GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November GEO Outreach to the Balkans - Results of the BalkanGEONet project - Vesna Crnojevic-Bengin UNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD, Serbia GEO-IX, Foz de Igiuacu, November 2012.

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Background GEO outreach to Balkans assessed based on the results of the ongoing FP7 BalkanGEONet project – „Balkan GEO Network – Towards Inclusion of Balkan Countries into Global Earth Observation Initiatives“ – ENV : Identification and Networking of EO activities in the Balkan area – 16 partners from all countries in the wider Balkan region – Expected impact: to contribute to building institutional capacity to use EO and to establishing regional CB networks

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Outline BalkanGEONet methodology for gap analysis Results of the gap analysis used to evaluate the impact of GEO to the region

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November B.GN Approach WP2 & WP3 provided a realistic picture of Balkan EO landscape WP4 – Gap analysis – BalkanGEONet methodology developed

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November B.GN Gap Analysis

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Background Detailed analysis revealed that none of the existing methodologies fit our purpose: – GIGAS: many details needed on the limited number of activities – Environmental Management Gap Analysis Tool from EEA: too many details on the activities to be analysed need to be known Since the goal of B.GN is to work towards inclusion of the Balkan countries into GEO, it is important to structure the gap analysis done within B.GN along the lines of GEO actions.

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November B.GN Methodology Structured wrt. GEO Action 19.11, Task US-09-01a. Our goal: – To assess the potential available – To define the directions of future development Our approach: – Opportunity assessment: identifying where investments would add value and leverage existing strengths – Structural gap analysis across geographic, observational and domain variables – Carefull development of indicators

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Indicators for General GA IndicatorsSource Number of Organizations involved with EOWP2 Survey Number of Providers / ProducersWP2 Survey Number of UsersWP2 Survey Types of OrganizationsWP2 Survey Problems regarding Exchange and Use of EO DataWP2 Survey Assessment of Challenges and ObstaclesWP2 Survey Assessment of Importance of technical ChallengesWP2 Survey Assessment of Importance of global EO SystemWP2 Survey

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Indicators for “Providers/Producers” Group IndicatorsSource Geographical Territory coveredWP2 Survey Willingness to Collaboration and Data SharingWP2 Survey Willingness to GEOSS RegistrationWP2 Survey Data Availability to othersWP2 Survey Data Availability through InternetWP2 Survey Availability of MetadataWP2 Survey Awareness of End-User NeedsWP2 Survey Time Duration to Requests for Data NeedsWP2 Survey Redundancies of EO Data / ApplicationsWP2 Survey Collaboration with other Providers / ProducersWP2 Survey Number of EO Data Users related to Provider / Producer WP2 Survey Compatibility of DataWP2 Survey

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Indicators for “Users” Group IndicatorsSource Data Sharing PolicyWP2 Survey Standardization regarding EO DataWP2 Survey Partnerships and CooperationWP2 Survey Use of Geo PortalsWP2 Survey Export of Products or ServicesWP2 Survey Rating of ICT EquipmentWP2 Survey Increase of Investment into EO-related ActivitiesWP2 Survey Assessment of Services of EO Data Providers / ProducersWP2 Survey Numbers of Activities (Projects)WP3 Data Management Information dissemination (web-based, languages,…)Internet research Publications in selected international journalsInternet/Literature review

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Indicators for “Activities” Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2009 Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2010 Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2011 Number of activities (projects) for environmental monitoring Number of activities (projects) for civil security Number of activities (projects) for political coordination Number of activities (projects) for information spreading Number of activities (projects) for the development of EO technology Number of activities (projects) for other purposes Number of Global/European activities (projects) Number of Super-National activities (projects) Number of National activities (projects) Number of Regional activities (projects)

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Integration of geographical aspects Country/SBADisastersHealthEnergyClimateWaterWeatherEcosystemsAgricultureBiodiversity Albania Bulgaria BIH Montenegro FYROM Croatia Slovenia Serbia Romania Greece Non-GEO countries GEO countries All Balkan countries

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Quantifying the Indicators The evaluation for each indicator has been calculated by averaging the survey inputs. E.g. if the average mark was 3 (60%), a score above 75% or 3.75 indicates high relevance of the issue for Balkan stakeholders while a score below 45% or 2.25 indicates low importance of the issue: Score < 45%: low relevance of the respective issue Score 45%- 59%: moderate relevance of the respective issue Score 60% - 74%: considerable relevance of the respective issue Score 75% – 84%: high relevance of the respective issue Score ≥ 85%: very high relevance of the respective issue

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November B.GN Results …selected to highlight the impact of GEO

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Number of Stakeholders Types of data Non-GEO countries GEO countries Remote sensing In-situ 4663 Other 5679 Unknown 713 Total % more stakeholders in GEO countries! Similar difference exists for producers/providers and users

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Type of EO Data GEO member countries: – Rely more on remote sensing and satellite data than on in-situ and other types of data Non-GEO countries: – Rely more on in-situ data collection since it requires less investment to deploy.

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Stakeholders Across SBAa GEO outreach reflected through number of organisations

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November SBA Coverage Across Countries Membership to GEO significantly reflected Country/ SBA Disast.HealthEner.Clim.Wat.Weath.Ecosys.Agri.Biodiv. NON-GEO countries Albania 10,6% 12,0%10,2%6,0%14,7%9,3%11,0%10,2%8,2% BIH 8,0% 6,5%13,6%6,0%8,4%9,3%5,9%9,1%5,2% Bulgaria 10,6% 8,3%4,5%8,4%7,4%11,6%11,9%8,0%9,3% FYROM 4,4% 1,9%1,1%1,2%0,0%2,3%1,7%2,3%1,0% Monteneg. 6,2% 12,0%6,8%8,4%7,4%2,3%9,3%8,0%11,3% GEO countries Croatia 7,1% 18,5%10,2%13,3%15,8%14,0%15,3%8,0%14,4% Greece 5,3% 7,4%5,7%9,6%4,2%7,0%8,5%8,0%5,2% Romania 8,0% 3,7%1,1%7,2%4,2%2,3%5,1%2,3%4,1% Serbia 11,5% 11,1%15,9%14,5%12,6%9,3%10,2%14,8%17,5% Slovenia 14,2% 11,1%14,8%13,3%16,8%20,9%13,6%17,0%17,5% Turkey 14,2% 7,4%15,9%12,0%8,4%11,6%7,6%12,5%6,2%

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Type of Stakeholders GEO outreach mirrored onto type of organisations GEO-countries Non-GEO countries Comm. Gov. Ac. Public Sci. Other NGO Int. Gov. Comm. Public Ac. Sci. NGO Int. Oth.

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Does your organization provide and/or use EO data? Most EO players both provide and use EO data – Action needed! Similar for GEO and non-GEO countries Outliers: e.g. FYROM, Greece and Romania, where use of EO data dominates over production. A1 Yes, we only provide EO data A2 Yes, we both provide and use EO data A3 Yes, we only use EO data A4 No, but we would like to use EO data A5 No, but we would like to learn if EO data can be used to enhance our business A6 No

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Does your organization provide and/or use EO data? Potential new users of EO data (answers A4 and A5): 16.5% ! Potential is similar for GEO and non-GEO countries Some countries show remarkable ambition to use EO data: Albania (23.8%), Montenegro (25.0%), Serbia (29.5%), Turkey (30.7%) ! A1 Yes, we only provide EO data A2 Yes, we both provide and use EO data A3 Yes, we only use EO data A4 No, but we would like to use EO data A5 No, but we would like to learn if EO data can be used to enhance our business A6 No

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Scientific Activity Top 10 institutions per country High-impact journals, Country / Number of Org Albania LowMediumLowHighLow BIH Low Bulgaria High LowExcellent LowExcellentHighLow FYROM Low Montenegro MediumLow Croatia ExcellentHigh Low ExcellentHighLow Greece ExcellentHighExcellentLow MediumLow Medium Romania Low ExcellentHighExcellentLow High Low Serbia MediumLow HighMediumHighMediumLow Slovenia HighLowMedium ExcellentLow High

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Web-Based Disseminaiton Important indicator of the degree of international integration Top 10 institutions per country Country / Org. No Albania BIH Bulgaria FYROM Montenegro Croatia Greece Romania Serbia Slovenia fully available, local language + English 2 available in local language, partialy in English 3 local language only 0no web page

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Conclusion Results clearly illustrate the impact of GEO to the countries in the wider Balkan region B.GN methodology is scalable and applicable to any other region It can be used to evaluate the level of current and importance of future GEO outreach, and to indicate directions where future efforts should be focused, e.g.: – Capacity building across various geographic, observational and domain (SBA) categories – Outreach to contributors and users of GEOSS – Raising awarenes of decision- and policy-makers

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November Thank you! more details can be found on