 Welcome everyone to today's webinar, Science to Policy from Earth Observation to Legislation. I'm Yunusavamba Cheswa and I'm Research Manager at the Water Research Commission in South Africa. Next slide please Erin. So today's webinar will be recorded and it will be made available on demand if you'd like to have a copy of that. It will also be on the IWA website with presentation slides and other associated information. Just also to note that the speakers are the ones who are responsible for securing copyright permissions for any work or information that they share today, and that they will not have any legal copyright holdership with IWA. And also that the opinions, hypotheses, conclusions and any recommendations that are given in the presentations or any other materials associated with the webinar today are solely the responsibility of the speakers and are not the responsibility of IWA. Next slide. So in terms of etiquette for today's webinar, the chat box can be used for general requests and for other interactive activities, and the Q&A box please use that to send your questions to the panelists. Please also note that the microphones of attendees are muted and that nobody will be able to respond to a raised hand emoji. So in terms of the agenda today, there's the welcome introduction which I'm currently doing right now as well as housekeeping rules and polls. Then our first presentation will be given by Alexandra Bell, who is going to present to us about the challenges and hurdles with moving in the science policy interface. Then it'll be followed by presentation by Mark Matthews, who's going to talk about the Earth Observation Program and input input inputting that into the National Utilification Program in South Africa. Then finally we'll have Torsten Bondo who's going to look at observation as a tool for SDG indicators and NDCs in the water domain. We will follow that up with a Q&A discussion and then some final remarks as well as conclusion of our webinar for today. Next slide. Okay, so in terms of the moderator and speakers, like I introduced myself earlier, I'm Eunice Bamba Jeswa, I'm with the Water Research Commission based in South Africa. We manage a portfolio of projects around water resources quality, and we're basically a funding agency, but then we also do translate a lot of the research that we fund into policy. Then we have Alexandra Bell, who is from the University of Woodsburg, she's a PhD student there. And then we have Mark Matthews, who's a Director of Science and Lakes, who was formerly based in Australia, but now, I mean formerly based in South Africa, but now is based in Australia. Then we have Torsten, who is from DHI and is based in Denmark. So just a little bit of our community of practice. So the community of practice is basically a group of people who share a common concern around a set of problems and have interest in a topic in this case it's an observation, and who come together to fulfill both individual and group goals. The community of practice often shares best practices and creates new knowledge to advance domain of professional practice. Interaction on an ongoing basis is also a very important part of this community of practice. Many of the community of practices rely on face to face meetings, as well as with based collaborative environments like we're having today to communicate, connect, as well as conduct community activities. That's what the community of practice is about. So specifically for the IWA of observation community of practice. The community members have a shape domain of interest, competence and commitment. And we also want to create a common ground, inspire members to participate as well as obviously guide their learning and give meaning to their actions. We also want to pursue joint activities, discussions, problem solving opportunities, as well as relationship building and information sharing as well. Then community members are actual practitioners as well and build a shared repertoire of resources and ideas that they take back to their practice which is also an important point for, particularly for the IWA of observation because we do know that the, the practitioners out there are not necessarily a lot so it's good to have that community to share that best practice knowledge. Next Erin. Okay, so in terms of the IWA, EO community of practice once again it's bringing together experts from different sectors of the water industry that are involved in EO technologies and specifically for improving water quality and its management. So the community of practice is linked to the prime water which is an H2O project, Horizon 2020 project for those who might not be familiar with Horizon calls, and then also the GEO aqua watch initiative. Thanks. In terms of geographical location, there's quite a bit of representation around the globe globally within the African continent, South America and North America, Asian sub region and Australia as well. And then for sector representation, we do have quite a bit who are definitely the dominant group is based in university or is involved in some type of research. We have consultancies and then we have government organizations and I think that is quite reflective of the poll that was taken earlier in this webinar. Next. Okay, so in terms of priority areas we have three priority areas so far we are understanding the different types and applications of EO data. We have sharing information on new technologies and then sharing the process of uptake of EO information by different users. We certainly had a first meeting on the 15th of March in 2022 that was the first one we had we had about 240 participants who came and listed their expert perspectives, as well as some of obviously the experiences and challenges that they are facing working with the EO applications and tools. So, within the Earth observation community practitioners have always had this hesitancy and I can say that it's also not even just for this community of practice but for everyone is the move to policy and that is what the community of practice aims to provide a platform to share these approaches of how we can move from application to policy and I think those two paragraphs really detail that for us today. So for our webinar specifically today we want to address that to see how the COP can address this move to, to policy and to legislation that we that we are hoping to see in the EO applications and tools that we're using. Okay, so our first presentation today is by Alexandra Bell like I mentioned earlier and she is a PhD student at University of Pittsburgh and she will be giving us a presentation that explores the challenges and hurdles at the science policy interface. Alexandra, when you're ready, can please go ahead. Yes, thank you very much. Yes, so I'm Alexandra Bell and I'm a PhD student at the University of Pittsburgh and also work within a project that concentrates on land use change and climate change in West African countries. And as Eunice just said I'm going to be talking about exploring the challenges and hurdles at the science policy interface. Next please. We'd like to start with the satellite imagery of Earth, because it shows us one of the exciting things about remote sensing that it can provide us with this overall global view of our Earth, while at the same time. Next slide please. It can also provide us with this example of a satellite imagery of daily with very detailed information on the condition of earth from different spatial temporal resolutions. So we see daily for example with the northern part so old daily, and with the southern part new daily and you really see the impact of political decisions on the humans for example how they live in their town. However, the political decisions we make within our town area or also within our borders often do not make hold at our national borders but go beyond so one example is climate change as we know. We look at this African countries for example, and they belong to countries, which have a very low CO2 and methane emissions but are those countries, which will be suffering quite severely under climate change impacts. And here, Earth observation can really help to provide systematic and objective evidence in order to, for example monitor compliance towards the goals set by the nations as well as the international community. Next please. We look at human sensing at the science policy interface. We're looking on the one hand side at goals and measurements on the political side the impact on our Earth, and how we can use human sensing the data and products to provide an information which then can be translated into a and fed into this policy making process and also promote evidence based policy. And there's of course a reason why we're here together so there are still a gap in application as well as challenges at this science policy interface. And one of them is really to get both of the sites of spatial temporal resolutions and the thematic resolutions to combine them together to an information, which is sensible for policy making. And on the other hand to really disseminate and communicate the evidence from the scientific side over the science policy interface into the policy sector. And here there are also different stakeholders involved. And what I'll be doing is very briefly looking at challenges and hurdles from peer reviewed perspective and then I'll be diving into a web based questionnaire, which I conducted with a colleague of mine. This is Jim Godstitt, which looks at the perspective of different stakeholders at the science policy interface. Next please. So when we look at the state of the art and look at literature from 2015 to 2020. We will see that studies which use EO for in a kind of way for policy, more, more or less concentrate on problem identification and knowledge provisioning. So we look at that in really using EO, at least from the scientific perspective for policy impact assessments, and also in this kind of way also future topic. And in order to push EO for policy, there are certain recommendations within the science sector. Studies state that data availability and quality is an issue so high resolution data, but also ground proofing data for data validation such as in developing countries, which is quite an topic which is often discussed there. And then the other hand is also the consensus on definition. So that's also pivotal if we look at, for example, to give you one example really only is the definition of forest. I defined in the nation's way differently. And this is of course an issue if we look at the Paris Agreement, for example, and we want to compare the progress within this policy sector of forests. In regards to the goals which the nations but also the international community has set themselves. And then the next point is that within science studies, there's often a very unidimensional analysis approach. And here studies really say that in order to push EO for policy that we have to start to conduct interdisciplinary approaches from the scientists far more in order or by combining for example data sets from the scientific sphere and also from the policies here. Now this is the scientific side so it really shows the early applications or early methodological developments of the applications for policy. One of the reasons why I then wanted to make a step outside is to really look at the entire process chain from the science side into the policy sector. Next please. And my colleague and I we conducted this web based survey in order to tackle the three different stakeholders, we saw most important to be so on the one hand sciences of science, then intermediary organizations and policy makers. We wanted to investigate dissemination and evidence or kind of ways of evidence communication, as well as remote sensing for policy directly, and we communicated our web based survey by a different channel so for example, linked in Twitter but also email lists. Next please. And after two months what we found was that 100 people touched upon our survey and 44 actually completed it. So if we look at these ones which actually or participants which completed or at least touched, touched upon it, we will see that academics were the main respondents, and then followed by some people from intermediary organizations, but there were no policy makers, which actually led us into our survey. So in our eyes, or perspective, this is one of the challenges and hurdles, which still exists is really our ability to reach out at least via such a web based survey to other experts from different stakeholder groups. And I think this is a topic we could also discuss later on in the panel. Next please. So what I want to show now is some of the examples of our results and most of these answers now are now of course the perspective of academics and scientists. But what we asked them was whether they actually find their work relevant for policy makers and tier 77% said yes. And when we followed up with the next question of whether they find that their work should contribute to policy making 86.6% said as well yes. The interesting thing is here that we followed up with the next question. Next slide please. Namely whether they actually conduct policy relevant analysis. And this is where 63.6% actually said no. So here there's another challenge or also a gap which we, well, which we noticed, namely that most of the scientists actually think that the work should contribute to policy making, and it's relevant. But on the other hand, there seems to be this gap to really engage at the science policy interface, and to conduct policy relevant analysis themselves. Next slide please. We also were interested in and that's why I thought the first poll question or the third poll question was quite interesting to see the results because we asked about the necessary improvements in order to really push EO for policy making. And what we find where exactly these four themes which we mentioned beforehand as the most important ones. And now we also have some intermediary organizations or people from intermediary organizations, for example the general public also answering today. On the one hand, the one of the most important themes was capacity development so really building technical skills training stuff, but also in strengthening human sensing training and academic curriculum. And the next point. Next slide please. The next theme was data supply so access to data data cost but also the availability of space for human sensing data. Next slide please. The next theme was knowledge development, which was also very important now in the poll. So really in the knowledge of the requirements of policymakers regarding scientific results such as accuracies, but also regarding the knowledge about the policy making process, and then as another knowledge also that policymakers should be aware of the potentials of human sensing for policy making. Next slide please. This is also really strengthening the science policy interface, namely for example through networking or really mainstreaming the integration of Earth observation into the policy making process. Next slide please. To conclude, if we look at the key results we see from the scientific perspective that especially policy impact assessment should be pushed so really prior and post of policy implementation. And for example that we should be increasing or increasing the use of interdisciplinary approaches. So in my opinion that the own work should actually contribute or is relevant for policy making but there seems to be a kind of gap in actually really engaging at the science policy interface. And then in order to improve human sensing, and to push it into policy capacity and knowledge development is important data supply, but also promoting the science policy interface. So I would like to touch upon one of the pivotal points, which is the bias of survey in the survey. So on the one hand that we weren't able to reach out to experts from the other two groups, but the other biases also that we based on the own connection of course have the most participants actually replying from Germany, as well as West African countries, owing to our connection to the project of us cow. This is a problem of course on the other hand it can be actually quite interesting because we can of course this tangle both sides so both regions and look at them separately regarding the answers as well and also maybe compare them with each other which are the hurdles in both regions and how do they compare with each other and what works. And so to finalize. Next slide please. I was interested in or what I'm interested in is really to look at the entire process from the science science side into the policy making side. And of course we have the difference they called us which are important here. So what I did was that I noticed that this web based questionnaire is not working to really get in contact with intermediary organizations and policymakers. So I thought I would rather go directly to experts and contact them or really meet them at conferences and try to involve them into this research. This has been a super interesting and yeah very nice opportunity and method to actually engage with experts from these two different stakeholder groups and has worked quite fantastic actually from my perspective so all of the people I met. Really working at this science policy interface were very eager to engage and think it's a highly important topic and want to engage and push this topic further. So there are different hurdles and challenges which came up and I want to point them out on the one hand that this user driven development is super important so to just pick one example. There's a statement we have to work with policymakers otherwise we might be developing products and space missions 90 degrees sideways with respect to their needs. Another point on the other side is also that policy policy side has also a commitment to actually communicate what they need so regarding the companions program nation states have the responsibility of bringing their needs to the commission. Then at the same time, I'm finished in a second. Yes, thank you. And on the other time side, we have examples for example in Germany where all of the interviews actually said that federalism is an issue in regards to bringing Earth observation into policy so the question of competences also. The last hurdle which I think actually addresses all of our stakeholders is the willingness to change to really transform the urgency to act into an opportunity to burn in platform theory so to really act despite uncertainties. And with this, I, I would like to conclude the next slide please. Thank you very, very thanks for your attention and very briefly saying I'm still looking for people to engage in intermediary organizations and policy makers so feel free to contact me please. Thank you. Thank you so much Alexandra for that and I think during the Q&A session you can probably have the opportunity to just further explain some of the feedback you'd like to receive for your study as well and for our participants if you have questions for us please type them in the Q&A box. So the next presentation then is by Dr. Mark Matthews and he is going to be taking us through integrating the EO program into South Africa's national eutrophication monitoring program the successes and challenges that have occurred so far. Mark please when you're ready, you can go ahead. Hi Eunice and thanks very much. Hello to everyone joining today. I just like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to share some of my story about my experience integrating Earth observation into the national eutrophication monitoring program in South Africa. You may notice that I'm currently in an airport lounge so I apologize if there's any background sounds. Alright so let's kick off we can go to the first slide please. So, I think that whenever we start with Earth observation there must be a vision for Earth observation technologies. So let's just start by acknowledging the Water Research Commission in South Africa, who provided the funding for us to build web and mobile applications for monitoring and harmful algal blooms nationally. And it's really their foresight which has enabled great advances in this technology. And while I'm not demonstrating the technology that we've developed today, my discussion today is more around sharing our story and our experience around how this technology has been developed. And then further, the response to this technology from governments in South Africa, water companies, which effectively are para-states or organizations. If wherever you are around the world I'm sure that most of the water companies are state-owned, or at least partially government-owned, and are effectively government entities. So I'm going to tell some of my story about how water companies, government agencies have reacted to the technologies that we have developed. And give you some insights around what I feel the how policy is lacking, which means that we are not able to fully exploit the technology which has been developed. So I'll just like to share briefly around the technology that Sino Lakes has developed through funding primarily from the Water Research Commission. Firstly, we have a web-based application which we designed around the needs of the National Department of Water and Sanitation in South Africa. We worked very closely with them as we designed this web solution. And we took on board all of their needs and benefits that they wanted to get out of this, which primarily was filling information gaps in their monitoring program. So the technology effectively accurately detects cyanobacteria blooms, which are a toxin-producing, harmful species, which occur in lakes and reservoirs and rivers and even oceans worldwide. By leveraging recent advances in Earth observation and satellite sensors, we were able to accurately detect cyanobacteria and algal blooms. And this led to products which give health advisories and give health risk levels to human health for cyanobacteria in lakes around the world and in South Africa. And this is all based on World Health Organization guidelines. In addition to that, we are able to also give recommendations and detect the trophic status of lakes and reservoirs using the OECD guidelines. And in addition to that, provide recreational advisories giving recommendations to recreational water users on safety for water use. These are obviously very important, very, very important responsibilities that water companies and governments have to warn citizens about potential health risks in lakes and reservoirs and in water bodies. And leveraging this technology, we were able to make a significant contribution and significant improvement on the state of the art through the South African national eutrophication monitoring program. And we proved that we could accurately determine key variables for monitoring cyanobacteria and algae by comparing it with data that was measured by the National Department in South Africa. And in addition to that full critical information gaps that were existing due to challenges with monitoring around the country. Not only that, but we were able to provide this data within three hours of detection, effectively providing a near real time system. And subsequently to that, we also produced a mobile application, which presents this information in a ready to use format similar to your weather application and available for lakes around the globe. If you're interested in looking at the technology and how it works, you can download the mobile application. It's called Sino Lakes from the app stores on Apple or either Google. I won't give you any more details around the technology. You can explore it in your own time. But now I'm going to share about how the industry has reacted to this technology. Okay, next slide. So on the left hand side of this page, we look at the benefits of earth observation. And on the right hand side of this page. We're looking at current regulations or interpretations how would how water companies currently monitor for harmful algorithms. If you look at the benefit of EO, we can detect events within three hours of detection. On the right hand side, you'll see how it's currently done. The results are typically two or three days after a sample is collected. So you can see that there's a big difference between those two. Secondly, spatial coverage remote sensing covers 100% of a water body, whereas currently one or two fixed sampling points are used per lake. Next thing frequency using multiple satellite sensors which have been launched at great expense by our governments, particularly the European Union, NASA, etc. We can get updates up to six times a week. Currently, the way monitoring is performed is once a month or once every two weeks. So you can see there's a massive discrepancy between what earth observation can do and how the status quo currently sits. Earth observation is fast comprehensive up to date. Current information is slow limited and outdated. In other words, we've got 10 times better public health outcomes, as opposed to on the right hand side, the way it currently works, the information gaps, there's missed events and there's a risk to public health. So I'd ask you to ask yourself, what do you think is in the public interest? Next slide. What some water companies are saying this is how some water companies have reacted to our technology. First off, although it is excellent software that has a lot of practical value. I'm not sure it is fit for our purpose at the current time. This is an actual quotation. Next one, a monthly service subscription would be a challenge that is not currently a priority for up to. Next one, we are happy to keep partnering with you as the product when it can predict with accuracy at finer detail will be very beneficial for us. Briefly unpack some of these points. Firstly, there's an argument that it's not fit for purpose. There's an argument that it's not a priority based on cost, and there's an argument that it can't predict with enough accuracy with with enough detail. Next slide. How some water companies are reacting. Well, firstly, when water companies say it's not a priority or it's not fit for purpose, what they're really saying is, if we don't have to do this, we won't do this. In other words, they don't have to monitor spatially comprehensively. They don't have to monitor more than once a month. They don't have to monitor in near real time. In other words, the status quo is the status quo. Secondly, if it could do x, then we would use it. This is the impossible ask. In other words, water companies are saying the information looks okay, but if it could do this, then we would then we would buy it. And this is just another excuse. In other words, they completely ignoring all the benefits that it offers and are just effectively ignoring any of the benefits that it offers because they don't have to use it. Secondly, a lot of the reactions we've had is let's do a research and development project. Effectively, the operational budgets are off-limits and that's reflected in one of the responses where they say it's not currently a priority for our budget. And we need to move towards its time where government becomes a customer of the services that have been developed. Government must position themselves much more as a user and a customer of these services. Next point, we don't have blooms often enough. Well, I would say what you don't know, you don't know. Ignorance is bliss as they say. We can do a 10 times improvement on current technologies and yet water companies choose to ignore events. They're choosing to ignore health risks. They are liable for those risks, but because current regulations do not insist that they use these technologies, effectively you don't know what you don't know. We can't procure it from a single supplier. One of the other challenges we found is that they're not enough providers in the market, which means that in many cases water companies are saying to us, we would love to use it, but we can't procure it from a single supplier. And then lastly, you're creating more work from us. As I mentioned, ignorance is bliss. If the water companies don't have to know about a problem, often it's easier if they don't have to know about a problem. And so the lesson of what we found in my experience is if it's not mandated, it won't be used. Next slide. So let's talk a little bit more about these policy gaps and then this is the last slide in my presentation today. First of all, what are the regulations around turnaround time? In other words, if there is a harmful algorithm which is a clear risk to public health, what is the turnaround time that water companies and governments are expected to notify the public of these events? Three hours or less or three days? Secondly, there are no regulations on how comprehensive sampling should be done spatially. Should we say one sample per hectare, water companies would then spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sampling across the whole lake at any point in time, but remote sensing can do this. There are no regulations on sampling frequency. In other words, governments and water companies are at liberty to decide how they are going to, how often they're going to sample, be it once a month, in which case there is a significant public health risk, which is going undetected. And in our experience, what we have found is that this is not the story for all water companies. There are some water companies that are wanting to do a better job. They are wanting to innovate. They are wanting to take advantage of the benefits that Earth observation can do. And we've had a good experience working with those governments and those companies. But by far the majority of customers, it's just too easy for them to keep ignoring these technologies because the regulations simply do not exist that support the industry and the use of this technology in industry. So EO technology will only be needed if policies are implemented that hinge on the technological benefits leveraged by Earth observation. And lastly, Earth observation can significantly improve public safety outcomes. And as I mentioned a 10x improvement, but will remain optional until such time as policies are implemented that demand current regulations are changed that are in the public interest. So I hope it's been an interesting story that I've told you today. And again, I'd like to acknowledge the Water Research Commission for having the vision to fund these types of technologies. And I would like to thank the other speakers and the hosts of this webinar. Thank you. Thank you so much Mark for that presentation. I think about two questions in the Q&A for you. So maybe you can just take a look at that as well. And we can also discuss that further during the panel session. Okay, so the final presentation for today is by Torsten Bondo, and he is going to take us through Earth observation as a tool for determining SDG indicators and NDCs specifically in the water domain. Torsten, when you're ready, please go ahead. I am ready. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Torsten Bondo. I work for DHI. DHI is a global water resource management company. We work with the hydrological modeling tools and software. And we also have a large team, 30 staff working on satellites and have worked in the past on how satellites can support SDG indicators. And we are also briefly looking into how satellites can support the NDCs with a focus on the water domain where we come from. Next slide, please. So for those of you who don't work in this domain and have limited knowledge, we touched upon this, but satellites are important because they offer continuous data supply of environmental change. Now a big historical archive, almost going back 40 years of satellite data that covers the globe from pole to pole. And there are a range of new sensors and satellite being launched with an increasing rate that offers new opportunities and data to the public. So data is out there. There's a lot of data in different resolution and capabilities. Next slide, please. What is now also becoming interesting is that alongside with more satellites being launched, there's also an evolution in what is possible to do. There's a large community of analysis tool being developed now, the ability to implement satellite solutions in the cloud and IT solutions also offer new opportunities. The new things is also how do you engage with the users in this allowing users to work directly with the satellite data and implement and upload their own data to support the tools and developments of the end services also. So all this is possible right now. So this should be demand driven and needs driven also and this is what is happening also. Next slide, please. So satellites serve the global agendas, the Paris Agreement, there are a number of satellites that can offer information about climate change. And there's also a lot of satellite information that goes into the SDGs. I'll come back to that on the water. In the center framework, there are satellites that support disasters when they strike flooding and earthquakes with near real time information, allowing the users to get that information and act on this. So satellites are part of all the global agendas also. And we think also this will remain the case and even increase in the future. Next, please. So freshwater is under pressure because of climate change because of population increase. There has been a rapid decrease in the quality of freshwater globally. And right now it is such that the two thirds of the global population from time to time have less access to water or experiences water scarcity. And it's expected to increase in the future also without to half the global population that will experience water scarcity. Also some of the most important freshwater ecosystems such as wetlands have been degraded since industrial revolution and cut down to over two thirds of what it was back in 1900. So there is a huge need to look at these freshwater ecosystems and inform about them and inform about freshwater use so that policymakers can take informed decisions. And this is what we are working on. Next slide please. In the CCG framework, the protection of freshwater ecosystems formulated as such here in target 6.6 with the indicator 6.6 specifically tracking changes in times of water related ecosystems. And here the aim is to monitor and evaluate these changes and then directly inform policymakers to reach the 2030 goals. Next slide please. When this was put in place, UNEP is custodian agency for this, the UN environment program, and they put up a request for getting data on this when they develop the methodology to look at this indicator. And we saw what was a lot of the UN member countries could not report on their freshwater ecosystems. So UNEP turned to the space agencies and the Global Research Institute, the joint research commission and asked them to work with UNEP in developing global available freshwater data. And this is what has happened also. So, next slide please. This is a bit messy slide, but I would like you to look at the yellow box here. We have developed a tool, the freshwater ecosystem explorer, that is listed this SDG 661 app. In particular, there are a number of freshwater ecosystems that is being monitored only by satellite data. And I think this is one of the few really pure SDG indicators only observed with satellites. Here we track surface water, the permanent surface water season, we track reservoirs, we look at water quality, turbidity, traffic stake, and we also look at wetlands, wetlands extent and mangroves all gathered from different space agencies and some of this is done by the UNEP DHI technical center that is part of the support function for the UN environment program. And the way it works is that these global Earth observation data is put into this platform, there's running a number of statistics on these and these statistics go to the UN statistical division. And those are then informed for the member states in order for them to see what are the changes in their freshwater ecosystems. Next slide please. And this is basically how it looks. So we have an idea about this. On the left side you see how we are able with satellite data to cover large scale nationwide mapping with a temple resolution allowing us to see how these surface water changes over time, how the wetland fluctuates, how different lakes also fluctuate in sizes. And on the right you see the detail that's available right now in terms of what is possible to map here. Next slide please. So what to do about the NDCs also there has been a work ongoing already in this domain also especially the red plus project project has been looking how to use satellites to monitor forest degradation, forest reforestation, etc. So we have been feeding this international designated contributions also, but in the water they may not a lot have done and this we are trying to tackle now by by looking at how can satellite supports wetlands mapping see grass mapping mangroves and peatlands where there are large quantities of carbon stored in these and fluctuations of carbon and other greenhouse gases. Next slide please. So some of stakeholders that can benefit from information about knowing what are the carbon stored in these water domains also. Given time I won't go into this but just to briefly mention that there's both this sort of government state and provincial ministries that can benefit for this to do policy changes but there's also a private market the voluntary carbon market that can benefit from this also and owners land management association. Next, next slide please. At DSI will try to to look at wetlands and we are now trying to combine satellite data where satellite data provide information about soil moisture evapotranspiration vegetation. So I'm going to start this with hydrological modeling and emission models to get this change in net carbon gain and loss, because the important is that there's a methodological guideline that can really prove this data and make sure that it is up to a certain and this is what is needed also to take this field any further is that that this is credited carbon credits. And we're working towards this right now. Next slide. To conclude, I think we have already a lot ongoing in terms of using satellites for SDG indicators. This alone could be a full webinar session. There's a lot going on in terms of using your data also for other kinds of water reporting the indices are the next barrier to break I would say and and we look forward to work on this in the future and thanks units for organizing this forward to you. Thank you Torsten for that. I'm just on time. It was about to send your reminder. Thank you to all our presenters today for their brief presentations I know they could have definitely gone into a lot more and as Torsten said I think each presentation could have been a separate webinar. So in terms of the question and answer session I think I'm going to start with Mark, if Torsten and Alexandra that's okay, because Mark might be leaving us at any time to catch his flight. Mark, there are a couple of questions that came in the Q&A I think around cost, which maybe and I know you addressed it in the chat but then I mean sorry in the Q&A box but I think it will be good for you to just give your opinion around the question. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Eunice. Yeah, so the question was, if the cost of Earth observation provides enough benefits and if it is, if it is affordable, and also if it is, if it can be used for forecasting so like any other data, data source, Earth observation is a great tool for forecasting. Current forecasting is done using in situ monitors monitoring, you know, cell counts or fluorescent signals, and Earth observation is no different. It's a very powerful tool for producing time series which can in turn be used for forecasting. I think to that there was a question around cost, if you go out into the market and you compare the cost of in situ instruments monitoring help harmful algorithms. If you look at the cost of many mitigation technologies for treating or removing the effects of algae and lakes, although that's not quite monitoring. If you look at the mitigation of the impacts of harmful algorithms, the cost of Earth observation technology is very, very vulnerable compared to other technologies which are being used in the industry to monitor and treat algorithms. So, I would say that, yeah, in my opinion, it is both cost effective, and it is very useful for forecasting. So, yeah, that's Okay, and Martin there was also another question coming from anonymous attendee who said that would you agree that governments beyond mandating monitoring also need to take policy action for solutions I think this is really the problem for the lack of monitoring, because right now they can use your excuse that you illustrated in your presentation that you don't know what you don't know. Thank you anonymous for your, your comment here. Absolutely. I think that the, the issue that we don't see adoption is because the policies are not there to support the adoption of the technology. And I, and I really feel like government needs to position themselves a lot more as a user of the services and the leads data, in particular, you know, in the water industry. Absolutely. The problem is there far too many excuses. When it comes to using the benefits of the technology so I don't know if any of our other panelists haven't had an opinion or experiences they could share around. Mark, I just really liked your point about the, the fact that that institutions often want this yet another project and I'm not willing to sort of support what they have been developing and not, it just doesn't make sense if we want to continue this industry. It's very difficult to work on the, so you put a lot of effort into developing stuff and then you are not ready to support it after development and just point to, to another project. It's a problem. Actually, even in, I'm in Minnesota currently and I, I was interacting with some colleagues here who are also struggling to get long term support for the programs to be outstanding work that they've done, which, you know, this earth observation that has been used for supporting in South Africa we've used it for reporting to Parliament even here in Minnesota I know they use it for their national state of environment reporting. And yet if you look at behind the scenes there's no long term plan from government to support these services to support the scientists who are producing the information to provide the policies that say we are using this long term the funding etc. But that's not only an experience. That's an experience worldwide at the moment there's not, there are not the programs in place to support the ongoing use of earth observation. It's very true. The products are there the services that are there the data is there, but what is lacking is simply sort of long term funding to support this. We're trying to go to the space agency so the easy research programs etc. Yeah, so I think the challenge is trying to trying to get these programs into government departments that are not the space agencies, so they can be supported long term. And, you know, that will see these services becoming commonplace around the world, and it will be so we'll see an improvement in the science will see an improvement in the products provided the support is provided from government. Yeah, I think maybe just to jump in there. Maybe Alexandra can also come in as well but how do you think that an effective plea could be made to legislatures. For, for instance, to to sort of circumvent this position that we find ourselves in where you or applications just remain R&D projects basically. Yeah. Alexandra I don't know whether you want to take have a take on that before Mark and toss and come in. I think that's a really difficult question for my perspective for me to answer because at the moment. So what I could for my all of my conversations which I had and the research which I've done so far. I'm at the point where I know that it's a huge issue with the funding for example that that we, there I think one of the things is you have to look at the processes in how of observation is integrated and what Mark just mentioned is that those which are really successful are those which are implemented on the administration side or ministry ministerial side, and that is then successful so the plea to how to to tackle this is a huge issue I was actually listening to a podcast yesterday which was talking with the environmental ministry about this topic and she even said it's a topic of legislation also of the voting system of every five or certain of years of groups change in policy, policy changing and getting this into the political community in order to discuss this issue of continuing program funding is really difficult say I think some points have already been made with horizon 2020 projects and say for example that you have certain commitments from the scientific side on the one hand side to contribute to the societal society perspective, but it needs to be matched up with the other side so really been able to get funding more or less longer but I think Mark and trust can talk for better about this from their perspective of experience really working with policymakers I do not have this on this funding side. I think maybe before Mark and toast and coming there was also a question but I think in a way it could be a suggestion where somebody is another anonymous attendee is saying that you know maybe building and training capacity within personnel in government might also be a way to go. Yeah. And do you also have any comments on that question. I'm not sure I have comments directly for that. But, but just to pick up the conversation. Yeah, what Alex was saying. I'm a scientist. Unfortunately, I would love to know how to interact with policymakers but I don't. I don't have the skills to interact with with regulators with policymakers. And so I think that if we can somehow create a forum where earth observation is to are abreast of the technologies who are implementing the technologies and have a know how can somehow interact with with professionals who are equipped to engage with regulators engage with policymakers and people who are writing the policy themselves. And I think the support of policymakers to to help us through this process because as a scientist, I also feel very unequipped and ill equipped to engage on, you know, with with policy and regulation from my perspective. Oh, sorry. Sorry, go ahead, Alexandra. I'll just really quickly jump in because my thought was just, I'm maybe misunderstood or also a little bit your question but I think if you look at intermediary organizations I mean from a scientist perspective it's really difficult in a certain way because the gap is quite large, depending on the hierarchical structure also so depends on how far are you in your scientific research, which position do you hold actually for example, are you actually in contact contact with policymakers or with people who are in contact with policymakers themselves. So how active are you. So I think on the one hand you have as as a scientist you have to be quite active to actually get to this position in order to really communicate any kind of evidence or try to transform the entire system which we have been talking about systems if you look at, for example, intermediary organizations they often hold a position which act actively can evolve or get involved with policymakers, which is from the university perspective also sometimes way difficult so there's this kind of demand also that you need to have the capacity of money of time to actually get somebody being involved with the political side so I think it's more less than the act so when I was talking with somebody from an intermediary organization, she said, for example, she worked very hard in getting this contact and engage in with policymakers and then actually finding and determining the person who's relevant for the topic. So maybe from the political side, they also have to far more structure them structure themselves find out who's actually has the competency for certain topics like EO so they're in Germany for example, groups being built of course or exist on the political side but the information who can you actually address is not maybe there and available for everybody on hand. So maybe also here from the political side there must be more engagement and bringing out this information to the people in a certain way. Sorry, a little intercourse. Thanks. Yeah, I'm twisting would you go ahead and I think maybe after that you can also take the question around EO bridging as a technology bridge for low income countries and populations as well. Yeah, I can give an example that worked because we have focused on what has not worked in terms of operational support but but actually in Denmark where I come from the common agricultural policy that's been placed by the EU is putting some tips on national agricultural agencies to monitor how the crops are doing during the season. And they have tended this out in open competition and this is actually a real operational service based on Copernicus data that is functioning and working and and sort of take this step that we would like to see in other areas also where where the government is tendering out information that is needing this kind of earth observation data and satellite data. So we are very much engaged in this so this is a great example of that this can actually work in some domains also but we would like to see this much more often than also in the domain of water quality and wetlands and soil moisture and other good tools that are available with satellites. So that's just a comment to make. I think also be maybe before you come in. I just also wanted to say from the South African experience I think from when we first started funding mark which is, I mean we're now in phase two of the program. We're now using EU from a water quality side I would say South Africa has used EU for other applications but for water quality is where we're struggling a bit but now we do have an intergovernmental panel, which has a working group specifically to look at applications for post 2025 so at least now there's a panel at intergovernmental level which I think then will be able to start, you know, the push down that we need because for EU for water quality management it's really has been a bottom up kind of approach but now we need to come from the top so I think what's in Africa we're kind of, we're kind of getting there and I recently filled out a poll where they were asking, you know, where do you see EU going, and I think that that's good progress if we're seeing it at that level, you know, the next thing we need it obviously is to come into the president's address and we know we're there. Toastin there was a question on I think somebody wanted to know what MDC stands for and then also there was a question around earth observation applications for low, low and middle income countries, I think maybe you mentioned that in your presentation how EU is bridging that gap. Okay, the MDC sorry about not making this clear is the National Designated Contributions, this is part of the Paris Agreement where the member countries have to report on their greenhouse gas emissions, so this is a reporting tool for this. And it was mentioned that this is done in different ways in different countries also so there are different ways to do this and they're not clear consensus always on how to do this also so this is certainly something that that is very much up to debate and how to do this using satellite data is even less clear, but I'll leave it there. On the question on low income countries and how satellite can support this. I think I can give a good example on on how we have worked with the European Space Agency that is working directly with the development banks on setting up projects and initiatives. Feeding into development work where satellites are being implemented in projects in developing countries. So, this is both on the capacity building level but also on the direct service level in offering information on droughts and floods and land degradation etc and land use. So this is something that the European Space Agency is engaging with the development banks, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank in this. And there are certain trust funds going into this also where satellite data and Earth observation data is being channeled or programs are being paid by this through trust funds also. So that answers part of your question but there's a lot of activities going on and there's a big open source community also coming out now with free and open data for a lot of low income countries also cloud platforms etc so there's really a lot taking place in this domain. Thank you Tristan for that I think for Alexandra. Oh okay maybe before Alexandra you go I just want to thank Mark for his participation in the webinar today he says that his, his gate is open so he has to get ready to board his flight thank you Mark and wish you a safe journey back. Yeah thanks thanks very much Eunice and to the IWA Erin Isabella and my fellow panelists so it's great to interact with you today thank you. So I think Alexandra just to come back into the kind of information that you think is relevant that policymakers would like to see so we have different types obviously you know policy briefs nor a scientific writing but what do you think in your opinion will be more useful? So in my opinion now from my experience from a ministry it would be policy briefs and short recommendations for example just in how I know how the minister for example used information and was given also provided information how I would provide it. On the question itself I we unfortunately can't really say what policymakers would like to have so this is of course now only a small opinion which I just now had from the survey as I showed it was more or less academics and scientists to reply to what actually works for them. As most of them actually wrote scientific papers. Interestingly, but I would be interesting to see as a follow up question whom they have as a first contact to give these scientific papers whether it's more in the administration, for example, or if it's actually really the high level policymakers who get this kind of information, because I would rather not think so but that's just my own opinion of my work. But also, if you look at concrete examples, they mentioned fixed maps and figures for example which you were very helpful to bring information to policymakers which makes sense of course also if we look at their observation, the power of using max for example and figures, just as some examples. Okay, and then in terms of engagements what type of engagements do you think because I mean if we take our classic conferences for instance we know that it's really academic people and researchers who go there. You know so what how what do you think in terms of the engagements that could bring policymakers together with researchers or scientists in the email space. So that's the question I think it's one of the questions we were eager to target with our survey but weren't able to really get in contact with intermediary organizations or with policymakers. So I think it's very difficult to reply to this question but I do think that, at least from my personal experience it was really the personal contact and engagement with these experts, which was the best way because of the best question if for example I wasn't able to get in contact with people or experts from these two groups, but getting in contact personally at a conference for example really helped a lot in engaging and only shortly briefly just saying hello and what is the topic about and then following up afterwards, which was a really nice opportunity I think to bridge bridge both sides. I could imagine that intermediary organizations have a certain role and also in facilitating such opportunities and networking in a certain way between these groups, and also in targeting more interdisciplinary and bringing people to, to one place in a certain way so I think there are many different opportunities. I would like to maybe ask Trostin if he wants to jump in because you're going to experience also. Trostin please go ahead. Well, I think the question is how to bring the policymakers and the earth observation specialist together. I think from my experience coming from a small country we have relatively good access to the politicians also. I think what what I've also seen from colleagues in similar institutions across Europe and the world is that they're very technical science organizations coming from R&D and from a team organization perspective they're not geared so much to tackle these kinds of discussion also. And it can be out of financial reasons that they don't have a lot of business developers or senior teams to take these discussions. So it can be from a simple manpower issue that there's not enough money from these team and research organizations to take these discussions because it takes time and it takes time to build these networks also. So I think that's one of the reasons that traditionally these remote sensing community have grown out from R&D but they are not sort of tailored from the beginning to tackle the discussions with policymakers just to cut it very roughly but there might be something to this. But I do think that it's also if we look at funding for example it's more or less pushing more into interdisciplinary work in bringing stakeholders together. And I think that this can also be an opportunity to push some kind of collaboration, and in order to open up more or less these very research tight communities to other stakeholders and promote the engagement. I think from your perspective what you just mentioned that it's really dependent on the country we're looking at, and that the policy field also so it depends really on the field, what I find as well also because certain policy sectors are quite far in integrating earth observation into the political field and others are quite far away. So we're really looking and what is the political system behind it so how can we break it up and understand it in a certain way how also the policymakers think and how can we then address them with the certain information evidence which is tailored also to them. I think Alexandra maybe I can pause to take this question because I think it kind of follows what you're talking about right now so Valentina said, I think that one of the major problem is the lack of close collaboration between researchers and policymakers the researchers work on their own agenda, which does not necessarily need the demand in policy formulation. The best way would be for the researchers to have funding from government to investigate current needs of population which are formulated as policy. Usually the funds come from outside in the research center have to work according to the funder's needs. So that's I think also what you're trying to say in a kind of a roundabout way. Yeah, yeah, that sums it up quite well. Okay, I don't see any other questions that we haven't answered so I think we can maybe just wrap up our discussions. Maybe I'll start with you toast and maybe you can just tell us a little bit more about what the UN DHI activities are as well as some of the space programs you're in and then Alexandra will close us off also with some of the stuff that she's involved in. Yeah, I think coming from a big organization like DHI we have been fortunate to work with with big organizations like the UN environment program for years also we have the unit DHI technical center supporting the water division of unit with the technical work. So this allows us to to to get direct access to to these policy makers and help them in a support function with with unit driving the demand so to say so we we know what these policy makers need in that case also. This is, we have been very fortunate having this unit DHI center at DHI. So, and the work with this space centers has allowed us to develop services. In the sense that these are deep projects that we have discussed in today have been actually supporting our work for for many years also. Since these operational services are still hard to come by also, and therefore we are still depending on research and development working in this domain also. Hopefully, the next decade will see more and more standalone operational commercial services being developed in this domain but so far we still need on the projects and they are the space agencies are very important. So I'll hand it over to Alexander for closure but thank you very much for inviting me for this. Sure, Alexandra go ahead. Yes, so, I mean in general, what I'm trying to do in my work now is to really get an overview of the status quo the challenges, for example on the hurdles of bringing into policy and I think we saw from the scientific side. We can quite nicely see some of the hurdles which have been pronounced in which we're now also a little bit shown also in the poll. And then getting to the, you know, involving experts from the intermediary organizations and policymaker sides would be very interesting so I've been starting to do this with experts. So, contacting experts from conferences I just mentioned and really engaging with them and I saw a very other side of a different field so looking. I did that way looking into the literature for example I saw that we're, we really are looking at the early methodological developments of observation for policy on the other hand when you really engage with stakeholders you see how much is actually being pushed and being done already in the field of for policy, very different on the country level so depending on the country dependent on the policy focus I have the feeling. It's very dependent on what kind of political system you're actually looking at and how far we are. And I think in this regard we have to far more understand the process of how Earth observation information is actually gathered at produce and then put into applications for the science science field but also for the society I mean, really in this regards. So, this is at the moment my work so the next will be really to conduct some more interviews and putting the picture together so in case somebody would be interested in conducting an interview with me, I would be really happy to, for you to get in contact with me and the other part is actually coming to trust them also looking at the pilot Paris agreement and the nationally determined contributions because I think it's a real opportunity to use of observation in these international agreements. Thank you very much also for the opportunity today. Thank you Alexandra for that and I just want to thank our participants as well for the questions that they posed during our Q&A I think it's important for us to understand what's happening on the ground because that's really what the community of access is about to share our situations not necessarily have all the answers but to to share the challenges that we have right now and I would urge that those who are listening in today, if you do want to set up a program like Mark did he knows the know how to do that, Torsten has explained all the activities that they involved in in THI, the availability of models, all kinds of applications and tools, which I think is useful for those who are not only involved in R&D but who want to also move into best practice and I would also urge participants to be on the lookout for Alexandra's studies as well. If she does send questionnaires through please do answer I think they will really help to solidify the work that she will she will be doing and hopefully at the end of her her PhD she can come back and present us some of the results and provide a backbone for how best we can we can move in this space. So with that I'd just like to thank you all for the participation of panelists and our participants as well just to run off I just want to let you know about an upcoming webinar, which is going to be happening on the 30th of November 2022 and it's accelerating sludge management towards sustainability and that is also another IWA webinar. So in terms of joining the network of water professionals as you may well know IWA brings professionals from different disciplines together to accelerate science innovation and practice to make a difference in addressing water challenges. Right now they have a 20% discount code for new members so please do take that offer up and make sure that you joined before the end of the year 31st December 2022. With that I'll officially like to thank everybody who participated in the webinar today and also to thank our panelists as well, Mark, Torsten and Alexandra thank you so much for the preparations that you went through in delivering your content today we do appreciate it, and I also appreciate it as well. Thank you all. Bye bye.