Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action Final Report...Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action - Final Report Contents SECTION PAGE 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Evaluation

Framework Service Contract for the Procurement of Studies and other Supporting Services on Commission Impact Assessments and Evaluations

Interim, final and ex-post evaluations of policies, programmes and other activities

Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action

Final Report December 14th 2012

P O Box 159 Sevenoaks Kent TN14 5WT United Kingdom www.cses.co.uk

http://www.cses.co.uk/

Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action - Final Report

Contents

SECTION PAGE

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Evaluation aims and scope

1.2 Methodological approach

1.3 Policy context and development of GMES

1

1

3

2. The GMES Preparatory Action and project analysis 5

2.1 The GMES Preparatory Action

2.2 Budgetary allocation and project overview

2.3 2008 - Emergency Response (linkER)

2.4 2009 – Reference Data Access

2.5 2010 - Atmosphere and Maritime

2.6 The involvement of users

5

6

7

15

27

36

3. Assessment of key evaluation issues 38

3.1 Key evaluation issues 38

4. Conclusions and recommendations 47

4.1 Conclusions

4.2 Recommendations

47

49

APPENDICES 51

A. LIST OF INTERVIEWS 51

B. BIBLIOGRAPHY 55

Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action - Final Report Section

Glossary

1

GMES Glossary

A list of acronyms is provided below. Where appropriate, to assist readers of this document, a short description is provided of particular features of the GMES governance framework.

CLC Corine Land Cover – data updated over 6 year time series relating to land cover change and land cover

DG AGRI Directorate-General for Agriculture and rural development

DG DEVCO Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation

DG CLIMA Directorate-General for Climate Action

DG ECHO Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

DG ENV Directorate-General for the Environment

DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional Policy

DWH The Data Warehouse Agreement to procure GMES data (managed by ESA on behalf of the GMES Bureau)

EARSC European Association of Remote Sensing Companies

EC European Commission

ECMWF European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

EEA European Environment Agency

EEA-391 Includes the 32 EEA member countries and seven collaborating countries2

EEAS European External Action Service

EFAS European Flood Awareness System

Eionet The European Environment Information and Observation Network. A partnership network of the European Environment Agency and its member and cooperating countries, connecting National Focal Points.

EGNOS European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) - satellite based augmentation system (SBAS) developed by the European Space Agency

EO Earth Observation

1 The countries concerned are: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia - the former Yugoslavian Republic of, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 2 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/ figures/political-map-of-eea-member-and-collaborating-countries


Glossary

2

ERA European Research Area

ERCS Emergency Response Core Service (precursor to the EMS service)

ERS Emergency Response Service

ESA European Space Agency

Eumetsat European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites

EUSC EU Satellite Centre

EU-DEM3 Digital elevation model of Europe developed to provide reference access data for GMES on a comparable basis

EU HYDRO Pan-European data products produced through the GMES PA RDA project providing EEA39 data

FP7 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013)

FTS Fast Track Service

GIO GMES Initial Operations programme 2011-13 (Regulation 911/2010)

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security - the European contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) initiative, and the second flagship initiative of the European Space Policy.

Galileo European Satellite Navigation and First Flagship Initiative of the European Space Policy.

GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems which will link existing and planned EO systems

GIO GMES Initial Operations (2011-2013)

GIO-EMS The GMES Emergency Management Service

GIO land The GMES Land Monitoring Service

GMES Committee Also referred to as GC - the membership is restricted to Member States’ national authorities.

GMES User Forum A user representative body established under the GIO Regulation.

HRL High Resolution Layer

Horizon 2020 The successor programme to FP7 (2014-2020)

ICEMAR GMES Pilot Sea Ice Service for Maritime Operations – providing information for ships navigating in the European Arctic and Baltic Sea

3 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/digital-elevation-model-of-europe

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/digital-elevation-model-of-europe


Glossary

3

INSPIRE The INSPIRE Directive - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (2007/2/EC) establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe to support Community environmental policies.

JRC Joint Research Centre

LinkER GMES pilot project intended to support the operational use of GMES Emergency Response Service products across the whole European Union

MACC Monitoring Atmospheric Composition & Climate is the pre-operational GMES Atmosphere Service

MIC The Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC). DG Humanitarian Aid and Civil- European Commission.

NCPO National Civil Protection Organisations

NEREUS Network of European Regions Using Space Technologies

NFP National User Focal Points (users of GMES-EMS)

NMCAs National Mapping, Land Registry and Cadastral Agencies

NRC National Reference Centres on Land Cover

ObsAIRve GMES PA air quality service

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

PA Preparatory Action on GMES

PSI Directive Public Sector Information Directive (PSI) 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information

RDA Reference Data Access

REA Research Executive Agency

RTD Research and Technological Development

SAFER Services and Applications For Emergency Response - a FP7 precursor GMES project in the Emergency Management field

Security Board GMES security board composed of national members to assess security elements of the implementation of GMES-related programmes

SME Small and Medium Size Enterprise

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

VHR Very High Resolution

WFP World Food Programme


Introduction 1

1

1. Introduction

This document contains the Final Report prepared by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) 4 in respect of the ‘Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action’. The GMES PA was allocated a budget of EUR 10.2 million during the 2008-2010 period. Three annual calls for tenders of 3 years duration were supported which led to the award of five preparatory projects.

1.1 Evaluation aims and scope

The overall aim was to provide an interim evaluation of the implementation of the GMES Preparatory Action 2008-2010 (“PA”) to date (most projects are on-going since these were mainly of 3 years duration). The specific evaluation aims were to:

Evaluate the extent to which the GMES PA has achieved its stated goals, i.e. demonstrated the potential benefits of GMES services and fostered user uptake.

Assess the PA’s contribution to laying the basis for the development of GMES Initial Operations, for instance, by supporting the preparation of the GMES Regulation and informing GMES data, information and security policies.

The evaluation was commissioned by the Space, Security and GMES Directorate/H4 – GMES Bureau within DG Enterprise and Industry. Unit H2 “Space Research and Development” has also been closely involved in the evaluation since the administration and management of the GMES Preparatory Action was handled by this Unit. An Evaluation Steering Group (‘ESG’) led by Units H2 and H4 have provided steering during the evaluation process.

An evaluation is required under Article 21 of the Implementing Rules of the EU Financial Regulation for all EU activities over 5m EUR and will also be important in ensuring that lessons from the GMES Preparatory Action are learned of relevance to future programme planning.

With regard to the scope, the evaluation is of an interim nature, since some purchase orders made through the service contracts are still on-going. The linkER project funded under the 2008 call for tenders has been completed. However, projects funded under the 2009 and 2010 budgetary allocation are on-going.

1.2 Methodological approach

The evaluation has been carried out over three phases: an inception phase; a data collection and fieldwork phase; and, an analysis and reporting phase. It should be noted that there are close links between this evaluation and the Interim Evaluation of the European Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011-2013) which was undertaken in parallel.

The diagram on the following page summarises the methodological approach and work plan adopted to carry out the evaluation:

4 The evaluations are part of CSES’ Framework Contract for the Procurement of Studies and other Supporting

Services on Commission Impact Assessments and Evaluations (Lot VI, 2008/S146-195858).


Introduction 1

2

Figure 1.1: Methodological approach

Phase 1 Preparatory Tasks

•Set-up Meeting

•Preliminary Interviews

•Background/desk research

•Identification of additional sources

•Methodology

•Plans for Phase 2

•Inception report

Phase 2

Data Collection & Consultation

•Analysis of the sources

•Interview Programme / Data Collection

• Survey

•Case studies (benchmarking exercise)

•Option development

Phase 3

Analysis & Impact Assessment

•Analysis of Findings

•Assessment of Impacts

•First Findings and Recommendations Reports

•Draft Final Reports

•Monitoring Framework

•Presentation of Final Reports

Inception Report

Progress report

Final Report

20 weeks12 weeks3 weeks

Key elements of the methodology and the numbers of interviews carried out are now summarised:

Interview programme

Discussions have been held with a wide range of GMES stakeholders, including Commission officials across a range of DGs that are current and potential future users of GMES, the EEA and the JRC, end-users, members of the GMES Committee and wider stakeholders, such as regional and sectoral associations (e.g. EARSC, NEREUS). In addition, interviews carried out as part of the parallel Interim Evaluation of GMES Initial Operations 2011-2013, have also fed into the evaluation since activities supported through the Preparatory Action are already contributing to the implementation of the GIO (e.g. reference data products – EU-DEM and EU-Hydro).

A total of 65 interviews were carried out as part of the interview programme. The number of interviews carried out by type of stakeholder is provided below. It should be noted that some stakeholders interviewed have more than one role.

Table 1.1: List of completed interviews

Interview category No. of interview (face to face)s

No. of interviews (phone)

Interviews (total)

Commission officials – space sector (Unit H1, H2, H4, GP1)

7 0 7

Commission officials - wider policy areas (e.g. DG CLIMA, JRC, DG MARE, DG ECHO, DG RTD, DG ENV, DG REGIO, DG AGRI, DG DEVCO)

7 9 16

Representatives from the European Space Agency (ESA) 0 1 1

Representatives from the EEA 3 0 3

Representatives from the GMES Committee and national authorities

5 5 10


Introduction 1

3

Industry representatives (including SMEs) 7 10 17

GMES User Forum members and GMES users 6 5 11

Total 7 30 65

The interview programme covered the full spectrum of GMES stakeholders. In the case of the GMES PA, we interviewed service contractors involved in all five projects being supported. CSES also attended two GMES-related conferences during the evaluation. This allowed for additional informal contact and feedback on lessons learned to be obtained. A large number of Commission officials were spoken to compared with a ‘typical’ evaluation because EU policy makers are among the target users and GMES will produce comparable pan-European data (and across EEA-39). There are a wide range of different possible uses of GMES across different Directorates-General and EU agencies with strong links/ under the aegis of particular DGs

A user survey was launched in June 2012 and an effort was made to send out the survey to as wide a range of user organisations at European, national and regional levels as possible. CSES identified user contacts across different types of user groups e.g. emergency response/ civil protection, environmental and forestry. The survey was sent to a database developed of 380 organisations. In addition, since the full contact details of members of the User Forum and GMES Committee were confidential, the Commission directly emailed the survey to them. The full survey results are provided in Appendix D in the evaluation report for the parallel evaluation of the GIO. Clearly, some results are relevant to the Preparatory Action since the survey addressed GMES users more broadly. We do not present the full results, but rather selected questions of relevance to the PA to avoid duplication.

1.3 Policy context

GMES is one of two European flagship initiatives within the European Space Policy5 alongside Galileo. In accordance with Article 189 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), it enables the EU to conduct space-related activities beyond Research and Development actions and is carried out in partnership between the EU, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Member States. Its primary objective is to produce GMES information services in the environment and security fields, to promote greater access to space-based data and information and to encourage the tailoring of GMES data to meet the needs of users.

Following the 1998 Baveno Manifesto, the EU made a strategic decision to develop an independent European space-based earth observation capacity at the 2000 Gothenburg Council in order to deliver services in the environmental and security fields through GMES. The intention was that this capacity would be designed to ensure that it firmly built on and strengthened existing research capacities in the EO field led by the European Space Agency (ESA), Eumetsat and by individual Member States.

From 1998 to 2013, funding has been allocated to GMES by the EU and ESA for the initial development of GMES (e.g. investment in the development of pre-operational services and GMES initial operations, and in the space and in-situ components). GMES Initial Operations are now underway in the 2011-13 period and the programme is expected to evolve towards operational status from 2014 onwards.

A wide spectrum of public sector stakeholders at different levels of governance – European, national, regional and local need GMES data and information to feed into evidence-based policy making, to monitor trends at EU level and across specific Member States and regions and to fulfil

5 COM (2011) 152 final of 04.04.2011


Introduction 1

4

the national organisations and the EU’s role in monitoring regulatory compliance, for instance with Environmental Directives transposed into national legislation.

GMES is intended to foster the exploitation of Earth Observation’s (EO) industrial potential, and is aligned with a broad range of EU policies, such as the environment, agriculture and forestry, transport and energy and regional development. GMES plays an especially important role in helping Member States to meet legally-binding environmental monitoring and reporting requirements and the Commission and the EEA to monitor compliance against EU environmental Directives and to fulfil the EU’s international environmental obligations, for instance, in respect of climate change monitoring.

The economic dimension of GMES should also be stressed. Once fully operational, through the policy of full and open data access, GMES will contribute to promoting growth and employment by promoting the development of new commercial applications and services across many different sectors through full and open access to EO data and geo-information services. Furthermore, GMES has an important strategic role to play in strengthening the EU’s contribution to global Earth Observation (EO) initiatives requiring international cooperation, such as the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which will integrate systems of systems to provide improved spatial data information globally.


The GMES Preparatory Action - project analysis 2

5

2. The GMES Preparatory Action and project analysis

Section 2.1 provides an introduction to the GMES Preparatory Action and outlines its role and objectives and the context in which it has been implemented in parallel with other programming instruments. The achievements to date through the implementation of five projects supported by budgetary year are then examined in Sections 2.2 – 2.5. Section 2.6 considers the involvement of users in the GMES Preparatory Action.

2.1 The GMES Preparatory Action

In line with the phased approach to the development and implementation of GMES services, the GMES Preparatory Action (“PA”) was launched in 2008. Preparatory Actions are a specific EU financial instrument that enables the Commission to prepare proposals with a view to the adoption of future actions6. This allows for a process of experimentation, testing and learning in order to fine-tune programme architecture.

The PA’s objectives are to: (i) support the development, validation and future implementation of pre-operational GMES services funded through FP77 and future operational GMES services; (ii) to foster user-uptake; and, (iii) to develop user interfaces.

The five projects supported through the PA were intended to demonstrate the potential benefits of GMES through activities to help foster user uptake of selected GMES pre-operational services funded through FP7 by users (both commercial and institutional). Some projects funded thorugh the PA were also meant to demonstrate the potential of GMES to spearhead the development of downstream services and applications. The timing of the implementation of different GMES funding instruments has been partly in parallel and partly sequential - dependent on the different stages of development of GMES services.

Below, an overview of projects supported and their implementation timeframes is provided. The way in which these projects support other areas of GMES - and the extent of interaction between projects - is also highlighted. Budgetary aspects relating ot the pilot projects are examined later in this section.

Table 2.1: GMES Preparatory Action Projects – links with other instruments to develop GMES

Project Implementation timeframe Links with other GMES programming instruments (e.g. GMES precursor services in FP7, specific services under GMES Initial Operations).

2008 – LinkER (Emergency Response)

3 years - 16/12/08 - 31/03/12 (originally was projected to end 31/12/11)

LinkER was designed to promote uptake of the data products produced through the SAFER project (FP7). This ran in parallel (SAFER ended on 31/03/12).

2009 - Reference Data Access (Lot 1 – EU27, Lot

3 years - Lots 1 and 2 will both extend from December 2009 –

RDA Lots 1 and 2 will support the implementation of both the GIO land and the

6 Preparatory Actions can only take place a maximum of twice, and are limited in time to three years.

7 The PA was intended to complement the following FP7 projects in particular: Land monitoring (Geoland2),

Ocean monitoring (MyOcean), Emergency response (SAFER) and the two pilot GMES services (Atmosphere monitoring (MACC) and Security (G-MOSAIC).



6

2 – 3rd countries) December 2012 EMS-Mapping Service under GMES Initial Operations 2011-13

2010 – the ICEMAR (marine) and ObsAIRve (atmosphere) projects

3 years - Icemar December 2010 to December 2013.

3 years - ObsAIRve December 2010 - December 2013.

The two projects are not directly link to other GMES funding instruments, but provide a testing bed for demonstrating how GMES data has potential to stimulate the development of downstream services.

It is important to note, however, that the GMES Preparatory Action is different from a ‘typical’ Preparatory Action in that there has not been a straight forward sequential approach in transitioning from a pre-operational R&D environment to an operational environment because of the different stages of development of different GMES services, which means that most GMES activities have been funded under two different financial instruments - FP7 SPA and GMES Initial Operations (‘GIO’). Some pilot projects under the PA have therefore been running in parallel with timing overlaps between mutually supporting projects under the various financial instruments.

The GMES PA has provided the first smallscale operational funding for GMES alongside pre-operational services funded under FP7 Space in a research programme environment. Given the low budget available through the PA, the focus has been on supporting specific projects.

Although the GMES Preparatory Action was mentioned in DG ENTR’s annual work programme, there were no dedicated annual work programmes. Rather, the specific objectives were set out in the annual calls for tenders, depending on the particular topic(s) selected. This reflected the small budgetary scope and experimental nature of a preparatory action.

2.2 Budgetary allocation and project overview by year

The funding allocation for the GMES Preparatory Action was 10m EUR over the three year period 2008-2010. A total of 5 projects were funded across 3 annual calls for tenders, one in 2008, two in 2009 and two in 2010. A summary overview is provided below:

Table 2.2: GMES PA projects and funding allocation

Project Funding (EUR)

2008 – LinkER (Emergency Response) 2.823 million

2009 - Reference Data Access (Lot 1 – EU27, Lot 2 – 3rd countries)

2.08 million

2010 – the ICEMAR (marine) and ObsAIRve (atmosphere) projects

2.095 million – ICEMAR

1.975 million – ObsAIRve

Total 8.82 million

An analysis of the state of play in implementation of the projects supported under the different calls (and their achievements to date) is now provided. In each case, CSES provides a project description, outlines the main objectives and the activities that have been supported to date. An analysis is then provided as to the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, value added and results and impacts to date of each project.



7

2.3 2008 - Emergency Response (linkER)

The Call for Tenders under the 2008 Preparatory Action was intended to support the development of user interfaces in the emergency response field. The linkER project was designed to help structure the user community and through the development of a technical interface to facilitate access to the GMES ERS Toolbox to promote interest among civil protection users in GMES data products. linkER was therefore intended to support user uptake for data products produced through the FP7 SAFER pre-operational Emergency Response Service (‘ERS’) and to lay the foundation for the development of an operational GMES service in the emergency management field, the EMS-Mapping Service which is one of the two key operational services within GMES Initial Operations 2011-13.

Table 2.3: linkER - Emergency Response (2008 call)

Project title/ area of intervention: linkER - Supporting the implementation of operational GMES services in Emergency Response.

Budget – EUR 2.823 million

Implementation timeframe: December 2008 to December 2011 (extended to March 31st 2012 to ensure service continuity with EMS-Mapping in Rush Mode).

Goals: to support the development of: (i) a user interface in the field of emergency response; and, (ii) the operational use of GMES ERS products across all EU countries in the Civil Protection Mechanism (EU27 MS, EEA countries plus Croatia) and in DGs RELEX and ECHO at the European Commission.

Lead contractor and no. of partners: coordinated by e-GEOS. The project involved 12 partners.

Project overview and key activities: during the initial 12– 18 months of project implementation, there was a focus on the identification of the most appropriate organisation at national level to be nominated as the National User Focal Point (NFP) for GMES Emergency Management. In parallel, meetings were arranged by the various organisations within the consortia involved in activities helped to raise awareness about GMES activities with civil protection agencies in all EU27MS. NFPs were then established in all participant countries taking part in the civil protection mechanism. A similar process to set up contact points within EC Delegations in third countries (DG RELEX) and in DG ECHO (humanitarian aid) also took place.

Wider activities through the linkER project were, in summary:

Training and awareness-raising activities at national and EU levels

Development of a customised web-based technical interface and installation of IT hardware in user National Focal Points (NFPs) and connection with EC User Focal Points in the DG ECHO/MIC (Civil Protection), DG RELEX (Delegations) and DG ECHO (humanitarian aid).

The production of written deliverables e.g. a report on the outcomes from user workshops, a report on the verification of testing and validation by users, development of a dissemination plan to promote the GMES ERS among users and a final report outlining lessons learned for the development of the future EMS-Mapping Service.

Training and awareness-raising activities were carried out across all Member States so as to raise awareness about, and understanding as to how to use and fully exploit the data products produced through SAFER. The aim was to promote greater understanding about the usefulness of GMES data in combination with reference data to complement existing data sources available to civil protection agencies through national sources. A further aim was to ensure that civil protection actors in countries



8

that had not hitherto used the EMS were made fully aware about the service in order to encourage users in a wider number of countries to activate the service.

In addition to national activities, EU-level training events were held for users from civil protection agencies and wider stakeholders in the emergency management field to explain how to access and use ERS data products. For instance, a presentation was made outlining the key features of the service to the Civil Protection Forum in 2009, and in 2010, a large workshop was held in Brussels that brought together ERS users with EU level stakeholders (e.g. the GMES Bureau, JRC).

A customised web-based technical interface was developed to distribute the GMES ERS Toolbox. This allows national and EC user Focal Points to access the GMES ERS. The interface was installed within each user NFPs and in the EC User Focal Points in the DG ECHO/MIC (Civil Protection), DG RELEX (Delegations) and DG ECHO (humanitarian aid). All User Focal Points were then given direct access to GMES ERS products to allow them to easily integrate them into their operational workflows.

Since linkER was designed to support the implementation of operational GMES services in the Emergency Response field, it is important to provide background information on the SAFER project, which was a pre-operational GMES service funded through FP7.

Table 2.4: FP7 SAFER - Emergency Response data products in rush and non-rush mode

The SAFER project was implemented between 2009 and 31st March 2012. Registered users in the civil protection field were able to trigger the service. Activities supported through linkER, such as awareness raising and training, promoted the uptake of ERS data products produced through SAFER. There were two aspects to the pre-operational service:

The Emergency Response Service – the most visible aspect of the project. ERS products were available in both rush and non-rush mode for European Civil protection agencies and humanitarian

actors (including those with an international remit). Under SAFER in non-rush mode, there have been a lot of activations outside the EU, reflecting the fact that the availability of reference data and maps is very limited in developing countries.

The Emergency Support Service: Sustaining and completing the core ERS, the Emergency Support service provides reference products and situation maps. These geo-information products are specifically dedicated to the preparedness and recovery phases of the crisis.

Relevant key issues identified through the Interim evaluation of FP7 Space undertaken in 2010, which assessed GMES pre-operational services were that: (i) there was a growing number of activations reflecting progressively higher demand from users as awareness levels about the service and its benefits grew); and, (ii) that there were sometimes problems in terms of the timeframe for the delivery of final data products / maps in rush mode compared with user needs.

Relevance

The research found that linkER was highly relevant in addressing identified user needs. This was attributed to the fact that there has been a concerted effort to consult with users from national civil protection agencies throughout the process of developing a GMES Emergency Management Service. Frequent discussions were held between DG ECHO, DG JRC, the service provider responsible for linkER and the lead coordinator of the consortium responsible for SAFER. There were also close direct contacts between these organisations and end users, for instance through conferences and informal on-going dialogue by email and phone.



9

The strong relevance of linkER was confirmed by a variety of GMES stakeholders, from end users themselves, through to the contractors involved in delivery, and those responsible for technical coordination within the EC (e.g. DG ECHO and the JRC). Feedback on user needs obtained through linkER was seen as having been vital during (i) the pre-operational phase by informing the development of technical user interfaces to reflect operational needs and (ii) in the design and configuration of the EMS-Mapping Service within the GIO.

A user in the civil protection field in Italy commented that they were ‘satisfied that their needs had been taken into account in both the linkER and SAFER projects, and that there was effective cooperation and coordination between the two’. The user service manual for SAFER A service contractor responsible for providing ad hoc support to the GMES Bureau

During the early stages of the implementation of the linkER and SAFER projects funded through FP7, there were challenges in ensuring that users understood the purpose of the two different projects and the distinction between the two in terms of where to go for different types of support. End users were unfamiliar with, and initially confused by the different programming instruments i.e. the Preparatory Action being implemented in conjunction with FP7 Space. There was uncertainty and initially some misunderstanding among users which aspects of GMES emergency response should be dealt with through SAFER and linkER respectively, and the inter-relationship between the two.

Some users were confused by the fact that there were two projects related to emergency management being implemented in parallel funded under different financial instruments. Since some organisations were involved in both projects, the fact that there were different rules and procedures for participants was somewhat confusing. However, clearly, this simply reflects the fact that whereas linkER was an initial operational service financed through a service contract meant to facilitate the preparation of the GIO, SAFER was a pre-operational service that required a co-financing contribution from project partners.

This problem could not be avoided however. It only became clear that funding would be available for a GMES Preparatory Action relatively late in the planning process for future GMES initial operational services under the GIO. This meant that projects under the PA have had to be implemented in parallel with GMES projects under FP7 SPA. Some interviewees expressed the view that at the beginning, this had made it difficult for them to differentiate between the respective objectives of each project.

According to interviewees from the Commission’s GMES Bureau and DG ECHO, this initially caused some difficulties for the service contractor . However, although there were concerns about possible duplication during the early stages of implementation due to the fact that different consortia were involved, linkER successfully overcame these challenges and implemented activities and provided support that was highly supportive of, and complementary with the SAFER pre-operational Emergency Response Service (ERS). This was achieved through discussions between the Space Research & Development Unit (H2), which had overall responsibility for coordinating the PA’s implementation, DG ECHO and the DG JRC (which had shared responsibility for the technical coordination role for the GMES ERS), the service contractors responsible for linkER and the consortium responsible for SAFER.

According to DG ENTR and DG ECHO, users quickly became familiar with the distinction between SAFER’s GMES ERS data products and the technical support role played by linkER both in supporting the implementation of linkER and in structuring the future EMS-Mapping Service within the GIO 2011-13. This was confirmed by users themselves.



10

Effectiveness

A number of issues were examined as part of the assessment of effectiveness, such as: the degree to which the linkER project was successful in structuring the GMES user community in the civil protection field, the extent to which wider objectives were achieved, such as raising awareness about ERS data products developed through FP7 SAFER and the contribution to supporting user take-up.

Setting up an EU-wide network of National User Focal Points (“NFPs”) across EU27 + EEA countries from scratch was challenging. It took considerable time to hold discussions with all EU27 Member States and EEA countries to identify and then agree which organisation would assume responsibility as the NFP at national level and be responsible for activating the ERS. One of the complexities was that organisational arrangements for coordinating civil protection and crisis management actors differ between EU countries, with different types of organisations fulfilling the NCP role.

For instance, in Finland a meteorological institute is the NFP, whereas in France, the Ministry of Interior has taken on this role and in Germany, it is the responsibility of the Federal office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance. This was not however seen as problematic by civil protection stakeholders interviewed, provided that there is sufficient coordination between national and regional users in the civil protection and emergency management fields.

Although the establishment of NFPs was a time-consuming process, the establishment of the network of NFPs was viewed by all stakeholders as having made an important contribution to structuring the GMES user community in the civil protection / emergency management field by ensuring that coordination mechanisms have been put in place at national and regional levels so that through a single contact point (i.e. the NFP) the ERS service (now EMS-Mapping) can be activated, and data can be accessed via the online interface.

In the view of DG ECHO, DG JRC and users themselves, linkER has been an essential mechanism to strengthen cooperation and coordination between national and regional civil protection agencies to ensure that procedures are in place for the speedy activation of the new GIO-EMS in rush mode in case of disaster or emergency. The linking of national civil protection agencies was viewed as being a necessary part of the process of building up to full operational GMES services.

In many Member States, there is a general challenge of ensuring effective coordination across different areas of emergency management at national, regional and local levels since there is a multi-agency environment. The importance of ensuring strong coordination through the setting up and operation of the network of NFPs was especially stressed in those Member States with federal and regionalised civil protection structures, such as Germany, Italy and Spain.

In the specific context of GMES, there is a need to ensure that coordination structures are in place across different Member States so that there are procedures for ensuring that sub-regional and local actors can both trigger the service through the NFP and that when triggered at national level that all interested agencies can access the data products, not only those that directly activated the service. In Germany, for instance, the Federal office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance fulfils the NFP role and operates a 365/7 Joint Situation Room able to provide an immediate response at national level to disasters and emergencies. An interviewee commented that it has ‘a critical role to play in disseminating imagery / data products to all relevant actors at regional level (Bundesländer) and to lower administrative levels under both the Rush and Non-Rush Mode services’.

The establishment of an EU-wide network of NCPs is one of linKER’s key achievement s. However, in moving towards an operational service, it was recognised that there is a need to make a transition



11

away from a reliance on personal connections between national civil protection bodies (worked very well in a pre-operational environment e.g. under linkER/ SAFER to more functional links. There were seen to be risks by civil protection users in having particular named individuals responsible for service activation at national level rather organisations being designated. This was acknowledged as no longer being appropriate under the GMES EMS-Mapping Service, given that it is necessary to ensure guaranteed service continuity under the operational service coordinated by DG ECHO’s MIC, which is operated on a 24/7 basis, 365 days per year. Indeed, the responsible lead contractor for linkER identified the development of more functional links as among the most important lessons learned in their final report looking ahead to GMES Initial Operations.

A challenge for linkER was to strengthen awareness and increase the number of user activations of SAFER in EU countries that had not previously used the service. There were a comparatively low number of service activations from users in the new member states during SAFER until towards the latter part of the project, and a small number of countries such as France and Italy accounted for a disproportionate number of activations. While this was not a problem per se in that such countries have clearly experienced a number of disasters in recent years such as forest fires and earthquakes, in the interest of securing the buy-in of all Member States, there was a need to ensure that relevant actors in other EU countries became more familiar with ERS services available through FP7.

Given the initial difficulties in promoting user uptake of SAFER across many Member States, the contractor and partner organisations responsible for linkER identified a need for a concerted effort to promote awareness about ERS data products and the way in which the service could be accessed through proactive engagement with national civil protection and wider user communities. The partners in the linkER consortium decided to arrange meetings in each of EU27MS with civil protection users. This approach had not originally been envisaged, but was effective in raising awareness among users, with comprehensive country coverage which was necessary.

linkER was effective in overcoming low awareness levels among civil protection users in some EU countries about the role of GMES and its potential application in strengthening crisis response and emergency management capabilities and in improving common operational picture.

It helped to raise awareness in a number of ways, such as the organisation of training on a regionalised, geographic basis to cover the whole EU27 and wider countries participating in the MIC. This was viewed as having been effective in reaching target users from civil protection organisations and in raising awareness in countries that had not activated the SAFER pre-operational service or used its data products previously. Five dedicated GMES/ERS Training NFPs events were held targeting civil protection users in northern, eastern, southern and central European countries.

In additional, training was organised at EU-level for staff from DG ECHO’s MIC and the newly established EEAS (formerly DG RELEX). The training courses were designed to provide information about the GMES ERS product portfolio, the applications in disaster management and how to use data products through FTP downloads via the customised user interface. The training courses were regarded as having been useful in ensuring that EU level stakeholders were kept up to date on the evolution of the ERS and this should help, especially in the case of EMS-Mapping in non-rush mode, to raise awareness among EEAS staff about the potential benefits of the service in strengthening the effectiveness of monitoring in third countries.

Through the implementation of these activities, linkER promoted awareness about, and uptake of ERS data products among the civil protection user community. There was a progressive increase in user take up levels over time in SAFER, with about 50 activations per annum by the final year of the research project. However, it is difficult to isolate the number of activations to linkER alone, since



12

wider factors influence the extent of service activation – variation in the frequency of disasters and emergencies, activities organised for users not falling within the scope of linkER (e.g. conferences on the GMES ERS that were organised by the Commission, the holding of GMES user days by individual Member States, workshops organised through SAFER, etc.

A key lesson from linkER is that there remains an on-going need to promote awareness about the relevance and applicability of GMES data in disaster response situations and in crisis / emergency management planning.

The lead contractor responsible for linkER stated that partnership working arrangements between members of the consortium had generally worked well. There were 12 partners in total, but e-Geos and the DLR played an especially important role in project implementation. While having a larger number of partners was felt to be appropriate for linkER, given its role in structuring the future service, it was viewed as being more effective to work with a smaller number of partners in implementing operational services.

A key lesson learned was that there is an on-going need to exchange knowledge and experience between National / EC Focal Points and the GMES. Cooperation on a regular basis was seen as essential to ensure that users have a good understanding about GMES data products in the emergency field and their potential benefits. This could be achieved through the regular holding of workshops and joint training exercises to bring together civil protection actors.

Results and impacts

The main achievements from the linkER project are already referred to under the assessment of ‘effectiveness’. In summary, the main project results were:

Structuring the emergency management user community - through the setting up of an EU-wide network of NFPs in 31 MS (EU27+EEA) and EC User Focal Points in the DG ECHO/MIC (Civil Protection), DG RELEX (Delegations) and DG ECHO (humanitarian aid);

Development of a user interface - to access the ERS service and associated data products produced through SAFER e.g. the web-based GMES ERS toolbox. The interface will be updated for the new EMS-Mapping Service along similar principles e.g. FTP downloads;

The installation of IT hardware in NFPs - belonging to the EC’s MIC. This will ensure that the network of NFPs can access data products easily and is securely linked.

Awareness- raising and training – the heightening of awareness among civil protection agencies about how to access GMES ERS data products and their potential utility;

Reinforcing cross-border cooperation in disaster response situations and in crisis / emergency management.

Utility

Another consideration was ‘utility’ i.e. how far the activities implemented through linkER were useful to civil protection users, and the extent to which such users view the data products that they have been provided with access to as useful. A caution here is that the ERS data products were produced through SAFER, which is out of direct evaluation scope.

One of linkER’s achievements was the development of a customised user IT interface and the installation of IT hardware for all NFPs. Through these activities, linkER facilitated access for users to the GMES ERS Toolbox and to specific ERS data products produced through SAFER. The interface was perceived by users as having been effective because it was sufficiently flexible to enable civil



13

protection agencies to integrate ERS data products into operational workflows. The contractor stated that more work than anticipated had been required to develop the software for the technical user interface. However, users were positive about the extra effort made, since the interface was regarded as user-friendly and fit for purpose.

Nevertheless, some difficulties had to be overcome during linkER’s implementation. For instance, although IT hardware was successfully installed across the network of NCPs in all EU27 and EEA3 Member States, it could not be installed within the two EU-level target users, DG ECHO / MIC and the EEAS due to security restrictions. This problem was however overcome towards the end of project implementation, since a separate server was set up to meet the needs of the MIC (Civil Protection)8. Overall, however, the development of a user-interface and installation of hardware in NFPs was viewed positively and seen as having added value by users - mainly civil protection agencies.

The timeliness of data availability following a service activation was identified as a critical issue for the SAFER project. The need for maps to be provided on a sufficiently timely basis influenced user perceptions as to the usefulness and usability of GMES ERS data products. Although this issue relates to SAFER rather than to linkER directly, delays in the availability of maps were found to influence user views on the utility and effectiveness of both linkER and SAFER.

A number of stakeholders noted that delays in the delivery of data products were a significant problem for the ERS under SAFER and continue to be problematic under the initial phases of the EMS-Mapping Service. Maps providing situation awareness and common operational picture are needed within as short a timeframe as possible following the occurrence of a disaster, (preferably 1-6 hours of a crisis happening). However, according to several users interviewed, the first crisis maps providing images of areas affected by disasters were often only available after 24 hours from the initial event, and sometimes more, depending on data availability through the DWH.

Community Added Value

linKER demonstrated strong Community Added Value because it helped to promote much stronger and more effective coordination between civil protection agencies and emergency response organisations (e.g. fire and rescue, police) responsible for different aspects of crisis management and emergency response Users interviewed saw value in having access to technical support provided to assist them in accessing ERS data products.

The project added value through its contribution to structuring the civil protection user community at European level and intra-Member State communication. NFPs have access to a common EU-wide user-interface, can communicate with one another via an intranet, and can access the server and download data products through FTP.

The Union has an important structuring role to play since users in the emergency management field are comparatively fragmented compared with some other GMES services, such as atmosphere, where meteorological institutes are used to cooperating one another on a pan-European basis, and achieving effective cooperation is less complex because there is typically only a single or maximum of a handful of institutes involved, whereas in emergency management, there are multiple agencies in each country at national, regional and local levels.

8 The MIC was originally within DG ENV and later became part of DG ECHO. DG ECHO is now responsible for

coordinating the EMS-Mapping service in Rush and Non-Rush modes in GMES Initial Operations. The MIC was originally within DG ENV and later became part of DG ECHO



14

According to an interviewee from DG ECHO, linkER’s contribution was critical. ‘The new GMES-Mapping service would not have been possible to set up had linkER not existed’.

Sustainability

Through delivery of a user interface and the installation of hardware, an important legacy from the linkER project is that it has put in place the necessary basic infrastructure to help to ensure the effective implementation of the successor operational GIO EMS-Mapping Service, which commenced on 1st April 2012.

There were some challenges in maintaining service continuity between different instruments (e.g. the GMES PA, FP7 and the GIO). This problem was overcome by extending the SAFER project under FP7 by 3 months prior to the establishment of the new GMES-Mapping service. Service continuity was viewed by national civil protection agencies as being critical for (i) maintaining momentum in service development and (ii) persuading users in the fields of civil protection and humanitarian aid to fully integrate GMES within their operational procedures and workflows.

A user in the civil protection field in Italy stressed that it is important that the valuable contribution of linkER in structuring the user community is further progressed under the GIO, and that steps are taken to structure user communities beyond the national level alone (e.g. the network of NFPs) to include the sub-national level. In order to ensure that users are fully engaged and to strengthen coordination, there is a need to continue discussions in Member States about the role of NFPs in coordinating the involvement and participation of national, regional and local actors in the civil protection field. Sub-structures should be put in place in order to ensure that there is strong coordination with first responders and across the full range of emergency services depending on the nature of the emergency or humanitarian crisis (e.g. fires, floods, earthquakes).

Conclusions

The linkER project has been effective in structuring the user community in the civil protection and emergency management fields. The project played a central role in establishing the network of NFPs, and in developing practical mechanisms for civil protection users in accessing GMES data.

The provision of training on an EU-wide basis was appropriate, given low awareness levels in some EU countries. However, there remains a need to continue awareness-raising among local and regional users in the civil protection field

There was strong complementarity between SAFER and linkER and through training and awareness-raising activities, the latter was effective in promoting increased service activations and take-up of ERS data products.

An effort has already been made through linKER to validate ERS data products produced through the SAFER pre-operational project. However, under the GIO, there is a continuing need to deepen the validation process in order to improve the utility and spatial resolution of GMES data products. There is also a need to improve the timeliness of data products.

Overall, the linkER project has helped to lay the basis for a fully operational GMES service through the GIO EMS-Mapping Service.



15

2.4 2009 - Reference Data Access

Access to reference data9 is an important cross-cutting issue of central importance to all operational GMES services. Reference access data is an important aspect of the GMES in situ component within the GIO and is crucial to the on-going implementation of the INSPIRE Directive (2007/2/EC)10 and the SEIS data sharing initiative. As a paper from a preparatory workshop on Reference Access Data makes clear, ‘Reference data fulfil a specific and essential role in providing a geographic or positional framework for observation data. They are used to transform raw space data into elaborated spatial information, as well as to provide a topographic reference in addition to information specific to the service’11.

The 2009 Preparatory Action provided support for the development of EU level Reference Access Data (RDA) through two lots. Lot 1 covers EEA-39 countries while Lot 2 covers ‘the rest of the world’. The maximum budget allocated to the two Lots in the call for tenders was €3 million. The actual project budget was considerably below the maximum ceiling for Lot 1. The majority of the budget, €2.08 million is devoted to Lot 1 which has developed pan-European data products covering EEA39 (specifically EU-DEM and EU HYDRO). Through Lot 2, a further €250000 is being invested to improve knowledge about what reference data is available in third countries and to strengthen this data in order to support the development of the future EMS-Mapping in non-rush mode and the global component within GIO land.

The pan-European (EEA39) data products being developed through the RDA project (Lot 1) and the global reference data being mapped through an inventory and then further developed through Lot 2 are of critical importance to the implementation of operational services within the GIO in the 2011-2013 period. This applies to both the EMS-Mapping and GIO land. An overview of activities carried out through each of the RDA projects is provided below:

Table 2.5: Reference Data Access (Lot 1).

Project title: Reference Data Access (Lot 1).

Budget - EUR 2.08 million.

Implementation timeframe: 3 years (December 2009 – December 2012).

Goals: The main aims were to support the specific needs of the EEA in procuring EU level reference data through the development of a Digital Elevation Model (EU-DEM) and hydrography layer (EU-Hydro)

modelling water balance. The EU-DEM is needed in order to meet the requirements of the INSPIRE Directive (2007/02/EC) to provide data on themes such as hydrography, which is mentioned in Annex I of Inspire and elevation and land cover (Annex II) and Soil and Land use, a requirement in Annex III12.

9 Reference data are information handled by data providers (institutional or commercial data providers) and recognised by a large community of users as basic spatial data to reference their (thematic) data upon (for example road networks, rivers and water bodies, administrative units and toponyms, etc..) 10

The INSPIRE Directive lays down general rules to establish an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe for the purposes of Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. 11

Preparatory workshop on Access to Geospatial Reference Data for GMES Land monitoring and other services (November 2011) 12

A more detailed assessment of links between INSPIRE and GMES is provided in the parallel report on the Interim Evaluation of the GMES Initial Operations).



16

Lead contractor and no. of partners: Lot 1 was coordinated by Indra (ES). The project involves 4 partners, including Intermap technologies and AGI.

Project overview and key activities: The service contract required the development of two EU level datasets (i) the Digital Elevation Model (EU-DEM) and EU hydrological data (EU-Hydro). These are designed to help meet the EEA’s general organisational remit of ‘achieving significant and measurable improvement in Europe's environment through the provision of data’. The development of EU level data products is also essential for the EEA to meet EU level reporting and monitoring requirements, for instance, in areas such as land cover, biodiversity and water reporting obligations under the Water Framework Directive. The main input data sources for EU-DEM are NEXTMap, GDEM, ASTER and Landsat.

The RDA project has delivered a hydrographic data product for the EEA. This will be compatible with an

updated and improved version of Ecrins13, a Network System that is already used by national environmental authorities to meet national water reporting requirements under the EU’s Water Framework Directive. This is based on the same geo-information references.

The EU-DEM and EU-Hydro will be complemented by additional reference access to be made available

as a result of a data sharing agreed between the EEA and Eurogeographics in November 2011 (see analysis on the EMS-Mapping in the parallel report on the Interim Evaluation of GMES Initial Operations).

An overview of the RDA Lot 2 project is now provided:

Table 2.6: Reference Data Access (Lot 2).

Project title: the implementation of an initial GMES service for geospatial reference data access covering areas outside Europe’. Also referred to as Reference Data Access (Lot 2).

Budget - EUR 0.25 million.

Implementation timeframe: 3 years (December 2009 – December 2012).

Lead contractor and no. of partners: Lot 2 is being coordinated by SiTI14 (Italy) with ITHACA (Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation and Action) as a key project partner.

Goals: the project aimed to develop reference data access (RDA) covering areas outside Europe to support the implementation of GMES Initial Operations 2011-2013. The catalogue was based on OGC standards and designed to be as accessible as possible. A further aim was to strengthen contacts with other representatives from UN agencies involved in the UNSDI initiative15.

Project overview and key activities: an assessment was carried out of the availability, quality and consistency of reference data in third countries and to identify the status of existing initiatives to map reference data available globally, notably through the UNSDI initiative, and to identify the gaps to be filled. The project will further develop existing catalogue data in non-EU countries so as to assess their quality, accuracy and the frequency of data updates. This has enabled links and possible complementarities between different spatial data sharing initiatives to be established.

Among the main tasks being undertaken as part of Lot 2 are the development of an inventory to map out public data that is available globally and is as up-to-date as possible. The mapping exercise will

13

ECRINS' is acronym for European catchments and RIvers Network System. it is a fully connected system of watersheds, rivers, lakes, monitoring stations, dams 14

SiTI- Istituto Superiore sui Sistemi Territoriali per l’Innovazione 15 UNSDI - UN Spatial Data Infrastructure. There are also important links between INSPIRE and UNSDI.



17

include both stand-alone data and data in databases covering each sub-topic. It will involve a thorough review of web sites, geospatial data servers and on-line searchable metadata databases.

The project should lead to the establishment of the availability of two different types of data outside the EU:

Core Data: the minimum geographic data necessary to establish baseline data for optimal use of all the different applications and activities under consideration for the GIO;

Thematic Data: details linked to each specific activity concerning GMES-related projects and applications that will take advantage of the planned geospatial RDA service.

There are 5 main topics for the core data:

Boundaries - coastal, administrative and areas of special interest

Surface hydrology - surface water bodies, water points, drainage and watersheds

Human Population - population centers and distributions

Transportation - roads, railways, airports, harbours and navigation routes

Bathymetry and terrestrial elevation

There are also 5 topics for the thematic data: Geology, Satellite imagery, orthorectified mosaics, land cover and vegetation data, Meteo-climatic, Socio-economic and Natural disasters.

Having identified the core and thematic data sources, an analysis is then being carried out of: (i) the availability of non-European reference data (ii) data quality and consistency (iii) data available through UNSDI (iv) the identification of gaps in reference data information and (v) the preparation and validation of a demonstrator.

Relevance

Since access to quality baseline reference data is crucial for the effective operation of GMES services in general, the development of European level reference datasets is highly relevant to user needs, given that there has hitherto been a lack of comparable reference data over larger geographical areas that is needed to meet the needs of European policy makers and EU agencies, notably the EEA. It is also essential for the service contractors responsible for implementing services within GMES Initial Operations on a pan-European (or in the case of the EEA on an EEA39) basis. GMES services cannot function effectively if there are gaps in country coverage and methodological differences in how the data was compiled. Moreover, harmonised reference datasets across all EU countries are essential for monitoring and reporting and analyses at European level.

Reference data has been developed by national mapping and cadastral agencies (NMCAs) in many Member States over a considerable period of time. Indeed, in several Member States, the spatial resolution and scale of the data exceeds that currently available through pan-European data products produced on a top-down basis either covering EU27 or in the case of the GIO land, EEA39. However, while national RDA products are useful for many different purposes at domestic level, the data are of varying quality across different Member States. This does not allow for the effective comparison of data products between countries, nor for benchmarking, reporting and monitoring at the European level. Indeed, while some national stakeholders argue that they have more accurate picture through domestic tools, the development of RDA at European level has been relevant not only for European stakeholders but also in meeting national needs in Member States that have less effective RDA capabilities.



18

In order to inform European level reporting, monitoring and evidence-based policy making, the European Commission and the EEA therefore needed to procure harmonised data over large geographical areas. For the purposes of developing the EU-DEM data product, the RDA Lot 1 project has therefore divided EEA39 countries into a set of 1,165 tiles for which harmonised data will be available. The hydrography database (EU-HYDRO) also covers EEA39 and is harmonised with EU-DEM. From a relevance point of view, the RDA Lot 1 project is therefore central to the transition of monitoring and policy-making tools from national to the European level.

RDA Lot 1 was seen as highly relevant in supporting the implementation of the GIO land and the EMS-Mapping Service within GMES Initial Operations. In the Emergency Management field, for instance, access to reliable baseline reference datasets was viewed as a key success factor to strengthening the service’s effectiveness, which was launched in April 2012. Both EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO will also be pertinent in supporting the development of European land products under the GIO land and the collection of national and European level data under the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)16 which places water reporting obligations on the Member States and a monitoring responsibility on the EEA.

Lot 2 of the RDA was seen as relevant in ensuring that there is an appropriate mechanism in place to map reference access data available globally and then to gather this data. The project was also seen as being strong coherent with the Union’s international obligations in sharing reference access data by ensuring linkages and interaction between GMES and initiatives taking place internationally to gather global reference datasets such as the UNSDI. This should be seen in the context of GMES’ wider role in “serving as the basis to ensure Europe’s autonomy in information provision worldwide”17.

Although Lot 2 was mainly relevant in contributing to emergency response (e.g. floods, fires, technological accidents, humanitarian aid) and to security-related aspects (e.g. maritime surveillance, border control), improving reference data access outside the EU is clearly also of strong relevance to the global component within the GIO land.

Efficiency

Both projects appear likely to achieve value for money. The RDA Lot 2 project is especially noteworthy in this regard, given its low budgetary allocation compared with the project’s ambitious objectives of identifying RDA available globally as part of the development of an inventory on global reference access data, and the importance of such data to future GMES services under the GIO and full operations.

The discussions with those involved in delivering the RDA projects suggest that project implementation has worked smoothly and efficiently from a process perspective. There have however been challenges in integrating Member States’ national reference datasets, except where these were made available to the EC on an interoperable basis, for instance by Spain (the provision of data to GMES is explored in more detail under ‘effectiveness’).

A further aspect of efficiency was how well the RDA projects have been managed by the Commission. The selection process appears to have been very rigorous. Four proposals were received in respect of Lot 1, and two proposals for Lot 2. Close attention was paid to the need to ensure that GMES’ policy of full and open data access was adhered to. The EEA and JRC have been

16

The Water Framework Directive promotes a new approach to water management through river basin planning. 17

COM(2008)748



19

closely involved in the development of EU-DEM (EEA) and of the EU-HYDRO reference access datasets (JRC). This has helped to ensure that European reference datasets have been developed in a way that is ‘fit for purpose’. The steering process played by the EEA and JRC respectively was regarded by the contractors responsible as having strengthened the efficiency of the development of the datasets during project implementation.

Effectiveness

Overall, Lot 1of the RDA project has been effective in ensuring that gaps in the availability of pan-European reference access datasets have been plugged through the development of the EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO datasets, which provide a hydrological layer and an elevation layer respectively. This also contributes to meeting requirements under Annexes I and II of Inspire. These data products are effective in that they are already being used, and provide the first ever reliable and comparable pan-European baseline reference access data. This data was not previously available despite the efforts of NMCAs through various EU funded projects under FP6 and FP7, and DG INFSO programmes (e.g. e-Content).

Notwithstanding, some NMCAs questioned the effectiveness of these new data products, and wanted further clarity as to whether they will be updated in future, and if so, how frequently. However, the GMES Bureau, EEA, JRC and other stakeholders have made clear that the GMES services cannot operate effectively without pan-European reference datasets, and that it is vital that these are updated regularly in future. The fact that a cross-cutting reference data access component has been proposed as part of the GIO, with an indicative budget of EUR 2 million already confirms that there will be follow-up to the RDA Lot 1 project. The EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO are not one-off products that will not be repeated, but will be needed on an on-going basis as a cross-cutting input to all GMES services.

However, there have been difficulties in the overall approach in terms of keeping relevant stakeholders on board. It was originally anticipated that the RDA Lot 1 would improve links between the EC, NMCAs and other reference data providers and enable those specialising in the production of reference data to contribute to the development and strengthening of reference data access within GMES.

However, since the overall approach within both the GMES PA and the GIO 2011-2013 has been to award service contracts on a competitive, open-tender basis, a rival consortium led by a private contractor won Lot 1. Since NMCAs were included in a competitor proposal, this has meant that they have not been directly involved in the development of EU-DEM, which in turn has led to difficulties in taking forward reference data access for the land component. Progress has however been made for the EMS-Mapping in rush mode through an agreement between the EEA and Eurogeographics.

However, there are challenges for GMES in accessing national reference datasets across EU27 (and in the case of the GIO land, EEA39). For example, national data access policies vary between Member States18. Although an increasing number of Member States have a policy of full and open access to reference data (a trend likely to continue given legal requirements under INSPIRE and information sharing initiatives such as SEIS), those NMCAs that charge for reference data do so at a

18

For instance, Different Member States have different data policies. For instance, while Spain has a very open data policy and has better datasets at national level than are available through top-down RDA initiatives, in Greece, Italy and in other countries, mapping is carried out by the Ministry of Defence, and there are concerns about open data access.



20

cost that would be prohibitive for GMES Services (up to 100,000 EUR per dataset). This could prevent reference data from being used and integrated into GMES data products and services. Moreover, it would clearly be difficult - if not impossible - for the EU to pay for reference data in some EU countries that it expects to receive for free in others, both in terms of ensuring effective use of EU tax payers’ money, avoiding double financing and would run against the principles of INSPIRE and SEIS. Further difficulties in using national reference data produced by NMCAs are that different license and data usage conditions are applied in different EU countries.

The various difficulties outlined in using, accessing and distributing national reference data – and the lack of harmonisation in methodologies between Member States – would have made a bottom-up approach to the development of EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO unfeasible in practice. Notwithstanding, convincing all stakeholders in the GIO that this is the case remains challenging.

Several NMCAs viewed the EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO products produced through the RDA 2009 project Lot 1 as duplicating existing national reference data. Through the GMES Committee and now also the User Forum under the GIO 2011-2013, some Member States continue to argue that EU land products should be derived from national datasets. It is important however not to view the debate as being about whether EU land cover and wider European environmental datasets or national datasets are better because they offer improved spatial resolution or scaling, since this implies that the two are in competition. It is not a question of ‘either’ / ‘or’. Rather, both EU and national datasets are needed and have to co-exist (even if they lack interoperability in many cases, which is unsatisfactory for all actors involved in GMES) due to the lack of harmonised national datasets.

Interviewees from the EC and wider EU agencies such as the EEA stated that since there are country gaps in reference data, it was necessary to develop top-down European level reference datasets using a standard methodology, since there remain considerable challenges in moving towards harmonised and comparable national reference access datasets. This is compounded by the fact that the EEA needs European datasets based on full EEA39 coverage. An interviewee from the EEA commented that ‘environmental problems do not stop at country borders, and European environmental information covering EEA39 needs to feed into global environmental monitoring too’.

Having access to such data is therefore fundamental for EU institutions and EU agencies for environmental reporting purposes and for monitoring Member States’ compliance with key EU environmental Directives. The long-term aspiration however for the EC and EEA is to develop harmonised European datasets derived from national datasets through a bottom-up approach. However, until further progress in harmonisation had been made, a combination of a top down and bottom-up approach to reference data will be needed. A bottom-up approach based on harmonised datasets is less easy to implement, but once implemented has the potential to be more sustainable.

Balancing a top-down and bottom-up approach to the development of reference data will take time, but could be achieved through a ‘phasing-in, phasing-out’ approach. As national datasets improve and through technical work within the INSPIRE process to improve data comparability, these should become more compatible with top-down pan-European datasets. A bottom-up approach could then be steadily implemented. The EEA’s intended approach is summarised in the following diagram which describes how progress in improving the comparability of reference datasets at national level will allow scope to use bottom-up data, with the co-existence of both datasets in the interim.

Figure 2.1: Co-existence of centralised and decentralised in-situ data access



21

Tim

e

Centralised

data

procurement

/ production

Decentralised

data access

e.g. EBM, EU-

DEM, EU-

hydro…

e.g. national LC

maps, national

forest DBs…

2013

2019** Final deadline INSPIRE implementation

• Link through IDs

• Maintenance

fading out

fading in

{

Source: the EEA, 2012

Although a bottom-up approach is less easy to implement, once implemented, it has the potential to provide more effective and sustainable reference data access for GMES operational services. Producing reference data access on a decentralised basis for future GMES services is a medium to long-term goal. INSPIRE clearly has strong potential to help promote more harmonised national reference dataset and the final deadline for its full implementation is 2019.

A number of NMCAs criticised the lack of interoperability between European and national reference datasets and vice versa. In France, a representative from an NMCA stated that the French Ministry of the Environment uses IGN reference data as its main data source for national reporting on the Water Framework Directive and Floods Directive which is then provided to the Commission and EEA for monitoring purposes19. However due to methodological differences between national and pan-European datasets, there are discrepancies between the French data and EU-HYDRO data. Therefore, the French national report on its hydrological layer is based on different datasets.

The EEA however challenged the assertion that EU-HYDRO products are not interoperable with national reference data products since the EU’s hydrological layer was developed to be compliant with ECRINS (European catchments and RIvers network System). It should be possible to use harmonised hydrographic data for national reporting purposes to meet EU monitoring and reporting requirements. It pointed out that EU datasets are only interoperable with national data and applications to the extent that EU countries provide access to homologous national data under access conditions that allow for linking with EU-level reference data, and their use thereof.

The same is true from the perspective of the EC, wider EU institutions and the EEA i.e. if insufficient interoperability of national reference data with EU-reference data can be guaranteed, then national, regional and local data has limited value for EU reporting and monitoring purposes. Countries such as Spain have already taken steps to make their data available for use by the GMES Services, and have already achieved interoperability with EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO. The extent of data

19

Both directives use the same unit of management (river basin districts) and are based on the same six year cycle of planning. Under these Directives, Member States must report to the EC on the national water situation.



22

interoperability from national to the European level is therefore strongly dependent on the willingness of countries to make national data available for GMES.

A challenge for the RDA Lot 1 project – and subsequent updates to reference access data products under the GIO – is that while pan-European datasets are already being widely used by European-level policy makers and the EEA, it will be difficult to promote user uptake of the EU-DEM and EU-HYDRO products at national level, given that national reference datasets may be of superior scale and spatial resolution compared with EU RDA products.

For instance, data on biophysical conditions is available with better classification and scale at national level. Likewise, while data supplementing national land cover datasets is regarded as being useful, many Member States do not use CLC data. A number of barriers may deter data usage by national and regional users. First, the scale and resolution of CLC data from national datasets is sometimes much higher than that available through CLC (1:250,000), particularly in smaller EU MS. For instance, in the Netherlands, land cover data is available at significantly higher resolution (1:10,000 and 1:25,000). A number of other Member States do not use CLC data either, such as Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic. Data products such as CLC are nevertheless more useful for Member States that do not currently have alternative RDA sources.

However, some Member States are expected to use the data since they do not currently have reference access data or have a lack of data. Therefore, the data will still be useful to some national users both in EU27 and in wider countries included as part of EEA39.

With regard to Lot 2, the overall approach was seen by EU level stakeholders as being effective in delivering data products that are fit for purpose for the development of an inventory of reference data outside the EU. Given budgetary constraints for the RDA covering the rest of the world, it was felt by the contractors to be appropriate to carry out a mapping exercise to identify existing datasets available globally, rather than to produce new datasets from scratch. However, clearly in order for future operational services covering non-EU countries to be effective, there may be a need for some reference data to be procured in countries or geographic regions where gaps are identified. This will be useful, for instance, in relation to the GIO land’s global component, since this requires frequent updates on a series of bio-parameters on the state of vegetation once every 10 days.

Another way in which Lot 2 is likely to be effective is through the development of three demonstrators. These were regarded as having been effective in showcasing the multiple possible uses of GMES reference access data outside the EU. RDA Lot 2 should also contribute to the achievement of objectives relating to the development of GMES Services that focus outside the EU, namely the GIO land global component and EMS-Mapping in non-rush mode, and also in feeding into the United National Spatial Data Infrastructure (UNSDI) and in ensuring that the Union has the capacity to make an effective contribution to the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). The RDA project under Lot 2 is important in ensuring that the Union takes the preparatory steps necessary to ensure that the ‘global’ within GMES services are implemented effectively.

More generally, progress made through the RDA Lot 2 within the PA should support the work of the Commission’s JRC, in particular the Digital Earth & Reference Data Unit, which ensures the overall technical coordination of the INSPIRE Directive and the European Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) and plays a leading role in the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). The Unit’s aim is to provide ‘globally shared access to the best available quality data, models, and scenarios necessary to support EU policy, public participation, and scientific research about sustainable futures across regions and generations’.



23

Results and impacts

Among the main results and impacts achieved through the RDA Lot 1 project are:

The development of the EU-DEM product to meet the specifications for EC environmental reporting requirements and the development of datasets to monitor elevation at EU level needed by the EEA and the Member States (c.f. Annex II of INSPIRE)

The development of an EU hydrography layer produced on a 1:100.000 scale (EU-Hydro) (c.f. Annex I of INSPIRE).

Reference data produced through the project also includes information handled by data providers and recognised by the user community as data that provides an initial starting point on which to build their own data layers. This can for instance relate to borders, roads etc.

Among the main results that can be noted through the implementation of the RDA Lot 2 project are:

Report on the review of global reference data holdings, categorisation and relevant metadata

Design and planning of an OGC compliant on-line catalogue

Implementation of a demonstrator application to access selected reference data holdings

Data quality analysis protocol and data quality analysis report

Report on the review of UN-SDI and the potential role of the GMES reference data service and brie

Documents

Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action Final Report...Interim Evaluation of the GMES Preparatory Action - Final Report Contents SECTION PAGE 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Evaluation