to rise to 7 out of 10 in the next 5 years (see Figure 6). The implications are that European companies will need to develop capabilities, contacts, offices and staff in these fast-growing countries outside of Europe. So, I look forward to continue to working with EARSC and its African affiliates in the near future !

fig.6. The World’s fastest growing economies in 2011 (source: Economist)

Dr. Stephen Coulson, head of the industry section in ESA’s directorate of Earth Observation Programs in ESRIN. Stephen Coulson has over 25 years experience in the field of Earth Observation and its applications, the last 20 of which have been with the European Space Agency. Since 2000, he has been managing an ESA program to support the development of the European EO services industry and is head of the Industry section in the Directorate of Earth Observation Programs in ESRIN (Frascati, Italy). He has a degree in physics from University of Durham (UK) and a Ph.D in theoretical physics from the University of Southampton (UK).

Stephen Coulson
Head of Industry Section
Directorate of EO Programmes
ESA/ESRIN, Frascati Italy
voice :+ 39 06 94180556
mail :stephen.coulson@esa.int

Eomag!29_Interview Dr. Stephen Coulson Hesad ESA Industry Section EO programmes ESRIN.pdf

UNDERSTANDING SECTORS

From the point of view of geo-information, how can EO service industry better understand the oil & gas sector (business structure, strategy, potential growth technologies and prospects)?

There has been quite a close relationship between individual service providers and individual O&G companies, hence other companies in the industry never find out what particular services were required and confidentiality usually prevents us from communicating the exact services. In general it requires an effort on both sides to enhance the communication. If the Service Providers industry understands how the O&G industry works and what their work processes are, then they will benefit. This can be achieved through communication and working with people who know the industry. The Service Providers should be pro-active in creating new services, which can be seen as best practice and support business decisions or even improve on existing practices.

Could you please introduce how the industry collects, manages and utilises spatial information to help achieve its business goals? And what are the processes and workflows that support those geo-information activities?

There is quite a variety of models in the industry and each company applies its own solution, due to mainly historical reasons. In my company a ‘Geomatics’ team manages the data. From the initial ‘Can Earth Observation help? and if yes what should / could we use? ‘, to the collection request to the data storage; Geomatics is then also responsible for QC and delivering the products back out to the business units for their particular use. In other companies the individual projects collect and store the information (Earth Observation data, derived products, GIS info etc.) and hand it back to a corporate function at the end of the project activity. In other companies the entire service is outsourced to a service provider and handled independently. The final results and outcomes / products are returned to the company for use in the decision making process.

So there is no ‘One model fits all’ answer to your question.

OGEO

The goal of the OGEO is to enable more and better business between the Oil &Gas industry and Earth Observation services industries how were the first steps of this initiative? Why to focus on facilitate the dialogue between market sectors?

The initial contacts were facilitated by ESA and brought the representatives from the OGP (Int. Assoc. of Oil and Gas Producers) together and first discussions were carried out in late 2009. Since it looked like both sides had some information deficit about the other sector, bringing them closer together seemed like a desirable outcome for both. Better information leads to better decisions – better decisions lead to better business. Facilitating an improved dialogue seemed a logical consequence and the success of our workshops has proven that. From an O&G industry we want to better utilize already existing data, services and solutions; from the Service Providers side I have heard they would like to better know what the issues are in the O&G industry and where Earth Observation could help. Both of these require communication and dialogue.

What is today the status of the OGEO group? Are you satisfied with the progress that has been made so far?

We are an informal group, but like to align ourselves closer to the OGP committees and communicate through these. There are three main groups in OGP (Environment, MetOcean and Geomatics) using earth observation (remote sensing) in different ways. Bringing these groups together and giving them an insight in the possibilities the Earth Observation technology has to offer was already a good success and exposing the Service Provider’s directly to the different topics of interest seems also to make good headways. We are often stuck in our own small little world of problems. Exposing ourselves to other people using the same technology, but with different questions, the dialogue can be fruitful. We have achieved to stimulate some of this dialogue and in that sense the progress has been good and I am sure will continue strongly.

How do you envisage future activities under the OGEO umbrella? Will annual workshops raise awareness on what has been done and what has been achieved? How do you analyse the lack of response on the participation of oil and gas industry and these initiatives? What could be done more in the group to really set up the communication and exchange forum?

We hope that the initiative will continue and further activities will find the support of the participating groups. The two workshops held so-far have been a success and seeing the papers published will give a focus and raise awareness for the decision makers in the individual company. However to reach the decision makers and allow their company re-presentatives to attend and even speak at such workshops is the challenge. We have created the OGEO-Portal as an easy to use exchange forum of information – hence once people realize how beneficial that can be, I am sure we will see an increased utilization. Some companies see themselves as early followers, they wait and see what the big ones do and then follow suit. Some of the big ones – like ExxonMobil, BP, Total, and Shell are sitting at the table and pushing this initiative ahead. But these days there are also many events and travel budgets are getting tighter and tighter – hence to have combined events and attach them to an already existing Oil & Gas meeting will increase the O&G participation

Do there exist or could there be other dialogue mechanisms that could take place with the EO service industry?

Usually one has dialogue mechanism with one or more Earth Observation companies directly and is dependent on the information they provide. Often there is not enough time in the decision making process left to do a full background research on all available technology and applications. Hence one relies on the Service Provider’s information. But not always does an individual Service Provider offer all information – especially if they do not use particular sensors, software or technologies.

The OGEO Portal / Web-forum (see explanation below) was an idea to have a new form of communication and will allow us to create a dialogue on a different level and widen the approach and the opportunities to the Service Provider industry. I would encourage the uptake of this portal as a tool to help us improve on the current status.

What would you consider to be the measure of success of the OGEO group?

As for myself I would consider it a success if we can communicate our ‘success stories’, re-utilize existing solutions, maximize the use of existing data sets and not having to reinvent the same approaches over and over again in the O&G industry. We have already seen a number of benefits from creating this initiative – mainly through increased awareness and people talking to each other who would not have met otherwise. We have already come up with new ideas and hope to see some of these being reported in future workshops.

Sharing and Learning = Communication => Change => Improved business

COOPERATION & PARTNERSHIP WITH EO INDUSTRY

I understand, technology is seen as one of the key differentiators for oil companies, and an area in which the company can gain significant competitive advantage over its rivals, could you please comment on the relation with service providers, the main products and services using geo-information?

The technology advantages for a competitive edge are mainly in the exploration, development and production areas of the business. In other sections it is less of an issue. However the nature of the business has always demanded a high level of confidentiality, between a Service Provider and the industry. However in areas like Health, Safety and the Environment, the O&G industry wants to show how well they do their business and how the excel in their engagements. In these areas we can share and benefit from each other’s developments and new services being offered. The main products and services still fall under the ‘baseline mapping’ and ‘ongoing monitoring’ categories, with some products going back in time and looking at historical analysis of local or regional areas.

In your opinion, what milestones in last two decades have made an impact in the growth of EO downstream products in the oil and gas sector? Please tell us about your opinion on the possible growth of the EO service industry within the oil and gas sector. What trends your foreseen?

In the last few years the biggest impact was the availability of the high resolutions satellite images of the order of 0.5 meter. Allowing regular images and no HSE exposure – as one would have with regular aerial photo surveys. The other milestone was the MODIS instruments and all the data products and research going with it. The other key technology especially for the offshore component of the O&G industry is the radar satellites in all their wavelength and pixel sizes. With the cloud penetrating capability and the inferferometric analysis options – this was / is ‘the’, but also constantly ‘evolving’ milestone in Earth Observation for our industry.

As for the trends:

• Reliable timeline monitoring over varying seasons and multiple years
• Sensor integration and improved use of the archives for enhanced baseline mapping
• Improved forecasts and supply of near real-time services from Earth Observation data
• Fast response services for any emergency requiring situational awareness information

EARSC are providing the secretariat for the OGEO group, are there other ways for us to help the EO services industry do business with oil and gas companies?

Yes – I think to encourage all the members to utilize the opportunity to enhance the dialogue with the O&G industry is important; to encourage the use of the OGEO portal by the members and contribute whenever possible. Invite O&G industry members to Earth Observation industry events and hence get a dialogue 1st hand. Allow best practise examples to be showcased and may be work them up as an industry – not just individual companies.

SERVICES

Images from remote sensing satellites have been used for geological and environmental mapping since the 70´s . Today, imagery from different sensors is being used to support exploration and production activities within the oil and gas industry…but which satellite sensors you will see relevant to your services? And what type of information can EO service providers supply your sector? what is the added value of those services?.

The relevance increases with availability – what good is a high resolution satellite sensor for regular monitoring if I only get one image / year – if I may exaggerate here a bit. And what about continuity – if we start a 10 year monitoring program now and satellite sensor xyz will be switched of in three years and there is no follow on instrument – the attraction of using this data is strongly diminished. Price will be an issue – of course – but more in the sense that the overall cost: data acquisition + processing + value add + delivery to end customer needs to be set in perspective to the perceived benefit. A cost / benefit analysis will always be carried out to determine the final value for the industry.

One service will be the value added products supply of more than one image and not just the individual data set + may be one, two or more products. Datasets of interest will be: fully calibrated, geo-located, change detection applied, 1st pass analysis carried out and derived products made into GIS compatible formats. In the industry we will not try to process raw data – like we did in the 70’s – we leave that up to the Service Provider’s, but we expect good quality, easy QC’able data. The three R’s: Reliable, Repeatable and Reproducible products is what we are after.

Another service is supplying the data / products / derived GIS layers via the Internet – directly into the customers internal Web application. May be even hosting the data, back-up and guaranteed access services included.

Innovation within the oil and gas sector is usually important, can we (EO service industry and oil and gas) do take actions to bring the research and industry in both sectors together?. Do you co-operate with industry to improve and innovate in terms of your products?

2nd question 1st: Yes we do – but I cannot speak for the other companies here. We try to ask one or more companies: have you done xyz before? are there any such products you can show me or do you have a similar data set available ? We take it from there and subsequently I can show my people internally on what we could work on to derive the new products for the tasks ahead.

As for the 1st question: Yes of course – and again I mention the OGEO portal, which is a space for forums and success stories and should be utilized. There is many questions, even in my own activity radius, where we could not find an answer to whether we could use RS or not. Facilitating direct discussions like we had at the recent workshop is also very helpful to allow new innovative ideas to be bounced back and forth and stimulate the Service Provider’s to come up with new approaches.

Let me finish with one comment here on innovation: it is often confused with Research & Development – we in the O&G industry want operational services – innovative operational services, but not necessarily innovative ideas that may require 2 years of development or reach a final product. We’d like to know about them and we may help to push along, but for the day to day business they are not so relevant.

FUTURE

At the end of the interview, here is the opportunity for your final thoughts on your vision for the future tasks ahead for the OGEO group?

The OGEO group should establish itself as an open dialogue community, but keeping in mind the individual interests of the different companies involved. We like to increase the interest inside the O&G industry and would like to see more and more Service Provider’s to become engaged. My vision is to allow maximum value creation for our industry from existing and future remote sensing data, products and services provided and to demonstrate to our own managers that Earth Observation – in its widest sense – can not only save time and money, but also will help to improve the way we do business in a world asking for more sustainability and increased accountability.

Do you have overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC.

The use of Earth Observation will only increase in the future and more and more opportunities will emerge. The amount of geo-located information, remote sensing data or other, has increased enormously in the last few years. Utilising intelligently the information contained in all of these together: Multi-sensor, multi-timeline, multi resolution will open new ways we can benefit from all the Earth Observation information out there.

On the service side: we need fast response capabilities, as well as detailed analysis of multi-year data sets. The spectrum is wide. May be different companies should work closer together – utilize common formats, allow their metadata headers to be read by each others software packages and deliver to a common industry wide accepted standard. Dialogue with the OGP (possibly through OGEO) could help here.

Would you like to give some message to the entrepreneurs interested in helping your company with his long term goals? What do you see as the biggest long-term challenges?

Think outside the square! Many years ago I was told – you cannot merge radar and optical data … ‘They see different things’ – but they both describe the properties of the same patch of land we are investigating – So why not I asked then ?
Now we even merge different spatial resolutions or timeline data. Don’t take a: ‘That can’t be done’ for the final answer!

If you find out what we do and what we need to do in the O&G industry – then there is a good 1st step achieved and subsequently you will be able to see the challenges we face. If you can come up with a service: that can save on resources, both people or expenditure; that can improve the way we do business on the health and safety side ; that can help us to lower our environmental footprint and minimize the environmental impact we have – your service or product is of interest to us as an O&G company. I have left out exploration – which is still happening – so do not exclude that in you list of ideas.

The biggest challenge for me is the continuity – but this time not the continuity of the sensors, but that of the information we can and have derived, the knowledge we gained and the conclusions we have come up with. People move around much faster, decision making is often influenced by short term outcomes and any achievements from last year will need to be re-negotiated again in the next. Best practise demonstrators and success stories will allow us to document that. With an improved dialogue and enhanced communication we can overcome this continuity issue – since the whole community acts as the technology / applications memory.

Dr. Peter Hausknecht, studied Geophysics at LMU university in Munich, before starting his career as a remote sensing professional at DLR-German Aerospace in the former Optoelectronics Institute under Prof. Lanzl. A two year study leave in Australia with CSIRO – Exploration and Mining had him collect enough data for a PhD submitted in Geoscience at LMU University under Prof. Bodechtel doing active thermal infra-red laser spectroscopy for mineral exploration. Working for 7 years at DLR in projects like the space camera MOMS and the airborne hyperspectral system DAIS rounded his qualification as an optical remote sensing specialist. After moving to Australia he joined World Geoscience in Perth and helped to develop the worlds first full wavelength range airborne spectrometer called ARGUS, comprising of hundreds of spectral channels from the Visible to the Thermal Infrared. With HyVista Corp. he spent subsequently 5 years to promote and deploy the HyMap hyperspectral sensors all over the globe. In early 2007 he joined Woodside Energy Ltd in Perth, Australia’s larges Oil and Gas company, in a role as co-ordinator for the GIS and Mapping team and subsequently as co-ordinator for the remote sensing activities in the Geomatics team. Since then he has conducted many successful projects in the remote sensing / earth observation space for Woodside. He is a member of a few professional associations, lectures occasionally at Murdoch University in Perth and is internationally active in OGEO since 2009, where he was elected chairman of the OGEO interest group in 2011. He looks back on over 25 years in the remote sensing and geospatial industry in various roles and using multiple technologies. Peter has always stayed a strong supporter of hyperspectral remote sensing as a tool to improve earth observation and take it to the next level of knowledge gathering, be it from satellite, airborne or as a close range sensing tool

Thank you in advance for the elements of contribution to the Interview and for sharing your thoughts and comments with the EOmag readers.

Eomag!28_Interview with Peter Hausknecht Chairman Ogeo WG & Woodside Energy Ltd.pdf

COUNCIL

The European Council is an institution of the European Union. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council. While the European Council has no formal legislative power, it is charged under the Treaty of Lisbon with defining “the general political directions and priorities” of the Union. It is thus the Union’s strategic (and crisis solving) body, acting as the collective presidency of the EU. The European Council was established as an informal body in 1961; it became an official EU institution in 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force

Can you describe in a simple way your daily work at your office at the European Council? Could you explain how the Cabinet’s team is assisting to the Council decisions? How you coordinate your work?

In fact we are a very small team advising the President (17 individuals only). Briefly, it can be stated that the Cabinet has two pillars, a “diplomacy and foreign policy” pillar and a socio-economic pillar.
I belong to the latter one and deal, on a daily basis, with issues such as research and development, innovation, information society, education, culture and (I would say “of course”) space policy.

How your previous work in ESA could help to tackle space issues? It is not only my past experience at ESA (more than ten years at the ESA Brussels Office, heading the Cabinet of the DG in Brussels) that is helping me tackle space issues. In fact, I have been involved in space activities for more than 25 years, and I have had the chance to look at it from different perspectives: the Belgian public perspective as Advisor of Deputy Prime Minister Willy De Clercq from 1982 till 1984 and of Deputy Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt from 1985 till 1987, and as Head of the Space Department in the Belgian administration from 1987 till 1992; the private perspective as Director Strategy for Alcatel Space in Belgium and Deputy Director “Marketing and Sales” for Alcatel Space in Europe (corresponding more or less to what is today the Thales Alenia Space group) from 1993 till 1999; and, finally (at least till end 2009) the international and intergovernmental perspective at ESA. What may at first glance appear as a non-linear career path has actually given me the ability to consider the full spectrum of space challenges, exactly what is required from the point of view of an institution such as the European Council.

How the Council, the Ministers of the Council of the European Union and ESA work together? And how the Space Council has been set up?

To make a (very) long story short, I would say that there are, in Europe, three main actors dealing with “space”:

• the Member States “individually”, mainly through ESA, but also e.g. Eumetsat and other organizations, and of course, through the EU;
• the EU Institutions (mainly through the right of initiative exercised by the Commission, but also the Council and Parliament, in various degrees of influence);
• and last but surely not least , what I call the industry, be it operators (Arianespace, Eutelsat,…), manufacturers (EADS, OHB,…) or the service industry “at large”.

The two former actors should increase, in a complementary way, their support and dedication to space because space is one of the most important tools to improve EU citizens’ life. The latter, industry, is what makes space possible, real, tangible.

As I used to say: “We need more Europe for better space, and we need more space for a better Europe”.

GMES

The European Parliament, the European Council, which includes ministers from European Union member states, and the commission itself have all endorsed GMES and Galileo in recent months…. but the decision to take the GMES project off the commission’s budget just as it begins operations drew immediate criticism from EARSC. Could you please comment on it? And what about the political commitments?

I tend to agree with EARSC and… with the Commission itself, which considers that the decision to fund GMES outside the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) would “create high uncertainty for GMES”. Allow me to quote President Barroso: “We must guarantee the success of the EU flagship projects EGNOS/GALILEO and GMES. We must develop a strong, space-based capacity to deal with climate change and we also need more security in and from space”. This is, indeed, a very clear statement.

For GMES, the commission cites a figure of 834 million euros per year that would be proposed, à la carte, to member states that would make individual decisions on whether to subscribe, and for how much…. how do you believe this will work?

I think that this is the formula that has been, is and will be applied in an intergovernmental Agency as ESA, through what ESA calls “optional programmes”, and has been successful. To open such “optional programmes” in the EU setting, through the outsourcing of the GMES funding to Member States directly is, in my view, mixing up the role of the Commission (that has to take care of the 27 Member States being considered as “one player”) with the role of ESA (acting, as I mentioned before, through “à la carte” programmes in which Member States participate in function of their own political and industrial interests).

There is no precedent on this, and would in fact blur responsibilities over the future of the programme. This has been a Commission initiative from the beginning. It will now be the role of Member States and MEP’s to decide exactly what to counter-propose for the funding of GMES towards 2020.

As to me the only viable solution is to reintegrate GMES in the MFF, somehow or other (through Horizon 2020, or through dedicated policy budget lines: in environment, climate, regional policy or, why not, “space policy” as foreseen in the Treaty). The letter circulated on this issue by MEP Vittorio Prodi is a very good and a very helpful one.
The Commission and the Member States should also keep in mind that GMES is not a “you take it all” project, as ITER is. GMES is a “building block” project, meaning that, by definition, cost overruns are impossible because you can always limit the number of “blocks” making up the project.

From GMES paper (1) “Further delays and uncertainty on GMES financing greatly undermine the industrial effort and make projects linked to GMES very unattractive,” “The funding uncertainty will certainly reduce, or even cancel, future private commitments.” Which could be now the role of the EO value added industry?

The EO value added industry will, I imagine, determine its strategy based on numerous parameters.

One of them, and which I consider an essential one, is, to put it bluntly, the long term political support and financial commitment (these two elements are completely linked) of ESA AND of the Commission: of ESA in order to build up the R&D of the system; of the Commission to use the system. Without this second element, everything is jeopardized: the R&D project itself, the economic and social benefits of the system, but also the EU’s political credibility.

Is now financing the most challenging task for GMES? What about governance?

Governance and financing go hand in hand. You can not deal with the one ignoring the other.

To be blunt again, what really matters is to have enough budget through ESA AND Commission levels, to have financial regulations and rules allowing to spend this budget in the most efficient manner, and to have the necessary flexibility to support long term investment, be it for an infrastructure policy or for a user/service policy. No more, no less!

DIALOGUE WITH INDUSTRY

What will cooperative efforts between the European Council and Industry bring? How EARSC can work with the Council to provide the views of the downstream service industry? How can the dialogue be improved?

Let us not confuse the Council of the European Union with the European Council. Their roles are different. But industry should speak with, or “lobby” (I have nothing against this beautiful word) Ministers, Prime Ministers and even Heads of States, to explain which “potential”, which “added value” space tools can offer: space tools in general and EO space tools in particular. And when I refer to “added value” I have in mind all the fields and domains that are for Europe of strategic importance and for which this “space added value” is absolutely needed: agriculture, environment, energy, climate change, communications, transport, education, medicine, humanitarian aid, crisis response, sustainable development, maritime surveillance, international relations ; to name but a few.

The sector is following the Lisbon agenda in terms of helping growth and jobs in Europe… but what do you think about benchmarking along some other industrial sectors?

Again, space is simply a tool. Not “the” only tool but for sure a significant tool to improve the definition of European policies and to better implement them. A tool that should be used in the most efficient manner. That is why the space sector does not only concern what is usually called “the space industry”. Today, it concerns an extremely wide array of the economy and our growth. Regarding innovation and employment, I can assure you that I am “fighting” (this is the right word) every day to put it high on the agenda of the European Institutions.

The sovereign debt, the fiscal consolidation, the Eurozone (that rightly Herman Van Rompuy prefers to call “Euroland”, reflecting better the integrated approach that is needed) are , of course, crucial issues. But President Van Rompuy is also constantly insisting on the “global economical approach”: in order to overcome the crisis you need Sustainable growth. And you need concrete measures to make this growth possible, in particular the ones proposed by the Heads of State and Government during the European Council dedicated to innovation held on February 4th.

FUTURE & SOCIETY

At the end of the interview, we would like to ask you for your overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC

As I mentioned before, geo-information in practice concerns and influences all European policy fields, because geo-information is in essence cross-border, and the very basis on which political decision can be taken. Without information, a great deal of which comes from space, elected officials cannot make informed decisions. Moreover, considering European history and integration, I believe it is important not to forget the regional dimension of and in Europe.

DG Regio is one of the most important DG’s in the Commission and is insufficiently aware of the possibilities that a well designed geo-information service can procure. Be it a “city” service (and the lover of Venice that I am is thinking at the lagoon issue), a “regional” service or an inter-regional service (look e.g. at the Baltic Sea or at the Danube strategy). Industry should improve its communication with DG Regio and with the “regional component” in general, simply to explain what can be achieved, what the potential of space can be to these Commission services. At least I would warmly recommend doing so.

(1) EARSC position paper on Multinnual Finantial Framewrok
Captions:
-Mr. Praet contribution in speech
-Mr. Praet, Member Cabinet President European Council and Mr. Dordain, ESA Director Gemeral
-Mr. Preat and Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, President of European Council during European day 2011

Thank you in advance for the elements of contribution to the Interview and for sharing your thoughts and comments with the EOmag readers.

EOmag!27_Interview with Michel Praet Member of cabinet of the president of the European Council.pdf

EO Service Development

Satellite data is used by World Bank teams to assess disaster risk, study water resources, forecast manifestations of climate change, monitor the state of agricultural and natural resources, measure city growth, and carry out many other assessments

Can you describe in a simple way your daily work at the sustainable development offices of the World Bank? Could you explain how your team is assisting the sustainable development projects? How these units working in a particular project are coordinated?

At the World Bank, the identification of development projects is done in partnership with national agencies and authorities, and their preparation is carried out by colleagues in the six regional vice-presidencies. Each of these has what we call “sector units” which are in charge of water, environment, urban development, etc. Colleagues at the central departments, such as me, try to facilitate their work by providing sector policies as well as link with external agencies that can bring other necessary financial and technical resources.

The World Bank and the European Space Agency (ESA) are now partnering for the purpose of mainstreaming the use of EO into the World Bank’s lending operations, across all sectors but especially in development work… is “eoworld” the first initiative at the World Bank approaching the Earth Observation services? Could you explain further about the initiative from the WB point of view? Does cooperation with other space agencies take a similar approach or is this one different?

Recognising the value of using Earth observation satellite data to support development activities, ESA and the World Bank are working together on several projects through the ‘eoworld’ joint initiative

EO-world is certainly the first initiative of this kind for the World Bank in the realm of earth observation, given its structured nature, the underlying partnership with the European Space Agency, and the number of parallel projects and EO applications (12) it supports. What we are trying to demonstrate through these projects is that earth observation can be a powerful tool to better identify, prepare or monitor the implementation of a project. The Bank currently has other forms of collaboration with other space agencies, such as JAXA, NASA, and NOAA, but these have been so far more circumscribed to specific regions or specific projects.

How do you prioritize the key objectives of the “eoworld” programme in short and long term? How should this programme be undertaken? What structures and processes can ensure long-term financing? How can the results be evaluated towards bringing about continuous improvements?

The results of the 12 projects should prove that earth observation can be beneficial to the World Bank’s operational work. It will be important to draw all the possible lessons from this first generation of applications, and see where they have been most effective. 12 projects is a “drop in the bucket” given the number of operations the Bank generates every year, therefore it will be very important to communicate the results of the EO applications and to carry out the related dissemination and across our institution.

How did you choose the sectors which will benefit from Earth observation services (water resources management, urban development, agriculture and forestry, natural resources management, and climate change?

Nearly all sectors grouped under the Sustainable Development Network relate to physical transformations, and are hence good candidates for earth observation applications. We wanted to make sure that the partnership with ESA was useful to as many sectors and regions as possible. From about thirty proposals we received from across the Bank, we chose the most promising candidates.

Which parameters will be used to demonstrate the value of these services as useful tools to World Bank teams in the planning, implementation, monitoring and assessment of their ongoing and future projects? (How in your vision EO services will help to i.e, “Agricultural production must increase by 70 per cent to feed 9 billion people by 2050”?

We should not be overly ambitious: each Bank development project tries to provide some improvements, be they to the state of conservation of a natural resource, or to the livelihoods of the local population, or to the economic output of a given sector or location. Results can only be achieved incrementally. Measuring results can certainly be much improved with the use of earth observation, especially when they are related to the physical transformation of the environment, or to its protection.

Overall, how do you see Earth Observation services as potentially useful tools in providing a wide range of information to support the monitoring and management of World Bank projects? How will the World Bank ensure the access to and develop the capacity to use all types of space-based information in support of sustainable development projects? How can this kind of support be organised in the future?

We will see a real increase in the use of earth observation services only when Bank project teams will understand more clearly the benefits of using this technology and consequently will allocate financial resources to purchase the related EO services on the market, from the funds for project identification, preparation and monitoring. I am sure that when the World Bank demand for EO services will increase, service companies will quickly learn how to support Bank teams with their products and expertise.

COOPERATION & PARTNERSHIP WITH EO INDUSTRY

What role EARSC, the European service industry association can play to help the World Bank activities? How EARSC can work with your unit to improve programme’s operations and get industry more involved? Would a joint initiative be appropriate to raise awareness and improve performance?

We already have a link to EARSC on our earth observation web-page www.worldbank.org/earth observation , where colleagues from across our institution looking for more information on the topic can reach out and see what kind of market offerings are available. For starters, it would be good if EARSC facilitated the link in the other direction, so that EARSC web-site visitors could familiarize themselves with the development work of the World Bank, especially in the sustainable development sectors.

How can regional-based service providers, which mainly are real small but highly innovative companies, be better integrated in such a development and cooperation projects?

The World Bank is a highly decentralized institution, and we have field offices that carry out a very large share of the technical work related to project identification, preparation and implementation supervision. This means that for many operations most of the decisions are taken in the field. However, procurement of specialized services, such as Earth Observation services, would be always conducted on an international basis; therefore the location of the firms would not be a constraint in any way.

FUTURE & SOCIETY

At the end of the interview, we would like to ask you for your overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC

I was personally very impressed by the impact that some EO applications had on a large study that I was managing recently, and I think that the on-going program of collaboration with ESA can really go a long way in demonstrating the potential of EO to many more teams and colleagues across the Bank. I am positive that in the next few years we will see a significant increase in the use of EO in the context of our development projects. So my message to EARSC members is to be on the look-out for more requests coming from the World Bank in the near future!

Biography
Anthony Gad Bigio is a Senior Urban Specialist with the Sustainable Development Network of the World Bank, and has been managing investment projects, studies and programs in the areas of cities and climate change, post-disaster infrastructure reconstruction, housing policy reforms, slum upgrading, urban poverty reduction, urban air quality management and historic cities preservation for over fifteen years. He has completed in June 2011 a major regional study on “Climate Change Adaptation and Natural Risk Preparedness in the Coastal Cities of North Africa” focusing on the cities of Alexandria, Casablanca and Tunis and on the Bouregreg Valley in Morocco, which included the use of EO applications provided by ESA. He is currently coordinating the World Bank – European Space Agency partnership aimed at mainstreaming the use of Earth Observation in the development operations financed by the World Bank. He is a Lead Author for the forthcoming 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and holds a Masters Degree summa cum laude in Architecture and Urban Planning from the University of Rome.

PDF: interview-mr-anthony-bigio-senior-urban-specialist-sustainable-development-network-world-bank

UN-SPIDER
In its resolution 61/110 of 14 December 2006 the United Nations General Assembly agreed to establish the “United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response – UN-SPIDER” as a programme within the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. UN-SPIDER focuses on the need to ensure that all countries as well as international and regional organisations can access and use of space-based solutions during all phases of the disaster management cycle.

How is the daily work of the UN-SPIDER Team?

UN-SPIDER is a global programme being implemented by a team of 14 professional and administrative staff distributed in three offices: Vienna, which is where the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs is located, and also Bonn, Germany and Beijing, China. This team works closely with a network of ten UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices in the implementation of a plan-of-work which is considered and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly every two years.

Currently UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices are being hosted by the following national organisations: the Algerian Space Agency (ASAL), the Iranian Space Agency (ISA), the Nigerian National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA), the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), the Romanian Space Agency (ROSA) and the National Space Agency of Ukraine (SRI NASU-NSAU) and by the following regional organisations: Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC), based in Kobe, Japan, the Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD) based in Nairobi, the University of the West Indies (UWI) based in St. Augustine, Trinidad and the Water Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean (CATHALAC) based in Panama City.

How does UN-SPIDER raise awareness about the importance of satellite technology in disaster management, saving lives and ensuring faster and more efficient recovery

The activities UN-SPIDER carries out focus on providing support to countries more specifically to the national institutions that are responsible for disaster management. Activities include workshops, expert meetings, technical advisory missions and also the UN-SPIDER Knowledge Portal (http://www.un-spider.org) which is one-stop shop for all the information available on the topic space-based information for disaster management and emergency response. This Knowledge Portal is recognised as the place to go for anyone needing information.

One of the several main tasks of the UN-SPIDER Programme is to ensure that satellite imagery is available and used to support efficient and effective humanitarian assistance on the ground, but how do you prioritize this specific key objective of the UN-SPIDER in short and long term?

There has been an increase in the number of mechanisms and initiatives that make satellite imagery available to support emergency and humanitarian response, namely the International Charter: Space and Major Disasters, Sentinel Asia, GMES SAFER and SERVIR, but also a number of commercial initiatives being structured by the private sector. UN-SPIDER’s focuses on bringing together these providers of space-based information for emergency response and the end users responding to an emergency. Ultimately if the information doesn’t reach the decision-maker or the emergency responders then all the effort put in benefits no one.

How does the United Nations coordinate the use of existing mechanisms that make satellite imagery available to support emergency and humanitarian response?

Several United Nations agencies already take advantage of the above leading mechanisms, as well as others such as G-MOSAIC, to support their mandates. There is a need for a closer coordination within the United Nations system particularly in areas where the above mechanisms do not provide what is needed. To deal with this specific need the United Nations Geographic Information Working Group (UNGIWG) agreed recently, at the suggestion of UNOOSA, on the establishment of an ad hoc Task Group focusing on Geospatial Information for Humanitarian and Emergency Response which will focus on ensuring the United Nations agencies take better advantage of what is available and build together additional opportunities.

Could you explain how your team is assisting the disaster management response?

UN-SPIDER staff together with the UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices are working to ensure that all end users can access and have the capacity to use all space-based information made available to support emergency events by existing mechanisms and initiatives; to provide guidance to existing mechanisms and initiatives on how they could improve and extend their support, as well as establish new opportunities and ensure that providers of space-based information and expertise know who to provide support to.

If we talk about the disaster management cycle, could you please comment on the prevention phase and lessons learnt form previous disasters, how these are integrated? How do you coordinate the stakeholders playing a role in the different phases?

The long term impact in saving lives, livelihoods and property will only happen if we manage to make a difference at the prevention phase. We have to use available space-based information and solutions to understand better exposure to hazards, underlying risks and vulnerability of populations. There is a disproportionate focus on emergency response when in fact we should be collectively focusing on preventing disasters before they happen. UN-SPIDER works with national governments focusing more on prevention through an established network of UN-SPIDER National Focal Points. A National Focal Point is a national institution nominated by the Government of the respective country, representing the disaster management and space application communities. The role of national focal points is to work with UN-SPIDER as well as with UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices to strengthen national disaster management planning and policies and implement specific national activities that incorporate space-based technology solutions in support of disaster management. Through the National Focal Points we ensure that there is a collective and targeted effort, channelling support to the real needs of each country.

How can EARSC work with UN-SPIDER to improve programme’s operations and get industry more involved? Would a joint initiative be appropriate to raise awareness and improve performance?

Several EARSC members are already involved in the UN-SPIDER activities. UN-SPIDER is a programme that ensures that providers of solutions are working with those that need the support. The industry sector always leads when it comes to innovation and optimisation of what is available and it is imperative that we take advantage of the comparative advantage the industry sector brings with it for the benefit of those that need the technology, more specifically the developing countries. I would personally welcome being contacted by additional EARSC members and help guide them in their involvement with the disaster management community taking advantage of the network of UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices and the established National Focal Points.

What in your opinion is a suitable level of resources for this programme?

Currently UN-SPIDER resources are channelled from both the United Nations regular budget and also from cash and in-kind contributions from several countries with the main donors being Austria, China, Germany and Turkey. The team will grow to 18 staff once the UN-SPIDER Office in Beijing is fully staffed. The level of available resources is sufficient for the planned activities to be carried out in 2011, and although 2012 will probably see a reduction in the amount of resources to be made available to the programme, the programme itself will increase its delivery output due to the increasing role the UN-SPIDER Regional Support Offices will have in carrying out programme activities within their respective regions.

At the end of the interview, we would like to ask you for your overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC

Recent mega disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and the more recent earthquake-tsunami that hit Japan have light-lighted the universality and the seriousness of the issue. All sectors of society have to be involved supporting a coordinated approach: governments, academia, private sector and the non-government organisations have to pitch in and get involved. UN-SPIDER ultimately focuses on strengthening the work carried out at the community level as we all know that prevention and first response is done at this level. UN-SPIDER welcomes working with the industry sector to ensure that their effort and involvement directly benefits those that will be impacted by an increasing number of disasters, helping to reduce the vulnerability of these communities to these disasters.

More info at http://www.un-spider.org

Short Biography
David Stevens (UN-SPIDER Programme Coordinator) was born in Brazil where he graduated first in Civil Engineering (BSc) and then Environmental Planning (MSc). He has worked internationally for nearly twenty years, including for the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, before joining the United Nations in 1999. He was assigned to his current Office in 2001.
E-mail: david.stevens@unoosa.org

What are the objectives of the GMES bureau in the short and long term? How do you work with other players in the European Commission given the relevance of EU information for many different policy fields? What are your relations with other stakeholders in the Member States?

2011 will be a challenging year for the GMES Bureau. First, we have to implement the European Earth monitoring programme and its initial operations which have been adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in 2010. This is one of the many stepping stones of GMES. The programme has a small budget, but an important governance scheme has been set up with it: this means that the bureau has to set up and run new committees like the GMES programme committee that brings together all EU Member states having mobilised funds for the initial operations phase of GMES. Together we have to agree on priorities and make sure that the GMES activities funded by the EU for the very first time outside the research domain dovetail well with what is continued in terms of GMES development projects funded by the EU and by the ESA members. We will also set up the users’ forum in order to validate user requirements for permanent GMES services. This will be an ongoing process as technology evolves as do user needs. But development cycles in relation to space infrastructure are long and therefore it is essential that the key users have a common understanding on what can be delivered by GMES. Second, we have to prepare the long term future for GMES by fitting the EU financial contribution into the EU´s budget for the years 2014-18 and beyond. We will have to design a programme, evaluate its impact, including on the downstream Earth Observation (EO) services market.

The fact that EO data can be used in many different areas is reflected in the GMES Bureau: our team consists of colleagues from different Commission departments (DGs) who work with experts from Member States and international organisations as well as European agencies. The Bureau’s work is guided by a steering committee in which most of the current and future “user departments” of the European Commission are represented. We meet regularly as a group or bilaterally to check evolving user needs and monitor the progress of GMES services development. For contacts with stakeholders outside the Commission we regularly organise meetings with the GMES Partners Board, the committee and of course the Users Forum who will start meeting in 2011. We also attend national user forums and are pleased to see that more and more of them are set up by our partners in the Member States.

How do you see the cooperation with the EO service industry evolving? What role can EARSC, the European service industry association play to support GMES and the work of the Bureau?

The EO market is an innovative market. Your industry has all the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit needed for developing services for citizens and companies most people could never dream of. The challenge for us is to understand the characteristics, requirements and potential size of the market so that we can better justify public investments in the basic EO infrastructure and design a data policy which stimulates the downstream service market whilst for instance responding to legitimate security concerns of public institutions. EARSC will therefore continue to play an important role in sharing their views with us as users and data providers. EARSC would also be helpful by up-dating us regularly on market developments such as new service providers having been started up and jobs created by relevant industry. Such information would help the European Commission to design other than space infrastructure related support instruments: the EU framework programme for competitiveness and innovation is a good example in this regard. It provides venture capital for innovative industries and helps young entrepreneurs to start up their businesses. The EO service industry should make its voice heard in the consultations for a successor programme.

In your opinion, what kind of downstream service industry would Europe benefit from? What are your expectations of EU developments for the citizen?

I think that Europe’s downstream Earth Observation (EO) businesses will size their own opportunities.
Europe’s businesses will have to make an impact on the challenges we (and the planet) are facing: we need to decarbonise our economy in order to mitigate climate change and if it is not to be stopped then we need to adapt to it; the world will need to feed an increasing population and in Europe we will have to cope with an ageing population. All this will open up new markets which in the one or other form can be assisted by EO services. The monitoring of the atmospheric composition, of the state of the seas and of land use, coping with all sorts of emergency situations as well as all sorts of services to enhance convenience in our daily live will drive the EO market. Like in the IT and telecommunications field the EO market will probably also witness convergence with the communication and navigation sectors. Which individual citizen would have thought of having the vast amount of smart services at his or her disposal one or two generations ago?

Why did you find the Head of GMES position attractive? Did you have any exposure to or past experience with the space or EO sector?

I was attracted by the cross-cutting use one can make of EO data and the complex nature of GMES. I have spent the past five years in the energy policy domain building up an energy market observatory. In this capacity I have come across geospatial information and remote sensing data. The energy industry is more and more dependent on information from geological surveys, the monitoring of sea state conditions around drilling rigs and oil platforms, the detection of oil spills, or wind and solar radiation forecasts. Scarce conventional resources and an increasingly important renewable energy sector together with a shared concern for the climate have raised my awareness for the importance of the EO business and for EO services which help public authorities to better define and implement policies. On top of that I hope that having a long a diverse experience in the European Commission combining regulatory policy development, negotiations and the design of support tools for enterprises will contribute to the further deployment of a programme with as many facettes as GMES.

Related links
EC website
Activities of the GMES services
CIP programme

Thank you for your time Ms. Berg…, and specially for sharing your thoughts and comments with the EOmag readers.

Eomag!24_Interview with Christine-Berg, Head GMES Bureau.pdf

UNDERSTANDING THE SECTOR

From the point of view of geo-information, how can EO service industry better understand the Insurance sector (business structure, strategy, potential growth technologies and prospects)?

The insurance sector is dynamic and has introduced a great variety of new insurance products in recent decades. Each line of business is very specific in terms of technical requirements. Therefore it would be interesting for the EO industry to gain a deeper insight into those lines using geo-related information and identify common business opportunities. Due to risk capital requirements, the insurance industry is always interested in maximum precision in risk evaluation. If this is not possible, the insurance industry may be prevented from servicing certain lines of business or regions. The EO service industry has the potential to improve risk evaluation or even make it possible in the first place.

As your role within your company, what challenges have you faced in this position and what in your background prepared you to meet the challenges of partnership within geo-information sector?

There are very well-informed experts in the geo-information sector and in the insurance industry. However, the two worlds are completely different, so it is not unlikely that people will be talking at cross purposes. As I also have some experience in programming GIS-based modelling software, it is an interesting challenge to interface the geo-information sector with the insurance industry’s needs.

Briefly, what the insurance sector needs and better understand how it uses or wants to use geo-information, such that we can align our services appropriately

Insurance products with geo-information components require a reliable input data supply. Clearly, the supply of geo-information has been substantially improved during the last few years. The crucial thing is that what the insurance industry needs is not raw data but information and intelligence. In the process of comprehensive risk evaluation, certain geo-related parameter values can have a huge impact on the overall analysis result. The insurance industry is striving to translate these parameters into risk information, such as premium rates or amount of losses. Technically, this translation is usually processed by very specific GIS-based models. In summary, the value of geo-information for the insurance sector will substantially increase when appropriate model applications can be provided along with spatial input data.

COOPERATION & PARTNERSHIP WITH EO INDUSTRY

In your opinion…

Is there a role for geo-information community inside insurance sector? Could both sectors work together? What type of dialogue mechanism already exists or could take place with the EO service industry? What is your opinion in future alliances/collaborations with industry players?

Yes, there are some geo-information communities inside the insurance sector. Insurance and reinsurance companies that are substantially involved in geo-related insurance products are staffed with experts in geo-information technology. These experts sometimes team up for joint projects with insurance-specific objectives. Munich RE also offers advanced training courses on geo insurance applications for our clients.

Where is your company announcing opportunities for the EO service industry and what can you advice to our members who like to start business with you? Would there be a role for EARSC to help finding potential contractors for doing business?

It is still difficult for both parties to identify the appropriate business partners. Usually we are not interested in off-the-shelf products and thus have to do some research about a companies’ capabilities and interests before we enter into a contract. It would be a great step forward if EARSC could provide a catalogue of service providers, including a summary of their expertise in the insurance sector. For example, Munich Re is looking for a company with additional dedicated yield modelling and system development capabilities for our agricultural insurance division .

Are there new upcoming opportunities from Climate Change? Increasing demand due to increasing awareness of the citizens? Increasing environmental risks? New opportunities – e.g. transportation along the North Eastern Passage?

It is foreseeable that climate change and increasing environmental risks will give rise to new insurance products in many markets. In the last few decades, the insurance sector has already had to cope with the effects of climate change. For example, in some agricultural production areas, typical precipitation and temperature patterns have changed. This has a substantial impact on crop production. Consequently the extent of insurance coverage and rates have to be adjusted. Terms and conditions of these insurance products are directly related to the variability of all influencing production factors like precipitation, temperature, soil, management, etc. Thus the technical analysis requires plenty of geo-information data on a high temporal and spatial resolution scale. It is very likely that we will need further specific tools for environmental risk evaluation.

SERVICES

Innovation within the insurance sector is usually important, can we (EO service industry and oil and gas) do take actions to bring the research and industry in both sectors together? Do you co-operate with industry to improve and innovate in terms of your products?

The insurance sector has two major objectives: first, increased efficiency of existing processes and, second, development of new insurance markets. Especially the latter is a concrete example of where there can be cooperation. Munich RE’s role is to establish a sustainable insurance system, which would pave the way for the EO industry to develop appropriate applications. We also need to define the insurance-related parts of the concept. In order to complete the cooperation, the EO service industry needs to contribute its technical expertise. Both industry sectors would benefit. The return for the EO sector is generated from selling applications and EO information periodically, whereas our income is generated from traditional insurance business. Both sectors need to keep an eye on the economics of their initial investments. The expected return from new business has to be sufficient in relation to development expenses.

FUTURE & SOCIETY

At the end of the interview, we would like to ask you for your overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC

We see a high potential for the geo-information sector to service the insurance industry. The key to success will be the capability to provide services of value for daily insurance business. Therefore it is essential to improve communication. It is still a difficult task to identify EO companies that are in a position to provide the services we need. My view is that companies capable of providing interdisciplinary competence can easily introduce valuable innovations to the insurance sector. Frequency, resolution and coverage of geo information data have been improved, which implies high potential benefits for the EO service industry. There are plenty of unexplored opportunities.

About Mr. Haverkamp
As a senior underwriter, Dr. Haverkamp is responsible for acquiring and developing agricultural business on behalf of Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurance company and leading agricultural reinsurer.
After two years of military service, he began his studies in agriculture and computer sciences in 1991. During this time, he also worked for the United States Department of Agriculture (TX), German Federal Ministry of Agriculture and an insurance company (LVM) in Germany. In 2000, he completed his academic education with a PhD thesis about method development for large-scale hydrologic models. Prior to the start of his reinsurance career in 2002, Dr. Haverkamp worked as a software engineer for Daimler-Benz InterServices (debis).

Eomag!23_Interview with Dr.Stephan Haverkamp, Munich RE.pdf

The Centre shall, in coherence with the European Security Strategy, support the decision–making of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in particular of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), including European Union crisis management operations, by providing, as appropriate, products resulting from the analysis of satellite imagery and additional/collateral data, including aerial imagery or in-situ data. What are the key objectives of the Satellite Centre?

The EUSC aims to be the leading provider of high quality and relevant GEOINT products and services in support to CFSP/CSDP; to be an essential partner in the EU geospatial intelligence community; to fully integrate the EUSC’s capabilities into CFSP/CSDP operations, especially with regard to the integration of civil and military planning capabilities at the Council General Secretariat; to play a key role in the security dimension of the EU Global Monitoring for Environmental and Security (GMES) programme in support to the European Security Strategy; and to continue to explore cooperative opportunities where benefits for further improvement in EU crisis response capabilities could arise, as directed by the Council.

The EUSC operates under the auspices of the European Union (EU) Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The Centre provides imagery analysis and geospatial intelligence products and services to the EU’s political and military leadership. However, could you explain how the EUSC is assisting the European Union and in which fields of operations?

The EUSC responds to requests from the Council of the EU, EU Member States, the European Commission, third states and international organizations such as the UN and NATO.

The EU Common Security and Defence Policy is growing and the EU Satellite Centre is growing with it. A major part of our work consists in supporting the increasing number of EU operations and missions, particularly EUMM Georgia, EUNAVFOR – Atalanta and, recently, EUFOR Tchad/RCA. Apart from this, the Centre receives tasks related to arms control, non-proliferation and treaty verification; counter terrorism; humanitarian aid missions; contingency planning of peacekeeping missions; counter crime and general security surveillance.

The EU Satellite Centre performs technical development activities in direct support to its operational activities, as well as specialised training for its image analysts, including external participants from Member States and Third States. How do you assure this support? Is this support provided alone or with industry alliances?

The EUSC has interdisciplinary project groups consisting of technicians, staff from the Operations Division and end users in order to define operational needs. Furthermore, it has a capability development team looking at what exists on the market and participating in different EU programmes and projects for technical and capability development. The Technical Division integrates and develops the software applications. This can be done with industrial partners or in-house.

As for the training of image analysts, the EUSC has a team dedicated to training of analysts both outside and inside the Centre. Courses offered by the Centre include ‘Initial Training’, Interpreting Industrial Installations, ‘Interpreting Nuclear Installations’, ‘Interpreting Military Forces’, ‘Introduction to GIS’ and a radar course. Due to the increasing demand from outside participants, the Training Unit is growing.

Which has been the most striking progress (in terms of quantity, complexity, institutional experience) as an Operational agency over the last year? And what are the connexions with the stakeholders (Council and Members states?) who are your key customers? Could you elaborate on what these products and services are? Which is your service added value?

The EUSC has experienced a remarkable increase in the demand for products during the last years. This evolution is especially due to the growing number of European Common Security and Defence Policy missions and operations. Those missions and operations are in fact the primary beneficiaries of EUSC products together with the Council of the EU. The creation of a unit in support of the Commission programme, ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security’ has also influenced the growth of the Centre significantly, both in terms of financial and human resources.

Our products are mostly geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) products, but also imagery intelligence (IMINT) products to some extent. GEOINT comprises the analysis of geospatial information to describe, assess and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on earth. GEOINT data sources include imagery and mapping data as well as collateral data, using all spatial skills and disciplines, including photogrammetry, cartography, imagery analysis, remote sensing and terrain analysis for exploitation. IMINT describes the exploitation of information from satellite and aerial imagery.

Analysis of this imagery by specialists turns information into intelligence for further use. Recent examples of our products include damage assessment in support of the relief efforts in Haiti, and currently a large number of products are related to anti-piracy off the Somali coast in support of operation EUNAVFOR Atalanta.

The added value of the EUSC is that it is the only European Union agency in this field of work, which means that we are a direct source of GEOINT and IMINT for the EU and a complimentary source for Member States. Furthermore, all Member States benefit from this European capacity by automatically receiving a copy of all the products requested by another Member State, the Council of the EU, the Commission or an international organisation, thus saving money and resources.

How do you see the European Earth Observation programme (GMES) related to your mission? And what’s your perception this time of GMES?

The EUSC works for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and particularly the EU Common Security and Defence Policy. Therefore it is the security part of GMES to which the EUSC contributes. This is why we normally talk about the ‘S’ in GMES when explaining the Centre’s involvement in the programme.

GMES is an important source of capability development from which the Centre, other stakeholders and citizens are benefitting and will benefit even more in the future, once GMES moves into its operational phase. During a recent Board Meeting, three possible roles of the Centre in GMES were discussed: the EUSC as an interface between CFSP/CSDP users and GMES services relevant for the mission of the EU Satellite Centre; the EUSC providing services beyond the sole remit of CFSP/CSDP users; and the EUSC as a coordinating entity for space data access in the field of security (in the longer term).

All Board Members supported the first idea which represents the implication of the EUSC so far, and the further development of the second proposal also received wide support.

At the end of the interview, we would like to ask you for your overall recommendations on the future development of the geo-information service sector, and would like to ask to give some hopefully positive messages to the members of EARSC

The relationship with relevant industrial actors in the fields of earth observation, GEOINT services and provision of data is of great importance to the EU, apart from better integration within the emerging European Union institutions in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy, especially now with the European External Action Service. The EUSC serves as a gateway to a number of national GEOINT actors, both in terms of production of GEOINT products and services and as a meeting platform for national GEOINT communities.

Within this framework, good service provided by European geo-information companies to the Centre is essential. The EUSC is very much interested in working even closer together with providers that can guarantee the highest quality, fast delivery, as well as perfect reliability and have incorporated a strong service orientation. These elements are essential in supporting the EUSC in its CFSP/CSDP mission on behalf of the EU Member States.

I expect that the small tradition of excellent contacts with industry will be strengthened in the future, thus making even better use of the comparative advantages of the European Union and its Member States in this field.

1. Third states are non-EU NATO members and other countries which are candidates for accession to the EU.

Thank you in advance for the elements of contribution to the Interview and for sharing your thoughts and comments with the EOmag readers

Biography Mr. Tomaz Lovrencic, Director European Union Satellite Centre
Mr. Lovrencic has been elected Deputy Director of the European Union Satellite Centre in 2006, and recently reelected for a second mandate. His responsibilities include management of production of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) products, based on satellite imagery, for the support of European Security and Defence Policy operations; relations with EUSC key stakeholders, the 27 EU Member States; and other activities of the EU Satellite Centre where space and security are involved.
As a career diplomat, Mr. Lovrencic served, between 2002 and 2006, as Slovenia’s Ambassador to the Kingdom of Spain, with non-residential accreditation to the Principality of Andorra and the Republic of Cuba. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Lovrencic worked as Diplomatic Advisor to Prime Minister dr. Janez Drnovšek (1996-1999) and then as Deputy Director (1999) and Director (2000-2002) of the Slovenian Intelligence and Security Agency, during which time he was also Secretary of Slovenia’s National Security Council.
Mr. Lovrencic received his B.A. magna cum laude in International Affairs from l’Université Américaine de Paris, France, and studied as an exchange student in Cairo, Egypt. He obtained his Master’s degree in Foreign Service, with distinction, from Georgetown University, Washington D.C.. He also did post-graduate studies in the field of international security at John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mr. Lovrencic speaks, in addition to his mother tongue Slovenian, also English, French, Spanish, German, and Croatian, and is presently studying Modern Standard Arabic.

www-eomag-eu_articles_1243_interview-with_dq1vgjme.pdf