FP6 Integrated Project on Land Cover

1
FP-6 Integrated Project on Land Cover
Vegetation (Thematic Priority 1.4, Area 2.3.2.c)
Alistair Lamb ICP-2 Royal Society 12th October
2004
2
Introduction

• Geoland is a Framework 6 Integrated Project,
  focusing on the GMES priorities Land Cover
  Change in Europe, Environmental Stress in
  Europe, and Global Vegetation Monitoring.
• It commenced in January 2004 and will run for 3
  years.
• The project is structured into three regional and
  three global observatories dedicated to
  specific land monitoring themes,
• each Observatory is supported by a core service
  providing basic geo-information inputs.
• An Operational Scenario will be established to
  define the future geo-information infrastructure
  and satellite technology requirements to achieve
  a fully operational service.

3
Policy Drivers GMES priorities addressed

• Land Cover Change in Europe
• Environmental Stress in Europe
• Global Vegetation Monitoring
• Plus land cover / vegetation interfaces with
  other priorities

Policies
/ Directives / Conventions
European
and
Global Monitoring
Service Portfolio
Habitats
Core
Services
ESDP,ESPON
Generic
Land
Cover

Natura
2000

Bio
-
geophysical
Parameters
Wetland Directive
Water
Framework
Directive
European
Observatory
Networks
Soil
Thematic Strategy

Nature Protection
Sustainable
Developm
.

Water

Soil
Fight against Poverty

Spatial Planning
Global Change


Global Land
Cover
Forest
Kyoto
Change

Food
Security

Crop
Monitoring
Global
Environment

Natural
Carbon
Flux
Protection
4
Three main service worlds/user segments
GMES Land Cover Vegetation

• Global
• vegetation
• climate
• monitoring
• Meteo Organisations
• - ECMWF
• - Eumetsat
• gt LandSAF
• - Bio-phys. parameter
• - Carbon fluxes
• - Mid-term weather
• - Established
• architecture
• (e.g. ECMWF SAF)
• Eumetnet
• Eumetcast

Thematic Subject Organisations Services I
nfrastructure
European Environmental monitoring sustain.
development - EEA - Eurostat -
Organisations in MS - Monitoring
management services for Natura 2000,
WFD, SPS, ESDP
- EIONET/EESDI
- National in-situ
spatial data
infrastructures
Int. environmental monitoring
sustain. development Int. organisations
public service providers (FAO, UN
organisations, JRC) - Global crop monitor. -
Global food security - LC environ. change -
Established architectures - Evolving
infrastructures (e.g. GeoNetwork)

5
Overall structure
Coodinator Infoterra GmbH
6
What makes it integrated?

• user organisations, private and public service
  providers, and researchers from 15 European
  member states
• Exploitation of outcomes from recent European
  projects (e.g. FP5)
• Establishing links and synergies with other
  parallel initiatives (e.g. ESA GSE, INSPIRE)
• Synergies within the Geoland structure product
  exchange between observatories, generic services
• Common documentation structure across
  observatories
• Key advantage the work program is only fixed
  for 12 months, therefore allows the direction of
  the project to change according to user
  influence, new opportunities etc.

7
UK participation in Geoland
Infoterra
CEH
CEH
InfoTerra CEH
ECMWF
Leeds Metropolitan (LMU)
8
Specific challenges

• IPs are very large and potentially unwieldy
  structures
• Bidding costs
• Each observatory is similar in size to a
  traditional Framework-5 project
• A extra tier of management is necessary
• Commission financial support for management is
  not generous
• Despite the overall 20m budget, it is split
  amongst 56 partners
• Increased financial control by the Commission
• Rolling 18-month program, requires re-budgeting
  every 12 months
• Project cost reporting may be requested by the EC
  at any time (not just annually)
• High level of political scrutiny
• Regional observatories have a local/regional
  focus, within what is a heterogeneous and
  fragmented user community across the EC.
• However, there are high-level expectations for
  production coverage across large areas of Europe.
• Clear separation of EC and ESA GSE programmes has
  been necessary (had been unclear who was meant to
  be doing what)
• Ongoing discussions between Geoland and EEA new
  Points of Contact
• Internal inter-dependencies within Geoland
  problems in one area cascade and impact on other
  topic teams

9
Problems, opportunities

• Making the project structure work
• Impossible to include everybodys interests
• Pressure to deliver early results
• EO mission portfolio currently limited, no new
  ESA missions until post-2008
• But alternative data opportunities
• FP6 can accommodate airborne data
• DMC opportunities for wide-area, high temporal
  revisit at 150k mapping scales

10
Annexes
11
Regional Observatories

• Observatory Nature Protection (ONP)
• Change indicators and hot spot mapping to enable
  harmonised environmental quality monitoring
  schemes
• Observatory Water Soil (OWS)
• Water
• Hot spot mapping
• adaptation to additional European ecozones
  national reporting standards (incl. national
  model integration)
• integration of results into management tools
  (esp. for irrigation)
• Soil Erosion pollution risks (additional to
  soil sealing in GSE SAGE)
• Observatory Spatial Planning (OSP)
• Urban regional planning tools and dynamic
  models (policy impact scenarios) enabling
  efficient use of monitoring results
• Core Service Land Cover (CSL)
• Nested range of local, national, continental land
  use products
• Service Infrastructure harmonisation (interface
  content standards, accepeted methodologies)

12
Global Observatories

• Observatory Natural Carbon Fluxes (ONC)
• Global assimilation of water carbon fluxes on
  land (downscaling of models to continental
  scale)
• Linking global models with high resolution in
  time and national Kyoto estimates
  (cross-validation potential)
• Observatory Food Security Crop Monitoring (OFM)
• Crop Monitoring Facility for Central Asia, China
• Input to Food Security Services and trade
  policies
• Observatory Land Cover Forest Change (OLF)
• Vegetation dynamics monitoring driving seasonal
  models and forecasts (focus African continent)
• Core Service Bio-Physical Parametres (CSP)
• Dynamic parametres (monthly seasonal yearly
  variation)
• Service Infrastructure harmonisation (interface
  content standards, accepeted methodologies)

13
Advisory Board Members

• Hugo de Groof, DG Environment
• Harry de Backer, DG Development
• Chris Steenmans, EEA
• Ralph Cordey, ESA-ESTEC
• Max Heimann, Max-Planck-Institut for
  Biogeochemistry (D)
• Alain Podaire, CNES (F)
• Gerald Braun, DLR (D)

14
Consortium Members

• 46

Users(18 consortiummembers,28 letters
ofcommittment

• 56

ConsortiumMembers

• 15

Nations