Maturity Level

The combined picture provided by the outputs of the gap analysis and the benchmarking of the different countries according to the maturity indicators, enabled the definition of priorities in relation to regional challenges. Thus, GEO-CRADLE defined priorities w.r.t addressing the identified gaps in existing infrastructure and capacities, improving awareness amongst decision makers, triggering the involvement of EO service providers, and ensuring regional GEO and Copernicus implementation. A report presenting the methodology, assumptions, mappings against other indicator systems, for the current level of maturity of each country is presenting here.

The Maturity Indicators was a novel proposal introduced by GEO-CRADLE as an independent, up-to-date and replicable methodology for the assessment and monitoring of EO maturity at national level, in order to capture the level and measure the progress of each country’s involvement in the implementation of GEO and Copernicus vision. This involvement ranges from strategic planning, leading initiatives and direct financial support to GEO activities (and Copernicus for EU Member States), to simple observation of the discussions made with no special follow up actions. A set of indicators was defined across three main fields: “Capacities”, “Cooperation” and “National Uptake and Awareness”.

The first version of the Maturity Indicators and country (G)EO profile (I)  was devoted to the formulation of appropriate indicators of (G)EO maturity at the country level. It outlined the methodology and its boundaries, and presented a preliminary assessment of the maturity indicators for a few countries.

The second version of the Maturity Indicators and country (G)EO profile (II) was devoted to the application of the methodology, including the analysis of a very extensive set of 32 indicators, for 11 countries in the NAMEBA region and the presentation of the results in the form of maturity cards  and tables, and spider graphs.