C17 Promotion & Training Review August06 - … · GMES TERRAFIRMA ESRIN/Contract no. 19366/05/I-EC...

GMESTERRAFIRMA

ESRIN/Contract no. 19366/05/I-EC

Promotion and Training Review

Dossier C17 V1.0

11th August 2006

Version V1.0

Stage 2

Chris Browitt

Alice WalkerContributors to Dossier

EMSC

Reviewed by: Project Manager

Ren Capes/ / 21 August 2006

Approved by: Project Contract Officer

David Morten/ / 21 August 2006

ESA GMES: Terrafirma C17: Promotion Review 11 August 2006: V1.0

Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2006 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1

2 REVIEW OF PROGRESS .........................................................................22.1 Extending the Partner Network and securing SLAs for Phase 1 ..................... 2

2.2 Extending the Partner Network and securing SLAs for Phase 2 ..................... 3

2.3 National Promotion and Exploitation .................................................................. 4

2.4 Events and Highlights........................................................................................... 5

3 TRAINING AND EDUCATION...................................................................7

ANNEXES

FIGURE 1: GMES TERRAFIRMA PARTNER MAP

TABLE 1: SLA PRIORITY & STATUS TABLES BY COUNTRY FOR H1/H2

TABLE 2: SLA PRIORITY & STATUS FOR LANDSLIDES

TABLE 3: SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT SUMMARIES BY APS

GMES TERRAFIRMA EXPLOITATION ACTIVITY CHART


Copyright NPA and Terrafirma collaborators 2006 1

1 INTRODUCTION

GMES Terrafirma promotional strategy has been focused on creating a large primary networkof intermediate users who would also provide data integration and interpretation, second levelproducts and national promotion. This strategy has been effected by engaging and enthusingnational Geological Surveys and Geoscience Institutions (APs), with the aim of thembecoming the primary service providers, promoters and exploiters, as well as users,themselves. In Stage 1, 15 Member States of EU25 became formally involved in Terrafirma inthis way, in addition to others in neighbouring regions of the European-Mediterranean area.As a consequence, many points of contact within these countries have continued to beappropriate for this Stage 2, in which the target countries are the EU25 + Switzerland. Theattached map shows the current status of the Terrafirma federation among the EU25countries. Those in orange are partners engaged already, at some level, in Stage 2, those ingreen are not yet signed up and are in the EU25, and those in yellow, are APs who were inStage 1 and are not in the EU25.

In Stage 2, the requirement of a legal Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the AssociatePartners (APs), the Supplier and the Project Coordinator, has raised the commitment andobligations of the APs and, therefore, has involved a greater degree of consideration beforethey join us. The SLA is the key instrument in ensuring that relevant exploitation activity takesplace, that feedback is assured, and that additional funds are sought for further PSIinvestment in each country. As a consequence, promotional activity to-date has been focusedon bringing forward appropriate SLAs from existing and new, prospective Stage 2 APs, andachieving ratification of the suitability of sites and partner organisations by ESA. This activityhas included building Terrafirma awareness where it did not previously exist, particularly formany new APs whose SLAs would not be acted upon by the Operational Service Providersuntil Phase 2. In order to avoid a processing gap at the commencement of Phase 2, it wasconsidered important to make significant progress with Phase 2 SLAs to the point wheresome were signed in advance of Phase 2, and some are close to signing at the start of thatPhase. This approach amounted to bringing forward promotional and SLA work from Phase 2into Phase 1.

In summary, principal objectives for Stage 2 have been:

• To build the User Federation by securing SLAs with partners for processing andexploiting datasets (H1, H2) for cities in 13 countries in Phase 1.

• To extend that activity in preparation for the 13 Phase 2 targeted cities which willbring in 12 new countries.

• To secure 2 SLAs for landslide work; one monitoring site (LSM) and one inventoryregion (LSI). This brings the 26th country, Switzerland, into the frame.

• To make some progress with the 5 landslide products scheduled for Phase 2 and 3 ofthe programme.



• To attract the involvement of additional partners as interest emerged but as a secondpriority to securing the core SLAs that would achieve the target 26 city sites and 2landslide sites.

• To secure SLAs for 2 enhancements of primary sites in Phase 1 to achieve a morecomplete interpreted product (H2), in addition to the 4 PVW SLAs that subsume 4 ofthe 13 H1 products scheduled for Phase 1.

• To build some awareness of opportunities for partners to engage in 2 further H2enhancements in Phase 2, and to engage in 2 monitoring products (M1). These areall downstream and depend on Phase 1 outcomes, as are modelling products (H3) forwhich 4 cities and partners are already designated.

• To encourage and support APs who have signed SLAs, and who have receivedprocessed datasets, in their promotional and exploitation efforts (to-date, about half ofthe Phase 1 datasets have been delivered and this process is just starting).

• To utilise the networks of Eurogeosurveys (EGS), the European Federation ofGeologists (EFG) and the European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC) inboth promotion and in recruiting partners, and in downstream exploitation.

• To provide opportunities for training appropriate to the maturity of the partners (in aPSI-experience sense).

2 REVIEW OF PROGRESS

2.1 Extending the Partner Network and securing SLAs for Phase 1

Overall, we have achieved a strong engagement with relevant partners (APs) in 21 of the 26countries to be targeted in Stage 2 (Fig 1). They include those with the 13 designated citiesfor Phase 1, together with Switzerland, for a landslide monitoring product, also scheduled forPhase 1.

Table 1a shows the status of SLAs for cities and countries targeted in Phase 1. Byagreement, the city of Tychy, Poland, has been brought forward from Phase 2 to Phase 1, sothat 12 of these 14 countries now have ESA-approved SLAs, permitting processing tocommence (in several cases this is underway, and, in some, H1 products have beendelivered). Of the 2 outstanding SLAs, ESA has accepted one from the Netherlands, forAlkmaar, subject to receiving a response on the principal geohazard targeted. The oneremaining Phase 1 city, Toulouse, is held up by a legal difficulty which might be solvedthrough a re-draft of the SLA. Discussions are continuing for Toulouse, and there is aprospect that processing may not be completed to achieve an H1 product during Phase 1. Forall the other 13 countries now in Phase 1, there is time to deliver that product within thePhase.

Prioritising cities against OSPs, as shown in Table 1, has enabled the progress with SLAs,through to ESA ratification, to be kept ahead of the OSPs capacity to process the cities. Thishas ensured that SLA procurement has not held up their schedule through Phase 1. However,



the difficulties encountered over Toulouse are beginning to impact on the work of the ProductValidation Group (PVW) as Toulouse is scheduled to produce one of the 4 interpretedproducts (H2) as input to their work.

Table 2 shows the schedule for delivering landslide products, with 2 required for Phase 1.Both of these (an LSI for the Calabrian Basin, Italy, and an LSM for Lumnez, Switzerland) areunderway with ESA-approved SLAs. The LSI (inventory) products require associatedfieldwork which has influenced the scheduling (eg snowfall limits the opportunity inSwitzerland).

Of the 2 other enhanced H1 sites (to H2 products) scheduled for Phase 1, Murcia, Spain, hasbeen selected as one, and the first draft of an SLA is in-hand. The second site has yet to bechosen from H1 products under processing or delivery.

Details of the partners (APs) secured, and those to be targeted, are given in Table 3 incountry order, against a summary of their SLA status.

2.2 Extending the Partner Network and securing SLAs for Phase 2

In order to ensure that SLAs continue to be secured in a timely fashion for Phase 2 to avoidany H1 product procurement gap (OSPs having to await SLAs), some Phase 2 SLApreparation has been brought forward into Phase 1. This proved, in part, to be inevitable asknowledge of Terrafirma through pre-contract contacts and through peers, stimulated aninterest and momentum in several relevant user institutes. It would have been unwise toattempt to put that interest on hold for a year, and the benefits of making progress now areoutlined above.

Table 1b shows the status of the SLAs for cities and countries targeted for Phase 2. As notedabove, one Phase 2 target (Tychy, Poland) has been brought forward to Phase 1. It has anESA-ratified SLA and is proceeding. For 5 of the remaining 12 cities, of Phase 2, the firstdrafts of SLAs have been delivered and are being improved before submission to ESA forapproval. Initial contacts have been made in 3 others (Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia) and astrong interest engendered there. For Germany, the existing draft SLA has become void,recently, with the substitution of another city.

Unfortunately, approaches to, and discussions with, prospective partners in Sweden andDenmark have not yet yielded interest in Terrafirma, and these will be picked up again inPhase 2. Finding an appropriate contact in Malta is likely to prove difficult.

On the landslide inventory programme for Phase 2, a draft SLA has been secured forSwitzerland (Table 2), which will be progressed to avoid a hiatus with fieldwork andprocessing next year. Subsequent LSM monitoring sites in Italy are simpler and will be



progressed in Phase 2. Contact has been made with IGME, Greece, in relation to its LSI sitebut its pursuit will also await Phase 2.

In summary, one Phase 2 city has an approved SLA and is being processed in Phase 1,another 5 or 6 Phase 2 city sites will be pursued in Phase 1 with the anticipation that SLAswill be ratified by the end of Phase 1 or very early in Phase 2. Landslide SLAs will be treatedas described above.

2.3 National Promotion and Exploitation

With few H1 products delivered yet in Stage 2, and with most only in the APs’ hands for ashort time, there has been little opportunity to promote and exploit them to-date. However,discussions between APs and potential end-users are taking place in a number of countries,building on contacts made during Stage 1. An expansion of this activity is anticipated duringthe final months of Phase 1 as more H1 products are delivered and when those already in-hand have been subjected to surface data integration and some interpretation, and when theSLA-driven exploitation obligations begin to take effect. Of course, given the timing of H1product production, much of this activity will spill over into Phase 2.

The sectors in which promotion of Terrafirma products took place in Stage 1 were tracked andcompiled against country in an exploitation activity chart. This has been expanded (to theStage 2 target countries currently engaged at any level), and updated to take account of newend-user contacts made in Stage 2. This chart is appended, and indicates in which sectorsrelevant discussions and presentations have taken place, identifies where a strong positiveresponse has been achieved, and where a more complete engagement with Terrafirma is inplace.

This summary chart will be updated on a regular basis with details being sought from APs asthey move to a position when their H1, H2, Landslide products from Stage 2 becomeexploitable.

The EGS and EFG have been raising awareness of Terrafirma among their memberinstitutions and associations, with EGS being an important avenue for establishing newcontacts. It is anticipated that the EFG will, in particular, provide end-user contacts for ournational Terrafirma partners (APs), as required, during the exploitation process. EFGrepresents geoscience practitioners and has a 60-strong geohazards group across its 19-country membership. The EMSC, which together with EGS and EFG, forms the TerrafirmaUser Executive Body (UEB), has access to European geophysicists across all of the countrieslisted on the Exploitation Activity Chart. In total, its contacts span 76 organisations in 46countries, and it will be presenting Terrafirma at a joint meeting of geophysicists andEngineers in September 2006.



2.4 Events and Highlights

During Stage 2 of Terrafirma, until the end of July 2006:

• The third Terrafirma Workshop was held in Frascati on 18-19 May, with presentationson more mature (Stage 1) sites and recent (Stage 2) ones, together with a preliminaryview of validation issues and, for the first time in Terrafirma, illustrations of landslideapplications from UNIFI. Fifty-three delegates from 15 countries participated on thepresentation day with half of them staying on for the Training day led by TRE.

• The first Terrafirma Newsletter was compiled for distribution at this Workshop, andmore widely among prospective partners and end-users. Authors of Newsletterarticles agreed that they may be used freely in national exploitation campaignsincluding house magazines and newsletters. That freedom of use is extended also tointernational and Association publications as appropriate. EFG distributed theelectronic version of the Terrafirma newsletter to its 60-strong Geohazards Group. Itis available to EGS members through their Terrafirma website link.

• Agreement was obtained from all presenters, at the Workshop, for their powerpointslides to be placed on the TF web-site for general use. TRE provided an updated setof training slides, to participants of the Workshop Training Day and also for the web-site.

• At the instigation of EGS, a presentation was made to representatives of 20 countriesat its “points-of-contact” meeting on 12 June. Outcomes included making first contactwith potential partners in Slovakia and Estonia in addition to widening contact withexisting Terrafirma partner Geological Surveys.

• Terrafirma (C Browitt) convened the InSAR session at the 5th European Congress onRegional Geoscientific Cartography and Information Systems in Barcelona, 13-16June, and also presented a paper on the Terrafirma project. Two papers on the Stage1 Brussels PSI data were presented in this session by our partners in the BelgianSurvey. Extended abstracts of all 3 papers were published in the conferenceproceedings which were widely distributed. A specific interest arose, in discussion,about artificial reflectors for an application in Spain.

• One of the Belgian papers presented some new interpretations of part of the Brusselsdataset which show localised subsidence within recent alluvial deposits. This is anexample of a linkage between Terrafirma results and possible increases in floodingrisks. Alluvial plains are, themselves, potential extreme flood sites, where subsidencecaused by building and water abstraction can exacerbate the problem.



• EMSC participated and presented in a Workshop at the Geological Survey ofLithuania at the end of July which was focused on geohazards in the 3 Baltic Statesand Poland. A specific focus on Terrafirma, resulted in a greater understandingamong the new partners, some changes in their approach, and drafting of the SLAsfor Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.

• An abstract for an oral presentation of Terrafirma at the European Conference onEarthquake Engineering and Seismology in Geneva, 3-8 September 2006, has beenaccepted. It is anticipated that this conference will attract more than 1000geophysicists and engineers as delegates from the EU and internationally.

• In early 2006, an article on the Istanbul results from Stage 1 was published in the“European Geologist” which is the House magazine of the European Federation ofGeologists (EFG) with a print run of 6,000. It accompanied a piece written by theSecretary General of EFG, David Norbury (Terrafirma UEB member), outlining theaims of the Terrafirma programme and EFG’s sponsorship and support of it. TheEuropean Geologist has a wide circulation throughout Europe and beyond. Itsmember organisations in 19 of the EU25 countries represent 45,000 activeGeoscience practitioners, indicating the scale of the potential readership. The editorof the European Geologist has invited further contributions from Terrafirma and hasaccepted one for Brussels, by Xavier Devleeschouwer, for the edition to be publishedin December 06 or January 07.

• The Istanbul article (see Terrafirma Newsletter) has also been published in theNewsletter of the BMS Group of Insurance Intermediaries in order to seed anawareness in that sector. It was distributed at a major annual insurance industryconference held in Monte Carlo (print-run of 1,000).

• A customised Terrafirma powerpoint presentation with notes, was prepared for MPaganini (ESA) for a presentation at an IGOS-related regional Workshop in Asia witha focus on Geo-Hazard and the relevance of INSAR.

• For the landslide programme, end-users beyond the Geoscience Partners ofTerrafirma, have engaged by signing SLAs; namely, the Swiss Environment Agency(FOEN) and the Italian National Civil Protection Agency. In the cities programme, theCivil protection Agency, Commune di Roma, has made a similar commitment.

• For Budapest, Hungary, 2 partners have agreed to work together and each take anobligation for exploitation through separate SLAs. They are the Eotvos LorandGeophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI) and the Institute of Geodesy, Cartographyand Remote Sensing (FOMI).

• On the issue of complementary funding, assistance has been given to V Schenk, ourpartner in the Czech Academy of Sciences, for a PECS bid to add resources to the



joint interpretation which will be made between the Academy and the PolishGeological Institute, for the cross-border “Polish” PSI site.

• Information on the ITTs for GMES extension services in Portugal and Luxembourg(supplied by M Doherty) was passed on to the TF contacts in those countries asfunding opportunities. There has been some follow-up with our Lisbon partner whointends to make a bid.

3 TRAINING AND EDUCATION

The training and education activity within Terrafirma has continued to have a strong focus onproviding “fit-for-purpose” information and understanding of the SAR systems to permit theGeoscience Centres (GSs) to be intelligent users of data, informed service providers, andconfident and knowledgeable promoters within their own countries. The programme has beensufficiently flexible to cater for the varying levels of experience which the GSs bring with them.There is a considerable range of experience and confidence among the existing GS APs(from Stage 1) but some new APs to Terrafirma in Stage 2, have little knowledge andexperience.

The challenge of a broad spectrum of capability has been met by holding specific trainingsessions back-to-back with the Workshops, thereby capitalising on the large audience ofparticipants attracted, and the opportunities to speak and interact with Recipients alreadyhigher up the learning curve owing to their earlier experience and training. This worked well atthe Workshop in Poland during Stage 1, and the format of training presentations anddiscussion has been extended at a full training day which took place in May 2006 as part ofWorkshop 3. It utilised the first-class training room facilities of ESRIN in Frascati where some25 delegates, representing existing and prospective Terrafirma partners, were engaged byAlessandro Ferretti and Fabrizio Novali (TRE), including some hands-on experience. Eventhough they started with the basics, to satisfy newcomers, experienced hands reported thatthe refresher was excellent and they leant new aspects of PSI in the process. So, theapproach taken was welcomed by all. The aim is for GSs/APs to become the trainers andeducators within their own countries, supported by TF material and expert consultation.

For the next training session (for 2007), other OSPs have requested their involvement as wellas TRE’s. Initial thoughts are that this format might best be handled in a “clinic” in whichparticipants will split into groups for a 2-hour period. The most inexperienced will need to betrained and educated in a specific group to ensure their special needs as newcomers to PSI,are met.

GMES Terrafirma Partner Map August 2006

TABLE 1 SLA PRIORITY & STATUS TABLES BY COUNTRY FOR H1/H2

Table1a: Current Table of Priorities: Year 1 11 August 2006

Priority ALTAMIRA DLR GAMMA NPA TRE

1 Murcia, SpainHamburgGermany

PragueCzech Rep

Bristol/Bath(2)UK

Rome (2), Italy

2 Vaasa, FinlandLarissaGreece

Liege, BelgiumAlkmaar (2)(E)Netherlands

3 Budapest,Hungary

Tychy,Poland

Cork, Ireland

4 Toulouse (2)*France

Vilnius, Lithuania

Note: (2) indicates a PVW site subject to SLA Type 2.

(E) indicates SLA not yet approved by ESA but is in the process

* indicates unratified draft SLA, ** indicates draft SLA not yet received;

Absence of stars or an (E) indicates the site is proceeding

Table1b: Current Table of Priorities: Year 2 11 August 2006

Priority ALTAMIRA DLR GAMMA NPA TRE

1 Luxembourg*Stassfurt**Germany

Riga* LatviaLjubljana**Slovenia

2 Vienna/Carinthia*Austria

Lefkosia*Cyprus

3 Lisbon*, PortugalCopenhagen**

Denmark

4 Parnu**, EstoniaStockholm**

Sweden

5 Bratislava**Slovakia

Valletta**Malta

Note: Priorities are liable to change, particularly in Year 2, as the service progresses and SLA’sdevelop through their drafting and review stages.

* indicates unratified draft SLA, ** indicates draft SLA not yet received.

TABLE 2 SLA PRIORITY & STATUS FOR LANDSLIDES

Table 2: Landslide Priorities across Years 1, 2 and 3 11 August 06

Priority SLA Type GAMMA TRE

Year 1 LSI (6) Italy

Year 1 LSM (5) Switzerland

Year 2 LSI (6) Switzerland*

Year 2 LSM (5) Italy**


Year 3 LSI (6) Greece**


*indicates draft SLA, ** indicates draft SLA not yet received.

TABLE 3 Service Level Agreement Summaries by APs: 11 August 2006

Country Organisation Nominated cities Operational Service Provider

Draft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

AustriaGeological Survey of Austria (GBA) - Klemens Groesel Vienna/Carinthia ALTAMIRA 1

BelgiumGeological Survey of Belgium - Xavier Devleeschouwer Liege NPA 1 1

CyprusCyprus Geological Survey - Polys Michaelides Lefkosia NPA 1

Czech Republic

Czech Institute of Rock Structure and Mechanics (IRSM-CAS) - Vladimir Schenk

Prague GAMMA 1 1

DenmarkDanish National Space Centre (DNSC) - Thomas Knudsen with Danish Geological Survey (GEUS)

Copenhagen NPA 0

Estonia Geological Survey of Estonia (EGK) - Jaan Kivisilla Parnu ALTAMIRA 0

Finland

Soil and Water Ltd, Remote Sensing Services - Miranda Saarentaus with Finnish Geodetic Inst. - Juha Happa and Helsinki Univ of Technology

Vaasa ALTAMIRA 1 1

Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) - Friedrich Kuehn

Hamburg DLR 1 1

Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) - Friedrich Kuehn

Stassfurt DLR 0

Greece

University of Athens - Evangelos Lagios with the Geological Survey of Greece (IGME) and the Earthquake Planning and Protection Org (EPPO)

Larissa GAMMA 1 1

Eotvos Lorand Geophysical Institute of Hungary (ELGI) - Laszlo Vertesy Budapest ALTAMIRA 1 1

Inst. Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (FOMI), Satellite Geodetic Obs (SGO) - Gyula Grenercy

Budapest ALTAMIRA 1 1

IrelandGeological Survey of Ireland - Koen Verbruggen Cork NPA 1 1

Comune Di Roma - Patrizia Cologgi Rome TRE 1 1National Civil Protection Agency (CPA) - Angelo Corazza Rome TRE 0

LatviaLatvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency - Maris Seglins Riga NPA 1

LithuaniaGeological Survey of Lithuania - Jonas Satkunas Vilnius NPA 1 1

LuxembourgGeological Survey of Luxembourg (SGL) - Roby Colbach Luxembourg ALTAMIRA 1

MaltaMinistry for Resources & Infrastructure - Godwin Debono (?) Valletta NPA 0

E: indicates not yet approved by ESA but is in the process

H1 - Type 1 SLA

Germany

Hungary

Italy



Draft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

PolandPolish Geological Institute - Marek Graniczny Tychy GAMMA 1 1

PortugalInstitute of Engineering and Structures (ICIST) - Joao Matos & Carlos Sousa Oliviera

Sintra/Porto/Coi ALTAMIRA 1

Slovakia Geological Survey of the Slovak Republic (GSSR) - Michal Kaliciak Bratislava ALTAMIRA 0

Slovenia Geological Agency of the Slovenian Republic (ARSO) - Mladen Zivcic Ljubljana TRE 0

Spain Institute of Geology and Mineralogy of Espana (IGME) - Gerardo Herrera Garcia

Murcia ALTAMIRA 1 1

Sweden SwedishTechnical Institute (SGI) - Hjordis Lofroth Stockholm NPA 0

H1 - Type 1 SLA (Continued)




Draft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

France BRGM - Luc Closset Toulouse ALTAMIRA 1

Italy CESI Ricerca - Giorgio Franchioni Rome TRE 1 1

Netherlands TNO - Chris Bremmer Alkmaar TRE 1 E

UK BGS - Stuart Marsh Bristol / Bath NPA 1 1

Country Organisation Nominated citiesOperational

Service ProviderDraft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

Spain Geological Survey of Spain (IGME) Murcia ALTAMIRA 1

TBD TBD TBD Ph1

TBD TBD TBD Ph2TBD TBD TBD Ph2



Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

France BRGM - Luc Closset Toulouse

Italy CESI Ricerca - Giorgio Franchioni Rome

Netherlands TNO - Chris Bremmer Alkmaar

UK BGS - Stuart Marsh Bristol / Bath

M1 Type 4 SLA



Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

TBD TBD TBD Ph2 ALTAMIRA

TBD TBD TBD Ph2 GAMMA


4 PVW H2 Type 2 SLA (equivalent of H1)

H3 Type 3 SLA

4 non- PVW H2 Type 2 SLA


Country Organisation Nominated sites Operational Service Provider

Draft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

SwitzerlandUnifi - Paolo Farina with the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) - Hugo Raetzo

Val Lumnez Ph1 GAMMA 1 1

Italy Unifi - Paolo Farina Ph2 TRE



Country Organisation Nominated sites Operational Service Provider

Draft SLAs

Signed SLAs

Agreed ESA

ItalyUnifi - Paolo Farina with National Civil Protection Agency (CPA) - Angelo Corazza

Calabrian Basin Ph1 TRE 1 1

Switzerland Unifi - Paolo Farina Canton Graubuenden Ph2 GAMMA 1

Greece Unifi - Paolo Farina TBD Ph3 TRE

LSM Type 5 SLA

LSI Type 6 SLA


GM

ES T

ERR

AFI

RM

A E

XPLO

ITA

TIO

N A

CTI

VITY

CH

AR

T

SEC

TOR

S/A

GEN

CY

Oth

ers

Insu

ranc

e

Polit

icia

ns

Gvt

Dep

artm

ents

Civ

il Pr

otec

tion

Env

Age

ncie

s

Util

ities

Min

es

Rai

l/Roa

d A

genc

ies

City

Aut

horit

ies

EO P

rovi

ders

Engi

neer

s

Geo

sci I

nsts

/Uni

vs

EU25

cou

ntrie

s ar

e sh

own

in b

lue

Austria

Belgium *

Bulgaria*

Cyprus

Czech Rep*

Estonia

Finland

France *

Germany *

Greece *

Hungary

Ireland *

Italy *

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands *

Poland *

Portugal *

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain *

Switzerland

Turkey *

UK *

Ora

nge

squa

res

indi

cate

, add

ition

ally

, whe

re th

e en

d us

er h

as re

spon

ded

posi

tivel

y on

the

utili

ty o

f res

ults

. R

ed s

quar

es in

dica

te w

here

an

end-

user

has

eng

aged

dire

ctly

with

Ter

rafir

ma;

eg

thro

ugh

an S

LA o

r the

pro

visi

on o

f res

ourc

es.

11-A

u g-0

6A

* in

dica

tes

whe

re o

ne o

r mor

e ci

ties

or s

ites

have

bee

n pr

oces

sed

to p

rovi

de a

gro

und

mov

emen

t map

.

Fille

d sq

uare

s sh

ow th

e fie

lds

in w

hich

pro

mot

iona

l act

ivity

has

sta

rted

thro

ugh

proj

ect p

artn

ers

(mai

nly

GS

inst

s) in

eac

h co

untry

.

C17 Promotion & Training Review August06 - … · GMES TERRAFIRMA ESRIN/Contract no. 19366/05/I-EC...

Documents

Transcript of C17 Promotion & Training Review August06 - … · GMES TERRAFIRMA ESRIN/Contract no. 19366/05/I-EC...