Introduction: A Closer Look at Data Sovereignty

The topic of data sovereignty is often reduced to a question of where data is stored. But in practice, it is far broader than location. It is about having full control and final authority over the entire technological stack that enables data to be accessed, processed, and used.

In a recent episode of The Ellipsis Drive Podcast, we invited Michal Bitzky from CloudFerro to explore this topic in depth, particularly through the lens of Europe’s evolving geospatial cloud ecosystem.

As Michal explains, “Sovereignty means having full control and final authority over your technological stack.” That includes infrastructure, compute, storage, software layers, APIs, security, and increasingly even AI capabilities built on top of that stack.

In the European context, data sovereignty has taken on particular importance in recent years. It is closely tied to strategic independence: the ability for governments, institutions, and companies to operate critical digital infrastructure without relying on external providers outside of Europe. This is not only a regulatory concern, but also an operational one. Without control over the underlying systems, sovereignty remains theoretical rather than concrete.

As we discussed in the episode, at its core, data sovereignty is about ensuring that control is maintained across the entire data lifecycle.

Sovereignty is NOT Isolation: the Role of Interoperability

At first glance, data sovereignty can sound like a push toward closed or self-contained systems. But in practice, that interpretation misses the point entirely. Sovereignty is about control without losing the ability to collaborate.

As Michal puts it, “Sovereignty without interoperability is isolation.” In other words, owning your infrastructure or data stack only creates value if it can still connect meaningfully with other systems, organizations, and domains.

This is especially critical in Earth Observation (EO) and geospatial workflows, where value is rarely created from a single dataset. Instead, it emerges from combining multiple data sources across institutions, countries, and use cases: from climate monitoring and agriculture to disaster response and security.

Without interoperability, sovereign systems risk becoming fragmented silos. With it, they become building blocks of a larger, collaborative ecosystem where data can be shared, integrated, and reused across trusted boundaries.

Liked what you read?

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to receive the latest blogs, news and updates.

Join the Community

Federation: Enabling Interoperability Without Sacrificing Sovereignty

If interoperability is essential for sovereign digital ecosystems, the next question becomes: how do organizations collaborate without giving up control of their own infrastructure and data?

Increasingly, the answer is federation.

Rather than consolidating everything into a single centralized platform, a federated model allows multiple stakeholders to maintain authority over their own systems while still participating in a broader, interconnected ecosystem. This is particularly relevant in Europe, where governments, agencies, and organizations often operate independently, yet rely heavily on one another's data and capabilities.

As Michal explains, “It's mutually beneficial if they can share the data that they are acquiring.” Organizations can share, discover, and access data across trusted boundaries while retaining control over how that data is managed, processed, and governed.

In practice, federation can exist across multiple layers of the geospatial stack, including identity management, metadata catalogs, data access, and processing services. Together, these layers create ecosystems that are distributed by design, yet capable of operating as a cohesive whole.

A Centralized Experience Built on Federated Infrastructure

One common misconception is that federation and centralization are opposing approaches. In reality, they often complement one another.

While the underlying infrastructure may be distributed across multiple providers, regions, and organizations, users still benefit from a unified and simplified experience. The goal is not to decentralize complexity onto the end user. The goal is to hide that complexity.

Michal pointed to the Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem as an example of this principle in practice. From a user's perspective, it functions as a single entry point for discovering and accessing Earth Observation data. Yet underneath that experience, the infrastructure itself remains distributed across multiple environments.

“I would say the catalog is central here,” Michal explained, “but the EO data itself is distributed.”

This distinction is becoming increasingly important as geospatial ecosystems continue to expand. Satellite imagery is now only one component of a much broader landscape that includes drones, IoT devices, in-situ sensors, AI workflows, and domain-specific applications. Bringing all of these resources into a single centralized infrastructure is often impractical.

Instead, the future points toward a different model: federated architectures that preserve sovereignty and flexibility behind the scenes, while presenting users with a seamless, centralized experience. 

Such a model avoids both extremes: neither isolated silos nor fully centralized control, but sovereign collaboration at scale.

Closing Thoughts

Data sovereignty is often discussed as a future ambition, but across Europe it is already becoming an operational reality.

One example discussed during the podcast was Endure, a European initiative focused on continuous Earth observation monitoring for applications such as infrastructure monitoring, disaster response, border surveillance, and anomaly detection. The platform combines satellite acquisition, cloud infrastructure, high-performance computing, AI-driven analysis, and downstream operational services into a fully European workflow.

For Michal, projects like these demonstrate that the technical foundations already exist. “The sovereignty is rather a decision to make,” he noted. “There are no technical constraints that would limit us from selecting a sovereign provider.”

That observation perhaps captures the broader message of the discussion. The challenge facing Europe is no longer whether sovereign digital ecosystems can be built. It is how to build them in a way that remains open, collaborative, and interoperable.

Because ultimately, sovereignty and interoperability are not competing objectives. Through federation, they become mutually reinforcing. And as Europe's geospatial ecosystem continues to evolve, that combination may prove to be one of its greatest strategic advantages.