[1]

Copernicus in Support of European Environmental Policies High Level Workshop with European Environmental Protection Agencies

7 June 2017 Auditorium DG GROW - Avenue d'Auderghem 45, 1040 Brussels

MINUTES

Welcome and introduction

Mauro Facchini (European Commission DG GROW) welcomes participants in the workshop, which is organised by the European Commission in collaboration with the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Network of the Heads of Environment Protection Agencies (EPA Network). He hopes that this workshop will have a launch effect and will be the first of a series of meetings. Mauro Facchini recalls that the main objective of the workshop is to make a clear link between what Copernicus is offering and what EPAs are doing. He insists on the two important drivers for this workshop:

1. Make the participants better understand what they can get from the programme, today and

in the future;

2. Gain knowledge on what participants would like to get from Copernicus.

Note: Mauro Facchini's introduction is followed by a video message from Hans Bruyninckx, EEA's Executive Director (The corresponding file is available on the USB memory distributed to participants and on the EPA Network website at: http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/copernicus-workshop-epas-7-june-2017-brussels/session-1-welcome-hans-bruyninckx). Chris Steenmans (European Environment Agency, Chairman of the workshop) also welcomes participants and highlights that this is the first time that the Copernicus programme is discussed with the EPA Network. He stresses that this workshop is an excellent opportunity to share views and expectations on the current situation but also on the future. Chris Steenmans reminds participants that 2017 is a crucial year. The European Commission is currently performing a mid-term evaluation of the programme for the period 2014-2020. The European Commission is also working on what will be put forward in the next Multi-annual Financial Framework (2021-2028).

[2]

The success of Copernicus as a EU programme is now well recognized and it is expected that the programme will continue at least with the same size as today. There is a need to work on the service evolution. It is only now that we have the full infrastructure coming into Space, only now that we can make an operational use of the program. What is available today is still based on an unfinished deployment of Copernicus. The implementation of Copernicus and its development are still ongoing, which leaves room for discussion, for consideration of new and/or evolving user requirements and for major improvements of the system.

Session 1 – "Copernicus in support of European environmental policies: vision and strategy by DG GROW, DG ENV and the EEA"

"The Copernicus programme: status and future" (Presentation by Mauro Facchini, European Commission DG GROW) Mauro Facchini recalls that a main reason for organising this workshop is to have clear interactions with "real users". He insists on the importance to go closer to the ones really using data and considers that the national environment agencies are part of the best targets for the use of data related to atmosphere, oceans and land territories. An objective for the next meeting would be to have all the members of the EPA Network in the audience. Participants are therefore encouraged to promote the workshop among their colleagues. Mauro Facchini insists once again on the fact that the programme provides full, free and open data, accessible through many different ways (websites, platforms, etc). He also mentions the Data and Information Access Services (DIAS) platform, which will be available by the beginning of next year and will provide an easier access to all Copernicus data (Sentinel data and data produced by the Copernicus services). After a brief description of the three Copernicus components (space component, in-situ component and service component) Mauro Facchini recalls that the milestones for the implementation of the programme have been met. Mauro Facchini indicates that the European Commission has launched numerous user uptake activities and is at the service of the users to provide them with information they may need regarding the programme. He also recalls that Andreas Veispak’s unit has been specifically created to facilitate the dissemination and use of Copernicus data. The Copernicus programme is operational and the European Commission is already thinking about “Copernicus 2.0”. The European Commission already has some ideas based on different inputs/sources/requirements gathered during the last couple of years. Some of them are already part of the European Space Strategy 2016. Mauro Facchini insists on two main points (Space strategy):

- The continuity of the programme must be ensured (there is a clear expectation from direct

and indirect users who want to invest on the use of the program at medium/long-term);

- The evolution of the programme must be ensured, based on new needs. To date, the

following priorities have been identified:

(i) Greenhouse gases monitoring, particularly CO2 monitoring at a global scale.

This topic is already subject to technical discussions;

(ii) Polar zones monitoring. The Arctic zone is not totally observed but deserves

much more attention;

(iii) Agriculture and forestry are two domains which are partly covered today and

might require new observations.

The evolution of Copernicus will also be depending on budgetary considerations.

[3]

The definition and prioritisation of possible evolutions will have to be based on users’ feedback and on lessons learned from the development of the programme to make sure that evolutions are in line with user requirements. Mauro Facchini also indicates that Copernicus must be considered rather as a tool that is put in the users' hands to make things in a different way, not as a policy making instrument. There are several fora where the Commission meets with users and in particular the Copernicus User Forum. Member States' representatives are the interface between the EC and the users and it is part of their role to liaise with national agencies. The fact that this workshop takes place shows that this link does not fully operate. The organisations involved in the management and implementation of the programme must altogether inform users about what they are doing but also gather the feedback from users. Mauro Facchini hopes that this meeting, which is a first step in the improvement of mutual understanding will be the first one of many regular meetings to exchange and interact. In this perspective, he also suggests that Copernicus is (at least sometimes) put on the agenda of EPA Network meetings. Chris Steenmans (EEA) also supports the idea to have regular interactions in the future, especially with the EPA Network. He also insists on the importance of keeping the free, full and open data policy in the future. Discussion Elisa Rivera Mendoza (Spanish Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment) considers that the challenge is to link between Copernicus users and the environmental protection community. She points out that this link is not obvious. Many users already use Copernicus (in universities for instance) and it is important to establish a link between them and end users in ministries and public administrations. She takes note of and support the idea of regular discussion/interaction sessions and suggests that these sessions should not be limited to the EPA Network but should also take place with the management boards of environmental agencies. Mauro Facchini (European Commission DG GROW) indicates that there are already a lot of workshops organised in the context of Copernicus user uptake activities, in different countries and that the European Commission is ready to participate in any board meeting, but does not want to impose itself. He suggests that EPAs should send an invitation to the European Commission when they consider that its presence would be needed. Luca Demicheli (EUROSERVICE/ISPRA) agrees with Elisa Rivera Mendoza and points out that there is a failure in the capacity of Copernicus to reach the in-situ data community. In spite of the fact that EEA put a huge effort into reaching this community, the potential of Copernicus remains under-estimated within the EPA Network. This is a gap that needs to be filled out. European Protection Agencies could have a bigger role in Copernicus. This is even more evident within the geological community, where there is now a strong movement for creating a Copernicus ground-based motion service. This is a first step that comes after several failed attempts to give to in-situ data a stronger role in Copernicus. The meeting is most welcome but the relatively small attendance shows that much remains to be done. Copernicus representatives should be present at the next EPA management board. Mauro Facchini (European Commission DG GROW) agrees that in-situ must be better valued in Copernicus but he also makes clear that this does not mean that additional funding must be made available. A part of the solution is to better interact in order to better integrate this capacity. This role has been delegated to EEA. Chris Steenmans (EEA) also agrees that Copernicus should better reflect the importance of in-situ data and of the in-situ community, which is much broader than the one already involved in Copernicus. Michiel Van Peteghem (Flanders Environment Agency) mentions two crucial aspects to be taken into account when preparing the next Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) if the European Commission wants to have Member States and Environmental Protection Agencies onboard.

[4]

The first one relates to the possibility to have projects that could be funded together with the Member States (Is there a budget foreseen that would enable Member States and Environmental Protection Agencies to engage?). The second one relates to the availability of a budget to address issues that would be raised by EPAs. Knowing that most of EPAs do not have budget available to invest in this kind of activities, a budget is needed within the Copernicus programme to think about adaptation of the programme to user needs. Mauro Facchini (European Commission DG GROW) confirms that the European Commission is in the process of defining what will be in the next MFF (2021 – 2028). At that stage, the European Commission has ideas on what to propose but less on what will be selected in the end. In terms of timing, the first MFF proposition will be made by the European Commission by mid-2018 with a total envelope and a proposition for associated activities. Until then, the European Commission is still working to prepare it. For the time being the programme does not foresee a support action corresponding to the two above-mentioned aspects. The main reason for this is that European Commission has concentrated on generating data and making these data available to anyone (industry, SMEs, citizens…), so that everyone has the opportunity to build something out of it. That said, it is not excluded that we might reflect on the type of action mentioned above. Andreas Veispak (European Commission DG GROW) complements Mauro Facchini's answer by providing an overview of the Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA), which will be operational beginning of next year. The FPA will be a co-financing facility for national initiatives. The FPA does not have an unlimited budget but according to what each Member State considers important, it will be possible to finance projects, including projects related to in-situ. Of course the implementation of activities through the FPA will be a question of priorities, the available budget will not allow for paying for everything, everywhere.

The support of Copernicus on environmental policies (Presentation by Robert Konrad, European Commission DG ENV) The European Commission DG ENV has always been involved in the development of Copernicus and is glad to have services which are now producing more and more information partly based on satellite data. DG ENV must now move from being a supporter of Copernicus to being a user of Copernicus. Within DG ENV, the situation is quite diverse in terms of user needs. However, user needs can be split into two main topics: "Compliance" and "Better regulation" (meaning "reporting"). Concerning "Compliance" there is a huge interest in having in-house applications to enable a EU-wide monitoring of individual Natura 2000 sites (many complaints are received about illegal logging, illegal constructions, etc.). DG ENV already has a downstream application to capture a limited number of Natura 2000 areas but there is a need to invest (financially and in human resources) to upgrade it to have a EU-level monitoring. In this context, DG ENV should be able to use Copernicus data for a better dissemination of information at a EU level. Based on the amount of data produced, DG ENV could also have a much higher active dissemination of environmental information and much higher transparency at the levels where this is needed most: the local/regional/national levels. Copernicus offers a real opportunity to contribute to the active dissemination and transparency of the data. DG ENV will try to extend the idea to other areas (e.g. Forest, Water quality, Marine environment) and use Copernicus as much as possible for active dissemination and improve compliance at a pan-European level. Concerning "Reporting / Better Regulation", there is for the time being no direct use of Copernicus data in regulatory reporting. There is clearly a lot of room for progress.

[5]

In the “Action Plan” that will follow the "Fitness Check" of the environmental monitoring and reporting which will be published in a few weeks, DG ENV is going to have a look at how and in what extent Copernicus can be used for increasing the quality of the reporting. The goal is to decrease the burden at Member States level and of course at the level of the environmental protection agencies. DG ENV continues to improve information exchange and capacity building for an uptake of Copernicus and is also continuing to identify policy priorities so that the most strategic inputs to be provided by Copernicus can be identified. A key objective is to make Copernicus data and applications better accessible in DG ENV. Internal discussions are taking place to identify the barriers, needs and potential to develop end-user applications for in-house use. Discussion Vincent Pircher (French Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition) recalls that Copernicus has global goals and that most services have a global component. In this context, he asks the question about the usefulness for the EU level of tools having a global capacity. Chris Steenmans (EEA) indicates that this issue will be addressed through the afternoon presentations, when the Entrusted Entities will present the global and regional components.

"The role of Copernicus data and services´ information" (Presentation by Chris Steenmans,

EEA) EEA is often seen as a user of Copernicus, which is true to a certain extent, but EEA also has its own end-users and must be successful in serving them. This point was specifically stated in the EEA State and Outlook report 2015 (SOER 2015), which was put forward to the European environment leaders in many different domains. The challenge is to know whether they see the usefulness of the Copernicus data and services The 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) 2020, which will be used as a backbone to evaluate whether Copernicus actually fulfils the existing requirements from a user-perspective identifies three priorities in the environmental policy agenda:

(i) Protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natural capital;

(ii) Move to a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy;

(iii) Ensure a healthy environment for our citizens.

A look at the core processes of the EEA/Eionet shows that among the many inputs that are used to provide an important knowledge base for environmental decision making in Europe, Copernicus remote sensing data have a role to play. In the overall EEA information management process, which ranges from monitoring activities to the establishment of a knowledge base (useful for evidence base decision making), Copernicus is today making a difference at the following levels:

(i) At the monitoring level, thanks to much more accessible and reliable space-based data

than a few decades ago;

(ii) At the data processing level, thanks to the different services that are designed to better

match the National and European requirements;

(iii) At the application level, thanks to downstream services to make sure that data and

information fit to what is needed from an environmental perspective.

In the end of 2016, EEA published a report to measure whether or not the EU is on track to meet the objectives of the 7th Environmental Action Programme, based on 29 indicators. Out of those indicators, only one was underpinned by Copernicus data.

[6]

It was the same for the SOER 2015, where less than 5% of the statements were underpinned by Copernicus data. The situation is similar for the global indicator set to measure progress towards the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals: none of the indicators is based on Earth Observation data. The main reason is that today Copernicus data does not fulfil the criteria required by this community. Nevertheless, the picture is not the same if we look at every Copernicus core services and at all the reports published by the EEA over the last 12 months.

Land Monitoring Service: Copernicus has provided inputs to all land-related reports. One of

the main reason is that the use of space-based observations along with in-situ data offers

quite easily a wall-to-wall coverage, which is very important when it comes to Europe-wide

information. Copernicus also offers change monitoring possibilities (not only mapping), it

brings more consistency between the local, the national and the European level, and it

provides more up-to-date information. Today, the Copernicus data are for instance the most

important reference data that is available to DG REGIO to compare cities. EEA, DG ENV and

DG AGRI are also working together to make sure that Copernicus will soon become a major

and explicit reference for European agri-environmental measures. It is also now proposed in

DG ENERGY and DG CLIMA legislation that Copernicus data will be used for national

reporting. The importance of Copernicus is recognised. This constitutes a big step forward.

Climate Change service: the last report that EEA published in 2016 on “Climate Change,

Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe”, also includes a large number of references to

Copernicus, thanks to the long-term time series it provides.

Atmosphere Monitoring Service: the picture is more mixed here. The data is still mainly

referencing/focusing on what is measured in-situ. We have not yet succeeded in integrating

the high-quality data provided by Copernicus into the data reporting activities for

international conventions.

Marine Environment monitoring & Emergency Management services: the situation is similar

and the presence of Copernicus is currently limited.

A paradigm shift is taking place. On the space & in-situ component side, there is a sensor revolution, an increased number of satellites (close to a thousand satellites will be launched in the next 24 months, including a lot of micro-satellites, many of them serving environmental purposes), an exponential increase of the amount of data available, encouraging to take “human beings out of the loop” (how the technology can be used to process all these data?). On the service side, there are longer-term time series and forecast developments. There is still a gap to fill between science and policy. There is also a shift to data intensive scientific discovery based on the fact that a huge amount of low quality data can give the same result as a single high quality dataset. Last but not least there is also a shift towards the big data era. Finally, looking back at the three priorities of the 7th EAP the question is "to what extent and in which topics areas can we see/foresee an increased role of Copernicus in terms of contribution to environmental policies?" The details can be found in the presentation that was distributed to participants, but there is a potential for most topic area. The question is how it will be done in practice. In the future, a way to better link the different Entrusted Entities on the different topics will have to be found in order to better benefit from cross-services information. Concerning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it turns out that 8 out 17 could potentially benefit from Copernicus data.

[7]

In conclusion, a lot of progress has been made on data reliability, but there is still progress to be made when it comes to the relevance of the data provided and the targeting of the data in order to meet user needs. Moreover, there is still a long way to go to bridge the gap between science and policy. Concerning the use of Copernicus data in the environmental monitoring and reporting legislation, the European Commission will make a proposition in the coming weeks. There is still a need for a stronger engagement and communication with the environment community.

Discussion Jan Hendrik Voet (IRCEL) indicates that the discussions and the conclusions have been the same for years. He admits that there is progress, notably with the launch of the Sentinels, but as long as we cannot go to real life, to real operations with EPAs, no real added value can be expected. He wonders if there is a "pilot in the airplane" and considers that to move from "potential" to "operational", someone has to really be in charge. Chris Steenmans (EEA) remembers a presentation he made in Baveno in which he mentioned the provision of high quality satellite data as a key success factor for Copernicus (GMES at that time). In fact it is only now that we have operational satellites in place (and Sentinel 2B data are not yet available). The frustration comes mainly from the fact that were promoting something which was not operational for a long time. Christophe Roeland (European Commission DG GROW) indicates that if the pilot is not visible enough it means that something must be done and he recalls that Andreas Veispak' unit has been specifically created to address this issue, i.e. to bridge the gap between what Copernicus is providing and users. It is normal that frustration exists but many things are made to bridge the gap between users and Copernicus. There is a pilot in the plane in the sense that there is now a very comprehensive Copernicus user uptake strategy, which involves not only the European Commission but also the Member States. The Framework Partnership Agreement is going to be one of the pillars of the strategy to enable Member States to develop their own user uptake activities based on their own priorities. Christophe Roeland indicates that DG GROW is working also internally with different DGs to raise awareness on Copernicus and when Copernicus is known, to bridge the gap between data & info and the real user needs. He wants to convey a reassuring message: yes indeed we have been talking about "potential" for a lot of years but now we are really making significant progress. Coming back to the question of SDGs and in particular EU indicators (see Chris Steenmans' presentation), Christophe Roeland considers that the situation is frustrating because the European Commission and EEA have tried to see where Copernicus could be used and to identify which indicators could rely on Copernicus. However he also considers that the picture is not so gloomy. Thanks to the very good discussions that took place, Copernicus will be used as a reference more than it is today in the future. Copernicus will be used in 2018 for an ocean acidity indicator for instance. Hans Dufourmont (EEA) also confirms that in this type of programme it is normal to have this impression that there is no pilot. Considering the level of investment, we cannot expect the programme to serve one single purpose. Copernicus is multi-purpose, multi-functional, multi-users. It is therefore quite logical to have this impression. Yes, we have developed a plane but the idea is to build a whole fleet of planes and to tailor them depending on user needs. Thanks to the governance in place, there is the possibility to steer the programme in the right direction. To conclude on this point, Chris Steenmans (EEA) confirms that EEA wants to be the pilot, at least for the environmental community. Laurence Crosnier (Mercator) asks about the reasons why the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) is not so much used for reporting purposes. Chris Steenmans (EEA) indicates that EEA fully believes in the marine service but explains that for this kind of report EEA works with experts from the environment community, which is so broad that a very limited number of people are aware of the potential of Copernicus.

[8]

Hans Dufourmont (EEA) also recalls that during the initial operation phase, there was clearly a mismatch of expectations: users expected to be able to directly use CMEMS results/products to draw conclusions and include them in their report, while CMEMS was actually delivering off-the-shelves products that still needed some processing/work/interpretation to be used for environmental purposes. This mismatch of expectations is now being solved with an important effort being made in the context of user uptake activities, and the situation is most likely to improve.

Michiel Van Peteghem (Flanders Environment Agency) recalls that EPAs do not have the capacity to invest in innovation, in pilot projects on the use of Copernicus and satellite data. He wonders to which extent EEA can invest as an agency in innovation and pilot projects. He suggests that EEA should take the lead and rely on its capacity to build networks. Vincent Henri Peuch (ECMWF) comes back on the impression of frustration and sees two reasons to it. Firstly, because of its scale, it has taken time to the programme to become operational. Indeed the first 15 years have been relatively slow but it was the time needed to gather the funding, to convince decision makers, etc. but in the course of the last three years most of the services have become operational. Secondly, the other challenge for Copernicus is that the programme is not replacing something "like for like". In some domains, like air quality monitoring, things were well established based on in-situ measurements and bringing something new based on satellites was upsetting the system. Everyone is now convinced of the added value but there is this "activation energy" needed. There is therefore a need to think on how Copernicus can complement, not replace, what is existing so that Copernicus becomes part of the natural operational flow.

Session 2 –"Copernicus in support of European environmental policies: vision and strategy by EPAs"

Some key feedback from the responses on the questionnaires (Presentation by Hans Dufourmont, EEA) The questionnaires are available at the EPA Network website:

http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/copernicus-workshop-epas-7-june-2017-

brussels/copernicus-questionnaire-epas Hans Dufourmont provides an overview of the feedback received from the 13 respondents to the questionnaire which had been circulated together with the invitation to the workshop. Concerning the general comments received on the possible use of Copernicus data and/or information, it appears that there is a strong interest for satellite imagery and Copernicus products but at the same time respondents provided the general feedback that Copernicus core products currently do not fulfil Member States' needs and that Member States are not involved in the planning and definition of new adequate products. In response to the question "How does Copernicus currently meet your expectations?", several respondents indicate that they do not use Copernicus services but that they use Sentinel imagery. It is generally considered that the limited use of Copernicus is due to a lack of knowledge of its potential. Those who are using Copernicus products mentioned Land products (in particular CLC) and Marine products most frequently. Atmosphere products are also mentioned but to a lesser extent. The free, full and open data policy is considered as being important.

[9]

Hans Dufourmont also provides an overview of the improvements that would be required according to users to better respond to their needs. These include:

A more user-friendly access to Sentinel data;

An improved reliability of services;

An agricultural HRL would be needed;

A better balancing between EU & national needs would be needed;

User expert groups should be created to provide guidance on how to best use

Copernicus.

"SYKE and Copernicus - Data needs and collaboration opportunities" (Presentation by Sampsa Koponen, Finnish Environment Institute - SYKE) Sampsa Koponen indicates that for the time being environmental monitoring in Finland is mainly based on in-situ measurements but that their spatial coverage is not sufficient and their use is expensive. As far as Copernicus is concerned, SYKE is mainly interested in Sentinel data and in Land and Marine services. However, Sampsa Koponen indicates that they do not use the Copernicus services because their quality does not meet national needs (the CMEMS Baltic Sea CHL-A product is mentioned as an example). He presents a number of services developed at national level to meet user requirements. Sampsa Koponen confirms that the free and open Sentinel satellite data policy is excellent. He considers that the use of Copernicus is better when Member State expertise is used but insists on the fact that if the "centralised" production at European level increases, there is a risk that national and regional needs are not fulfilled. In the case of Marine service, Sampsa Koponen regrets that national EO efforts are not sufficiently utilised in Copernicus and considers that the content of future products/services is not clear. Sampsa Koponen suggests that an open process should be established for assessing which services are needed nationally and at EU level so that user needs are met at all levels. He also indicates that cooperation is needed at EU level in several domains, such as methods for monitoring and assessment, combination of data from different sources, algorithms and common tools for satellite data processing. Discussions Laurence Crosnier (Mercator Océan) confirms that the Baltic Sea is very particular basin and that there is a lack of data for Chlorophyll there. The availability of Sentinel-3 data should lead to an improvement of these Chlorophyll data by early 2018.

Copernicus for the Implementation of the Environmental Policy (Presentation by Elisa Rivera Mendoza, Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Environment) Elisa Rivera Mendoza indicates that in addition to an annual user forum, thematic workshops are also organised in Spain to focus on user needs and create a community of end-users. As several previous speakers did, Elisa Rivera Mendoza insists on the importance for users of the full, free and open data policy. She mentions the main areas of benefits of Copernicus (monitoring the state of the environment, monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of environmental policies, and information of public authorities and of the general public). She also mentions a number of weaknesses of Copernicus, among which the lack of user-friendliness of the ESA Sentinel access hub, the lack of optimization of data downloading and the lack of "ready-to-use" products for end users. She indicates that the limited use of Copernicus products and services within the Spanish environmental public administration is mainly due to the limited knowledge on the added value of Copernicus.

[10]

After several examples of the added-value that Copernicus could offer, Elisa Rivera Mendoza concludes with some suggestions for improving the situation. She considers that public administrations should clearly define their needs and identify gaps per topic (e.g. water, agriculture,…) and that capacity building is needed for new remote sensing applications. She also indicates that the transferability of research results should be improved in order to bridge the gap between science and policy. Discussion Laurence Crosnier (Mercator Océan) recalls that the CMEMS also organises specific training workshops. Although not in Spain, several training workshop are foreseen. She asks about the best way to inform Spanish users and asks if for instance a mailing list exists for each user community. More generally, such lists would be needed for each Member State. Doina Catrinoiou (Romanian National Environmental Protection Agency) considers that mobilising the national reference centres (NRCs) through the questionnaire was an excellent idea. She suggests it is also sent to National Focal Points, not only to EPAs, in order to have a full picture of Copernicus applications. Chris Steenmans(EEA) confirms that this is a good suggestion which deserves further consideration.

"The Italian Environmental National System SNPA and the Space Economy: the National Mirror Copernicus Programme" (Presentation by Andrea Taramelli, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research - ISPRA) Andrea Taramelli indicates that Italy is currently implementing the original principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, trying to implement at national level what is made at the European level, while avoiding overlap between the two different levels. In Italy there is currently a huge investment on the Italian space economy and key questions are "How to use National bottom-up approaches and national investments?" and "How can we really make a market uptake at national level, both from institutional and industry sides?" The point is to determine how to use Copernicus core services and to identify the EU framework directives that have to be implemented at the national level. In other words, the binding laws that push for the use of Copernicus must be identified, as well as the best way to use Copernicus core services to create institutional and private downstream services that really meet the national demand. In line with the Space Strategy for Europe, a National Space Economy Strategic Plan has been defined which includes a strategic plan for the establishment of a multi-regional cooperation programme. A double funding (national and regional) is foreseen for building downstream services based on institutional requirements. In order to shorten the implementation of downstream services on the market, Framework Directives and their national implementation must be used to support the implementation of downstream institutional services based on the existing Copernicus core services. The biggest investment is the investment for establishing the national infrastructure for creating at national level a "mirror Copernicus" related to all the core services. This national infrastructure consists of 6 different national infrastructures (including one on environmental monitoring and control, and a national collaborative ground segment – to be linked to DIAS). To achieve this, the first step is to build the institutional demand and then to ask industry and research, through an open competition, to provide solutions. Andrea Taramelli provides several examples illustrating concrete use cases of value-added products built on top of Copernicus services in several domains (e.g. Habitat Mapping Platform, Air Quality, Coastal Risks,…).

[11]

To conclude, Andrea Taramelli indicates that there is no chance that Copernicus core services are used "as is" at national level and that a national investment is needed to make private and public sectors interested in investing to develop an operational system. Even though it is not always clear how much Copernicus will be beneficial, it is worth giving it a try at a national scale, with platforms which are of use for public institutions. Discussion Vincent Pircher (French Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition) asks about the type of downstream services available on the thematic platform. Are they institutional downstream services or are they built on commercial applications? Andrea Taramelli (ISPRA) indicates that the platforms are built on national downstream institutional services. However, in the end it will be a public-private partnership (PPP), based on an open call. Part of the implementation will be made by the industry. Andrea Taramelli also reminds that the national infrastructures being partly depending on the Copernicus data produced at EU level, the long-term sustainability of the DIAS platforms is an important issue that needs to be discussed with the European Commission.

"Use of Copernicus data/information in CENIA now and in the future" (Presentation by Jana Basistova, Czech Environmental Information Agency - CENIA) Jana Basistova mentions the "Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Czech Republic" adopted by the Czech government in October 2015 and which has led to the definition of "National Action Plan on Adaptation to Climate Change". This plan includes a system of evaluation based on a set of vulnerability indicators. She also provides an overview of the use of CLC in the Czech Republic. As far as the future use of Copernicus is concerned, Jana Basistova indicates that CENIA is currently performing an evaluation of the systematic use of Copernicus data/information in different domains (waste management, land cover, etc.). She insists on the need to encourage the use of Copernicus through legislation support and research projects.

Session 3 – "The Copernicus service component: 6 Copernicus core services"

Note: The session consisted of presentations dedicated to the 6 Copernicus services. For each service, the presentation provided an overview of the catalogue of products and of the delivery mechanisms to end-users. Most presentations also included concrete use cases as well as examples on how Copernicus could support policy implementation. The presentations available through the USB memory distributed to participants being very detailed, the present document does not contain an overview of each presentation. It focusses on the discussions which took place with participants after the presentations. All presentations are available at the EPA Network website:

http://epanet.pbe.eea.europa.eu/ad-hoc-meetings/copernicus-workshop-epas-7-june-2017-brussels Discussions Jana Basistova (CENIA) asks if the image mosaics that will be produced by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service will be available for free. Hans Dufourmont (EEA) indicates that it should be free for the viewing of Pan-European images and for the middleware services, and of course for the downloading of Pan-European images when coming from the Sentinels.

[12]

On the contrary, the downloading of VHR images coming from Contributing Missions will not be possible for free. The global mosaic will be available for free since it is based on Sentinel data. Sampsa Koponen (SYKE) asks if more information could be provided about the future evolution of CORINE Land Cover (CLC+) Hans Dufourmont (EEA) indicates that the product is under preparation and that it is time to change and adapt the existing CLC to new requirements (e.g. better spatial resolution and better minimum mapping units are needed). Secondly, there is an interesting opportunity in EU legislation with a 0.5 hectare monitoring required in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) while CLC is at 25 hectares. There is therefore a need to move forward a highly detailed product. Thirdly, when putting altogether the areas covered by the local component products (Urban Atlas, Riparian Zones and Natura 2000 areas) they represent one third of the total areas corresponding to EEA39. This constitutes a good basis to start building CLC+ and to cover the entire EEA39 area. Moreover, Member States insist more and more to make sure that national databases are taken into account and that what is done at national level is better integrated. It remains a cumbersome exercise to ensure that the national data sets get correctly translated to become part of a homogeneous European coverage. It means that from a technical perspective, we have to change the approach and move to a completely new object-based data model (the EAGLE group has started working on it). The CLC+ product should be built upon the concept developed by the EAGLE group. A call has been published to come up with very detailed specifications of the CLC+ product. These specifications will be subject to various levels of consultation in the coming months. Then, the initial production of CLC+ will be performed by a company through an open call. Once produced, CLC+ will go back into the hands of the EIONET National Reference Centres Land Cover (NRC/LC) who will have the opportunity to verify it. An objective is also to ensure a backward compatibility with the old time series which are already available. Vincent Pircher (French Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition) asks if Member States interested in the selection of the Hot Spots to be dealt with through the Global Land component might be involved in the selection process. Mark Dowell (European Commission JRC) indicates that the initial selection (key ecosystems for Africa) was established only with DG DEVCO but that there is now a willingness to open the selection process to the Member States. This might probably be done through the Copernicus User Forum (a presentation is scheduled at the June user forum to provide some guidelines about how to involve Member States in the process).

Michiel Van Peteghem (Flanders Environment Agency) comes back to the Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) and to the problem that was mentioned about the monitoring based on sensors. He also mentions the interpolation models that address this kind of issue. He wonders if CAMS has done any validation exercise about the results obtained from the satellite data compared with the results obtained through interpolation models? Secondly, in the case of the emissions that CAMS is tackling through satellite data, he wonders in which detail CAMS already provides data? For instance for diffuse emissions of wood burning or emissions related to traffic, can satellite provide better data than what we have today through reports, statistics, etc.? Vincent Henri Peuch (ECMWF) confirms that CAMS uses both satellite and in-situ data and indicates that it is not demonstrated that a physical model would better capture what is "between the dots". He refers to several recently published papers which show that a system based on the combination of satellite data and in-situ data provides a better picture than just interpolation. Regarding the emissions, CAMS is still based on bottom-up data coming from reporting information which is compiled and homogenised by experts. There are still areas of uncertainty (like wood burning) and Sentinel 4 is expected to provide much more frequent updates (hourly vs. daily for current observations) and to greatly improve the data provided. Regarding emissions from transport, for the time being CAMS uses static data. They have asked more frequent updates of these data through a recent Invitation to Tender (ITT) and they should soon be able to use proxies for traffic to be feed into the emission models.

[13]

Chris Steenmans (EEA) indicates that EEA is very interested in the outcomes of the Climate Change Service (C3S) and also notes that C3S has a lot of interdependences with the other Copernicus Services. Juan Garces de Marcilla (ECMWF) also pinpoints that the Climate community has not waited for the implementation of C3S and that the goal is not to replace the numerous existing climate-related initiatives but rather to create some dependence so that the community needs the tools proposed by Copernicus. Jan Hendrik Voet (IRCEL) is interested in knowing what will be delivered through the Sectorial Information Systems (SIS) developed by C3S and wonders if it could be a source of information for the production of the Environmental Status Reports, and even maybe for national reporting. Chris Steenmans (EEA) indicates that a meeting between EEA and ECMWF to discuss this issue is already scheduled. On the other hand, he is not sure that it makes sense at a national level. Jana Basistova (CENIA) asks if Security products are only for authorized users? Rui Meneses (European Commission) confirms that it is the case but also indicates that requests from non-authorised users can also be taken into account, provided that they are submitted through an authorised user.

Conclusions

(by Chris Steenmans - EEA) Chris Steenmans considers that the discussions show that we are still at an early stage of the process. We shall make sure that other occasions will enable to go deeper in the operational use of Copernicus and in its evolution. This workshop is a first very positive outcome. He has been impressed by the critical but constructive discussions and hopes that EEA and EPAs can have further discussions with DG GROW and other Commission services on how we can make this "governance instrument" more efficient for the future, thus contributing to the successful switch from Copernicus 1.0 to Copernicus 2.0. Chris Steenmans thanks Katrin Seuss (EPA Network Secretariat: EEA), who has been instrumental in bringing the EPA Network to this event, as well as Catharina Bamps and Christophe Roeland (European Commission DG GROW) for their support.