We had a great workshop on Thursday! Organised as a session during the Geospatial World Forum in Rotterdam our goal was to discuss the results of our study into the Economic Benefits of Copernicus Sentinel data. It was the first (and only?) time that we brought together key persons from each of the 3 cases we have studied and we had a really excellent exchange. We just felt sorry for all those who were not with us!
Whilst the attendance might have been disappointing the exchange was not. We have just finished our third case (Pipeline Infrastructure Monitoring in the Netherlands) and with us were Ivo Visser (Stedin) and Jos Maccabiani (SkyGeo) who were instrumental to the case. SkyGeo is the service provider which represents one characteristic of this case which differs from the previous ones where the service provider is working for a public organisation.
Erik Willen (Skogforsk) joined us for the Swedish Forestry case (Anders Persson the primary provider from the Swedish Forest Agency was unfortunately not able to be there) and Jarko Toivola (Finnish Transport Agency) joined us for the Finnish Winter Navigation case. Everyone participated to what was a lively discussion on the results and on the future; especially the need for Sentinel data.
We were able to discuss comparisons between the 3 cases and the different approaches which were used to analyse each one. ESA also gained some useful insights into the needs of these users for future Sentinel data. It was agreed that it would be useful to revisit each of the cases in a few years time to update them as each one has elements to it which could be developed further.
I doubt that we shall have any possibility to repeat this workshop as to bring all the case principals together into one gathering would prove a real challenge (it has to be in the summer for a start or the ice-breaking season in the Baltic would ensure one absence!). It provided a very nice codicil to our study work.
Note all the case reports can now be found through our web-site (under library/studies and/or library/presentations and a single summary will be published shortly.
A few years ago, I used to keep another blog which I abandoned on which I would sometimes write about experiences of living in Belgium. My thoughts turn again to that blog as I think I have enough material to fill a book! Consequently, I shall include the (occasional?) blog here about some of these experiences.
Not so long ago, the pavement in front of our house and around the corner was extended. This work is being done at all junctions to stop uncontrolled parking and to make visibility better. It is difficult to complain but around us it has led to the loss of maybe 200 parking places which means that finding one has become a real challenge and is a real discouragement to go out in the evening. Thankfully, I am able to rent a garage nearby.
It is the same throughout Brussels and is a strong discouragement to commerce. The other evening, I wanted to stop somewhere just to get something to eat. Everywhere I tried, I could not find anywhere to park so in the end I just went home. This is a common story around the city and the lack of parking is definitely causing a downturn in business. I guess that this is not a problem specific to Brussels though. I’ll return to the subject in the future because even if there is a problem of traffic and the number of cars, the city has to work and Brussels is becoming in danger of just not working.
But this story is more about parking on my street. Because I rent a garage I never leave my car in front of the house. Despite this all the neighbours do, and each night the space is filled with 3 or 4 builders’ vans or cars usually the same ones parking there regularly. I think it is right that this should be tolerated; at night it causes no real harm, nor really during the day but it is clear that one should not park there even if it is not an actual offence.
The other day I received a parking ticket. I have stopped there maybe 5 to 10 times in the last 12 months for loading or unloading the car and this time, whilst I was inside, I had been given a ticket by the local police. Now, as far as I am aware, it is not an actual infringement; there are no road markings to say it is illegal, there is still passage for one car but the police officer disagreed despite the intervention of my neighbour. I was completely unaware of all this; I was inside fetching material which I was loading into the car.
Three weeks later, out of the blue, I receive the notification – which comes from the commune – and the fine. I wrote to the commune to complain. I explained that I was loading my car in front of my house, that I was committing no offence according to the code of the law (there are no markings) and asked that the fine be rescinded. A few days later I got a standard printed reply saying that since I did not deny the offence I would still have to pay the fine!
I wrote again this time explicitly stating that I denied the offence. I have still not had a written reply but I did get a phone call. I was told that after the first letter the affair was closed. There was nothing the civil servant could do!!!! Because I had asked politely I was punished. If I had written strongly the fine would have been cancelled – or so he led me to believe.
A few days later, Francoise receives a similar fine. We have written but as yet no response.
What a waste of time. The police make a decision - which seems to have no legal basis - to issue a fine. They send this to the commune. The civil servant processes it and sends it to the offender. The offender writes to say that he has not committed an offence, and the civil servant (presumably) cancels the fine. The neighbours who are parking there all the time, either they are not getting tickets or they follow this process each time. Well it all makes work for people I suppose, but truly the system is broken.
Several people remarked to me how EARSC was present in strength at the Copernicus Value Chain workshop organised by the European Commission this last week. Indeed, it was a very important meeting for us and the industry and overall, I was very pleased with the outcome.
Industry views were presented by EARSC representatives (from 7 member companies) in each of the 6 sessions; Chetan (vice-chairman) presented in the plenary and others spoke during exchanges. So we did indeed show that the question of exploitation is an important one for the industry.
My key take-aways were as I expressed in the closing session. I was very pleased with the change in language coming from the stakeholders in EC and in ESA. Over the last 12 months this has significantly changed such that the messages we have been delivering for some years now are gaining traction. This is not all good news! As the profile of EARSC is raised the demands for interventions in meetings, for positions on issues and for consultations is growing significantly. Our recent decision to become a participating organisation with GEO is adding to that and we are speaking at their meeting this next week on the proposed work-plan. All of which will force us either to prioritise or to encourage more participation from members – or most likely both.
But back to the workshop, where I was especially pleased with the speech by Philippe Brunet (you can watch it here). He made all the right points concerning (to take a few): private/public boundaries, industry access to data, the need for federated demand in Europe and the problems with delivering this etc. For the first time, I have the feeling that the needs of industry are being taken seriously. This stems from two sources in my view; firstly the shift in the whole Commission trajectory coming from Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker (as Rudy Aernaudt pointed out) and secondly by the realisation that if Copernicus is to deliver on its promise of more jobs in the downstream sector then action must be taken now. We shall soon (next year) start talking about the next financial perspectives - taking effect from 2021 - which will bring a focus on the results of the Copernicus investments. The Juncker focus on economy and jobs will certainly shine a light on the outcomes of the Copernicus programme, so we need to be acting now.
Other take-aways were the need to invest in internationalisation. For companies to be able to export, they need a reference in Europe. This means that as far as possible companies should be involved in the delivery of the Copernicus services. But for those who are not and for those who generate products which build upon the outputs of the Copernicus services, there is a need for some form of quality scheme which is also one key element of our proposed marketplace Alliance. We seek to develop closer links between the industry and the 7 European Entrusted Entities which have been designated for supplying the services. It would have been much easier for us if there was one responsible agency to interact with rather than 7 but unfortunately this has not proven possible in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future so we shall have to live with it.
In our paper on the Marketplace Alliance, we identify the need for the EO services industry to be given a sustained and efficient access to Copernicus data and information; which was perhaps the core subject of the workshop. Today, the best way for companies to access Sentinel data is through Google or Amazon services. For me it is not a question of geography but of business. The revenues of these two giant IT companies are around $100billion whilst for those of the average European service provider it is in the range €1 to €10m. Even European IaaS providers are dwarfed by their US cousins but are large compared to the European service companies. Hence, one goal of the Marketplace is to try to rebalance the commercial relationship. European companies can work with international partners – in fact they are excellent at it – and they will no doubt work with one or more of the US giants. But, they should not become dependent on them; hence our position to seek an alternative.
Hence, we found that this workshop was extremely useful to debate around the issues and to sensitise the EC to industry’s concerns. It has helped us to form new partnerships and to open new lines of dialogue. I believe that these will be useful over the coming months as we develop further the Marketplace Alliance.