EN    EN EN 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 12.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2808 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
"Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): 
 we Care for a safer planet" 
   
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 748 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2809}  
EN 2   EN IMPACT  ASSESSMENT 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This Impact Assessment has been prepared  by the Commission services to support the 
Communication entitled "Global Monitoring for E nvironment and Security (GMES): we Care 
for a safer Planet."      
Substantial R&D effort has been invested on Earth observation by the EU, the European 
Space Agency (ESA) and their respective Member States to develop infrastructure and pre-
operational services. It is now time to guarantee their sustainability, to  bring together actors 
from different institutional natu re, to ensure proper representa tion of the EU Member States 
and to associate other countries involved.  
To achieve this goal, the GMES initiative s hould be implemented operationally through the 
establishment of an EU-led programme, GM ES. The objective of GMES is to provide 
services allowing access to accurate  environmental and security da ta and information, tailored 
to the needs of a wide  range of users.   
An extensive stakeholder c onsultation, which started with  the 2005 Communi cation "From 
concept to reality", has indicat ed that the following major problems are hindering the progress 
towards the realisation of the polit ical and operational goals of GMES: 
• despite the user-driven character of GMES and the establishment of expert groups 
(known as service implementation groups), th ere is currently no formal process to 
involve the users in the definition of the scope and architecture  of the services;  
• equally, there is no process to consolidate th e contributions of the various partners in 
the development of GMES, which could result in a duplication of efforts in Europe. In 
this context, it should be remembered th at Member States and intergovernmental 
organisations, in particular ESA, have been investing significant sums in earth 
monitoring activities. Nevertheless, a co mmon approach is still missing among co-
existing frameworks at EC, intergovernment al and national level which all have 
separate decision and financing mechanisms;  
• GMES is currently a set of research proj ects financed by the EU, ESA and Member 
States budgets. These projects aim at developi ng services and infras tructure, but cannot 
ensure a continuous and sustainable flow of information in an operational environment.  
This baseline would undermine users' and i ndustrial confidence in  GMES. GMES would 
continue in the form of research projects,  without an overarching governance framework for 
the coordination of the contributions from different GMES partners.    
The main objectives of the 2008 Communication are therefore to 
• make proposals for the overall programmatic  approach and the governance of GMES as 
a whole and of its service and infrastructure components; and 
• indicate the willingness of the Commission to propose a Basic Act establishing the EU 
GMES programme, without prejudgi ng future financial decisions. 
EN 3   EN This two step approach, cons isting of a Communication publishe d in 2008 and a proposal for 
a basic legal act published in 2009, is considered of paramount importance for the success of GMES for strategic reasons, as it is essential to use the cu rrent momentum created by the 
French presidency to convey the political messages contained in the Communication already in 2008, with a view towards a providing the ( political) grounds for a comprehensive legal act 
for the initiative in 2009. Further, the Communi cation will constitute a decisive input for ESA 
Ministers that will have to make their deci sion concerning the continuation of GMES space 
infrastructure development in November 2008. 
The specific objectives of the Communication are to: (1) define a transparent and sustainable gove rnance framework that contains a clear 
division of the roles of the partners  in the GMES partnership, based on the principle 
that GMES should use to the larges t extent possible existing capacities; 
(2) guarantee user uptake, in particular through constant involvement of users so that 
GMES remains user driven;  
(3) reassure stakeholders  about the EU commitment to GMES in the sensitive phase of 
demonstration which precedes the move to operation;  
(4) outline how the governance and financing framework can be implemented in a 
reasonable timeframe . 
In addition to the baseline described above , the Impact Assessment defines the following 
options concerning the sustainabi lity of financing (S) of servi ce provision and contribution to 
infrastructure development and operations beyond research: 
• No action, S0-option: The EU continues to limit its financial contribution to GMES to 
research funds. 
• Option S1: same as the previous option until  2013, but a programme is proposed in the 
context of the preparation of the next fina ncial framework. A gap is left between the 
preparatory action ( 2008-2010) and 2014; 
• Option S2: a Community programme is propose d in due time to bridge the gap between 
2011 and 2014. 
Concerning the roles and respons ibilities of different actors (governance scheme- G), policy 
options at hand are: 
• No action G0 option: No specific governan ce structure is maintained within the 
Commission in addition to the structures for the management of research funds. 
• Option G1: The Commission take s strong political and manage rial control and is in 
charge of the management of the GMES  programme, a formal process for the 
compilation of user requirements and of the c oordination of the contributions of various 
GMES partners which continue to act acco rding to their mandate  and own governance 
scheme.  
EN 4   EN • Option G2: The Commission coul d propose to create a new external entity (e.g. a 
Community agency, or to extend the mandate  of an existing Community entity) to 
manage the programme on its behalf. 
• Option G3: A single governance body managing all GMES elements and representing 
all stakeholders is established. 
• Option G4. The responsibility for overall pr ogramme management is delegated to the 
ESA. 
The baseline scenario described above would co rrespond to a combination of the no change 
S0-G0 options. It serves as the benchmark fo r the impacts of the other scenarios. The 
combination of options on Sustainable funding and Governance can be summarised as follows 
and leads to the further anal ysis of four scenarios. 
 G0 G1 G2 G3 G4 
S0 Base line Discarded Discarded Discarded Discarded 
S1 Discarded Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Discarded Discarded 
S2 Discarded Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Discarded Discarded 
All combinations involving options S0 and G0  are discarded because they correspond to a 
large extent to the baseline described above. Fina lly, all combinations  involving option G4 
have been discarded for two main reasons. Fi rst, the governance framework must respect the 
role of the Commission as defined in the EC Treaty and the jurisprude nce of the European 
Court of Justice concerning the institutional ba lance within the EC. Consequently, it is not 
possible that the Commission delegates the po litical responsibility for coordinating and 
managing the GMES programme to an external  entity, such as ESA. Additionally, the 
implementation of GMES extends beyond the tec hnical capacity and mandate of ESA. In 
particular, although ESA is assigned a key co ordination role for the space component, for 
political, practical and legal reasons, it cannot be  delegated the management of the in situ and 
service components. 
The combination of options that are not discarde d are analysed in the light of the specific 
objectives of the Communication as  set out in the table below. 
Objectives 
 Transparent 
and 
sustainable 
governance 
framework Users buy-in Stabilisation 
of industrial 
base 
(upstream and 
downstream) Feasibility in 
needed 
timeframe 
Scenario 1 + + - + 
Scenario 2 + + - -- 
Scenario 3 ++ ++ ++ + 
Scenario 4 + ++ ++ -- 
The timely submission of a proposal for a Commun ity programme to ensure continuity after 
the preparatory actions, as foreseen in Scen ario 3, seems to best fit the Communication 
EN 5   EN objectives and best resp ond to stakeholders' con cerns expressed so far.  Its combination with 
an internal Commission manage ment structure would minimise implementation obstacles. 
EN 6   EN 1. S COPE OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
1.1. What is GMES? 
The objective of GMES is to provide  services allowing access to accurate 
environmental and security data and info rmation, tailored to the needs of a wide 
range of users such as European and national policy makers, scientists, companies, health and environmental agenci es, NGOs and private citizens. 
GMES will deliver services under the supervis ion of the EU in the fields of land, 
marine and atmosphere monitoring as well  as in support of emergency and security 
management. The GMES Bureau, whose task  it is to federate the user needs 
proceeded with a consultati on of the various user communities in 2006/2007. Annex 
II of this impact assessment identifies the consolidated needs as expressed by users for (i) monitoring of the earth components (land, marine and atmosphere) and (ii) a contribution to emergency and security management. 
GMES is conceived as a system of systems and its development and implementation 
are based on maximising the use of ex isting European capacities. The EU 
concentrates its actions on filling the gaps in full respect of the subsidiarity principle. As such, GMES is a partnershi p involving different actors: 
• the Commission, acting on behalf of the European Communities, 
• agencies of the EC, in particular the European Environmental Agency (EEA) the 
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), and the European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of Member 
States , 
• the European Space Agency (ESA) that will implement the space component of 
GMES, 
• EUMETSAT, which could operate space obs ervation systems on behalf of the 
EC; 
• owners and operators of space and in situ  observation infrastructure that produces 
data needed for GMES services; 
• GMES service providers, 
• Users, including downstream service pr oviders and European and national 
authorities. 
While the first objective of GMES is to  enhance the available Earth observation-
based information to the benefit of inform ed policy making, it is expected that, once 
the information of GMES services is fully and openly available, it will allow the development of a downstream sector where value-adding service providers will use 
them to develop and provide tailor-made services for their own customers. For 
example, the GMES Atmosphere Services can  be used as an input by value-adding 
companies to produce targeted air quality m onitoring information to local customers. 
EN 7   EN Likewise, the combination of GMES la nd monitoring service and meteorological 
information will allow the marketing of  precision farming information tools to 
farmers. This market will develop only if potential enterprises ar e confident that the 
available services will be sust ained on a long-term basis. 
The observation data necessary to feed th e catalogue of GMES services are derived 
from observation infrastructure, which is di vided into space-borne  infrastructure and 
"in situ" infrastructure, the latter includi ng seaborne, airborne, or ground-based data. 
Many of these observation systems alrea dy exist and have been developed by 
Member States for their own needs, eith er directly or thr ough intergovernmental 
organisations. The challenge for GMES is therefore two-fold: 
• create a system of systems based on a c oordination of existing capabilities and the 
development of new ones where gaps are identified; 
• make these systems sustainable, which means ensuring the availability of 
infrastructure (and of the services de rived from data collected through that 
infrastructure) on a long-term basis. 
The socio-economic case for GMES, or GMES as the initiative has been called until 
now, was demonstrated by several studies. A nnex III to the Impact  Assessment gives 
some details on these studies, both in terms of general benefits and, more particularly, on the expected impact on downstream industry. 
1.2. Defining the scope of the analysis 
The decision to implement GMES (now GMES) has already been taken. In a 
Resolution in 2001, it was mentioned that  the Council “URGES the Commission to 
start, in close coordination with the ESA, the initial period of global monitoring for 
environment and security (GMES), […] ST RESSES the importance of the initial 
period in preparing the next phase of  GMES, aimed at achieving by 2008 an 
operational and autonomous European capability for global monitoring for 
environment and security based on a sound cost/benefit assessment and avoiding any overlap with activities carri ed out under the common fore ign and security policy".  
The decision to implement GMES is therefore beyond the scope of the 
Communication and consequently  of the present impact assessment analysis. Instead, 
the Communication addresses the issues of  governance and funding that need to be 
clarified in order to ensure the operat ional implementation of GMES within a 
reasonable time frame.  
As such, the Communication is  not intended to create any financial impact on the EC 
budget whatsoever and it does not amount to  a formal proposal for the governance 
and funding of GMES. As outlined in the Communication, the formal proposal for a 
Basic Act establishing a GMES programme is expected to be tabled in 2009 by the 
Commission. The Impact Assessment accompanying this Commission proposal for a Regulation will analyse the financial impact in  a detailed manner. In Chapter 7 of the 
Communication it is explaine d that the share of the EU budget will depend on the 
scope of the activities funded and managed at EU level.  
EN 8   EN This two step approach, consisting of  a Communication published in 2008 and a 
proposal for a Basic Act published in 2009, is  considered of paramount importance 
for the success of GMES for the following reasons: 
• For strategic reasons, it is essential to  use the current momentum created by the 
French presidency to convey the pol itical messages contained in the 
Communication already in 2008, with a view  towards a providing the (political) 
grounds for a comprehensive legal act fo r the initiative in 2009. These messages 
include the way forward for the establis hment of a GMES programme, objectives 
for a GMES data and information polic y and the governance and financing of 
GMES. It is of key importance to give th is message in 2008 in order to avoid that 
other stakeholders (in particular Stat es participating in the GMES Space 
Component Programme of ESA) reconsider  planned investment s due to the lack 
of progress at Community leve l (see also the bullet below); 
• the Communication will also constitute a decisive input for ESA Ministers that 
will have come to a decision concer ning the continuation of GMES space 
infrastructure developmen t in the framework of th e GMES Space Component 
Programme in November 2008; 
• it cannot be excluded that the basic legal act published in 2009 will not comprise 
all the aspects that are cove red by this Communication;  
• a two step approach was followed in prev ious cases in order to structure the 
debate concerning Community actions in complex high tech sectors, including 
electronic communications1 and the Shared Environmental Information System2; 
• the Commission has received a mandate from Council in the Resolution on the 
European Space Policy of 21 May 2007 to propose appropriate mechanisms for 
the financing and effective management of GMES in 2008; 
• in its the Resolution “Taking forward the European Space Policy” of 26 
September 2008, the Council welcomed “the  intention of the Commission to 
address all of these issues in a Communication to be adopted by the end of October 2008, having consulted with the main  stakeholders, in particular agreeing 
with ESA an overall programmatic approach for the GMES Space Component.” 
The objective of the GMES Communication is thus to give a political message and to 
establish a basis for further discussions and consolidation of the political consensus among the various partners involved in this initiative. The Communication does not 
to create any financial commitments for the Commission and does in no way 
prejudge future financial d ecisions concerning GMES.  
                                                
 
1  See the Communication on the Review of the EU Regulatory Fr amework for electronic 
communications networks and services, COM(2006) 334 of 29 June 2006 that preceded the proposals 
for an amendment of legislative act s tabled on 13 November 2007. 
2  See the Communication entitled “Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)”, 
COM(2008)46 final of 1 February 2008 that w ill eventually be followed b a revision of the 
Standardised Reporting directive 91/692/EC. 
EN 9   EN In line with the principle of  proportionality, the present Im pact Assessment is framed 
within the scope outlined in the paragraphs above. It goes without saying that all subsequent measures eventually proposed, af ter further discussions with stakeholders 
on the basis of the orientation defined in the Communication, will be subject to an 
assessment of their own impact, including a care ful evaluation of their costs. As it is 
currently foreseen that a proposal for a Ba sic Act establishing the GMES Programme 
could be published in 2009, the relating Impa ct Assessment will have to be prepared 
in the first half of next year, at the latest. 
2. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Organisation and timing 
This Impact Assessment has been prepared with reference to the following 
Commission Legislative and Work Progra mme priority item for 2008: GMES 
Communication. The foreseen adoption of  the Communication is November 2008. 
Work on the Impact Assessment started in 2006 by an intensive consultation process 
summarised below, which fully meets the Co mmission's standards. In parallel, an 
analysis of external studies was perform ed and a new study was launched to have a 
clear picture of the competi tiveness of the existing EU GMES downstream sector of 
Earth observation-based service industries, and of the potential impacts that the GMES services might have on this mark et. An Inter-service Steering Group was 
established at the end of  2007 by enlarging the existin g GMES Bureau Steering 
Committee (AGRI, FISH, RELEX, DEV, ECHO, AIDCO, TREN, JLS, TAXUD, 
OLAF, REGIO, ESTAT, RTD, INFSO, E NV, JRC) to horizontal services 
(Secretariat-General and DG Budget). This Group met three times between February 
and July 2008 and written comments were exchanged between meetings. 
On 3 September 2008, the draft Impact Asse ssment was discussed with the Impact 
Assessment Board, that sent its opini on to DG ENTR on 10 September 2008. The 
Impact Assessment was re-submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 1 october 
2008. The Impact Assessment Board adopt ed its second opinion on 14 October 2008. 
The recommendations from the Impact Assessment Board are reflected in the following parts of the present document: 
• existing budgetary and politic al commitments of the Co mmission with regard to 
GMES are explained in detail in chap ter 3.2, which now also contains an 
overview of the role and functioning of  the GMES Bureau, and Annex IV;  
• the added value of the Communication is underlined in Chapter 1.2.; 
• it is made clear that th e Communication does not pr ejudge future financial 
decisions concerning GMES in chapter 1.2; 
• a specific option concerning management of the programme by ESA has been 
defined in Chapter 5.2.; 
• the analysis of Scenario 1 (internal Commission management through a dedicated 
internal structure) has be en deepened significantly; 
EN 10   EN • stakeholder involvement has been descri bed in more detail throughout Chapter 6.  
2.2. Consultation and expertise 
A number of external studies, some speci fically targeting GMES and others Earth 
observation from a more general perspective, are available and have been analysed in 
support of this impact assessment. A list of  these studies is presented in Annex 13. 
2.3. Stakeholders consultation  
In 2005 the Commission issued  a Communication entitled "GMES, from concept to 
reality", which outlined the roadmap towards the availability of first pre-operational 
services by 2008. 
In 2006 the GMES Bureau was created by Commission decision as part of the 
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry in the European Commission. The 
Bureau has the task of federating the us er needs and preparing the transition of 
GMES to operational status, which implie s preparing the necessary financing and 
associated governance scheme. 
Since then a wide consultation process with stakeholders has taken place: 
• the preparation of each service (land, ma rine, emergency, atmosphere, security) 
was initiated by a thematic workshop gathering users of the future service; 
• except for the Security domain which raises specific political and institutional 
issues, the workshops were followed by the setting up of 'Implementation groups' (composed of user represen tatives) with the task of describing scope, architecture 
and implementation plans for each service,  including the necessary infrastructural 
requirements; 
• experts were selected to join these groups and others were seconded to the GMES 
Bureau to assist the Commission in developing GMES; 
• one important channel for consulting st akeholders is the GMES Advisory 
Council
4, which also gives access to a network of dedicated national coordinators. 
These coordinators have the specific role of mobilising their national user and developer communities, therefore repres enting a wide range of stakeholders. 
• the European Commission's GMES Bureau  has had regular bilateral meetings 
with stakeholders from industry, regions a nd other actors in order to gather the 
widest possible input from users and developers of GMES/GMES services and 
related infrastructure. 
                                                
 
3 The GOSIS study in particular looked more specifically  at the governance aspects of GMES rather than 
at the benefits linked to GMES as a whole. 
4 The GMES Advisory Council brings together EU /ESA Member States, the European Commission and 
ESA, as well as other stake-holders on an ad-hoc basis: relevant international organisations (e.g. EEA, 
EUMETSAT, European Maritime Safety Agency, EU Satellite Centre, etc.), representatives of end-
users, industry, service providers, research organisations, academia.  
EN 11   EN • successive EU Presidencies have or ganised conferences dedicated to 
GMES/GMES5, gathering stakeholders around speci fic aspects of the programme; 
Annex II to this impact assessment is a synthesis of the results of this intensive 
consultation process. As an overall synthesis,  it may be said that  stakeholders believe 
that GMES is an initiative of key politic al importance and has created benefits both 
for service providers and users through significant R&D investment by the EU, ESA 
and their respective Member States. 
R&D investments, however, are not a goal by themselves, but have been made with a 
view to preparing an operational provisi on of GMES services. The stakeholder 
consultation has clearly demonstrated that  users, including the downstream service 
sector, require access to a continuous an d sustainable flow of high-quality 
information produced by GMES service prov iders that cannot be ensured in the 
framework of research projects. 
Stakeholders have thus confirmed the need  to create a legal basis for an operational 
GMES programme in order to: 
• consolidate the contributions  of the various partners involved in GMES, taking 
into consideration the roles of the EU, ESA, EUMETSAT, their respective 
Member States and of other organisati ons as necessary, in cluding international 
partners; 
• ensure that, as a user-driven initiative, GM ES is designed in such a way that there 
is continuous uptake of user requireme nts through on-going consultations with 
users communities and integration of their changing needs in an iterative process; 
• implement financial and programmatic  schemes to guarantee long-term 
sustainability of GMES, efficient ma nagement of Community funds and 
continuation of support to scientific  and technical service evolution; 
• facilitate market uptake by the value-a dding service industry  (including SMEs) by 
ensuring an open data policy that maximi ses the use and sharing of GMES data 
and information products (to the extent permitted by data owners) and contribute 
to the sustainability of the infrastr ucture that provides data for GMES. 
3. W HAT IS THE CHALLENGE ? 
3.1. Problem definition 
The extensive stakeholder consultation, which started with the 2005 Communication 
"From concept to reality", has indicated that the following major shortcomings are 
                                                 
5 See the conference organised by the Austrian presidency in June 2006 “A Market for GMES in Europe 
and its regions - the Graz Dialogu e”, Munich conference "The Way to  the European Earth Observation 
System GMES - Munich Roadmap" organised by the German presidency in April 2007, the “Bridging the Gap: Responding to environmental change - from words to deeds” conference, hosted by the 
Slovenian presidency in Portoroz in May 2008, and the forthcoming GMES Forum organised by the 
French presidency in Lille in September 2008.  
EN 12   EN hindering the progress towards the realisation of the political and operational goals of 
GMES: 
• despite the user-driven char acter of GMES and the set up of expert groups (known 
as service implementation groups), there is currently no formal process to involve 
the users in the definition of the scope a nd architecture of the services. This means 
that there is no formal assurance that users get what they need in terms of services 
and that the observation infrastructure is adequate to deliver the necessary data; 
• equally, there is no process to consolidate the contributions of the various partners 
in the development of GMES, which could result in a duplication of efforts in 
Europe. In this context, it is to be recalled that Member States and 
intergovernmental organisations, in pa rticular ESA, have been investing 
significant sums in earth monitoring activ ities. Nevertheless, a common approach 
is still missing among co-existing fram eworks at EC, intergovernmental and 
national level that all have separate d ecision and financing mechanisms. To give 
best added-value to its c ontribution, the EU should be able to coordinate the 
contributions of other partners. There is al so the need to involve regions and their 
networks in this process; 
• GMES is currently a set of research projects financed by the EU, ESA and 
Member States budgets. These projects  aim at developing services and 
infrastructure, but cannot en sure a continuous and sustai nable flow of information 
in an operational environment. The conseque nce of this situation is that users are 
reluctant to invest in adapting their work ing methods to the emerging services as a 
guarantee on their continued availability is lacking. Equally, the lack of an overall 
long-term programmatic scheme is se en as high-risk by the adding-value 
downstream industry. Downstream market play ers are reluctant to  invest as they 
cannot build business models based on shor t-term products avai lable only within 
the framework of a consortia-led research  project that are not subject to an 
operational service delivery mechanis m and may impose restrictions on the 
commercial use of data. 
This means that, for the moment, GMES simply amounts to a number of research 
projects, without an overarching legal a nd financial framework, and very limited 
operational funds.  Without changes to this scenari o, an operational capacity required 
to provide autonomous and strategic information on matters of environment and security cannot be realised. 
3.2. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?  
The evolution of the problem, all things being equal, corresponds to the baseline 
scenario. The purpose of this s ubchapter is to describe the baseline scenario in terms 
of governance and financing aspects, taking into consideration existing financial and 
political commitments of the Commission. A more detailed descri ption of political 
commitments of the Commission concerning GMES can be found in Annex IV. 
3.2.1. Baseline scenario – governance aspects  
Currently, the steering of the development of services and prep aring the financing 
and governance for the longer term is under the responsibility of the GMES Bureau, 
EN 13   EN that was created - by Commission decision in 20066 - within the Directorate General 
for Enterprise and Industry, for a period of three years. The tasks of the GMES 
Bureau include: 
• establishing the focal point for the co-ordination of GMES related activities of the 
Commission; 
• identifying priorities related to GMES activities; 
• consolidating and updating Commissi on needs and corresponding technical 
requirements; 
• developing a data policy and mechanisms to ensure long-term access to data and 
sharing, taking into account and supporting the implementation of the Community 
rules concerning the infrastructure for spatial information in the Community; 
• establishing relations with a broad ra nge of providers and users leading to 
identification of an overall GMES management structure; 
• developing partnerships based on in ternational cooperation, including 
strengthening relations in the framework of the Global Earth Observation System 
of Systems; 
• developing awareness and communication activities; 
• developing the next phase going be yond Commission needs to include other 
European Union institutions and bodies. 
Staff from other the Directorates-General of the Commission, in particular the JRC, 
the European Space Agency, the EEA and na tional experts have been assigned to 
work in or with the Bureau.  
The Bureau receives guidance from a Stee ring Committee consis ting of Commission 
services which are users of GMES services , and is assisted by the GMES Advisory 
Council. The primary mission of the GAC is to: 
• provide strategic advice to the GMES  Bureau concerning the long-term 
implementation of GMES services, crea ting favourable conditions enabling the 
development of services, stressing the user  driven orientation of GMES, the need 
for interoperability, data harmonisation a nd avoidance of duplication of efforts; 
• foster the co-ordination among, and the complementary role of European and 
national activities, thereby en couraging the creation of a “ GMES partnership ”, as 
outlined in the GMES Communication; 
• facilitate consensus-building in th e relevant community(ies) around the 
development of a GMES capacity. 
                                                 
6 See Decision C(2006) 673 of 8 March 2006. 
EN 14   EN The mandate of the GMES Bureau expire s at the end of May 2009. The Commission 
has no obligation whatsoever to prolong this mandate. Although the Terms of Reference of the GAC do not contain a re ference to its duration, the GAC would 
loose its main objective, namely to provide  strategic advice to the GMES Bureau, in 
the event the Bureau ceased to exist. 
From a governance perspective, the baseli ne scenario would thus correspond to a 
situation where the mandate of the GMES Bureau is not prolonged and no other dedicated structure is created in the Co mmission to replace it with a view to 
compiling user needs.  
This means that regarding the EU budget the funds available for GMES under the 
space theme of the 7
th Framework Programme (FP7) would simply be managed in 
line with standard FP 7 rules, without a sp ecific management structure within the 
Commission services.  
Activities of Member States and intergovern mental organisations, in particular ESA, 
in the field of earth monitoring would continue without a general governance 
framework.      
3.2.2. Baseline scenario – financing aspects 
Thus far, important investments have al ready been made in the EU and other 
intergovernmental entities. Within FP 6, th e EU has spent 100M€ on GMES projects, 
whereas ESA invested another 100M€ in th e GMES Service Elements projects. In FP 
7, the EU will make available 550M€ for GM ES service projects and procurement of 
data for these Services. Additionally, 650 M€ will be used to contribute to the development of the ESA Space component  programme, which amounts to 1236 M€ 
for its first segment 1. ESA Member Stat es will make a decision concerning the 
financing of the second segment of  this programme in November 2008. 
Despite these research investments, the Co mmission does not have a political or legal 
commitment to finance operational activities following up on research actions. 
According to the 2005 Communication “GMES – From concept to reality”, GMES is 
to be developed in steps through the introduc tion of fast track and pilot phase 
services, starting with three fast track services (land, ma rine, emergency) by the end 
of 2008. These fast track servi ces will be launched this ye ar on the basis of research 
funds. This demonstrates that GMES could be  continued simply as a research effort 
without violating political co mmitments of the Commission.  
In addition to the funding of research projects through FP 7, the Commission is 
implementing a preparatory action (3 M€ in 2008
7) to prepare propos als with a view 
to the adoption of future actions. Neverthe less the fact that a preparatory action 
exists, with a very limited scope (emergen cy services) does not imply a commitment 
for the Commission to make a proposal that covers all the areas mentioned in chapter 
3.1. above. 
                                                 
7 A budget of a comparable order of magnitude was requested for 2009. The Commission intends to 
request a further budget to conti nue the preparator y action in 2010. 
EN 15   EN From a financial perspective, the baseli ne scenario would thus mean that no 
operational funds are requested by the Comm ission in addition to existing FP 7 funds 
and the preparatory action, which cannot last  longer than three years in accordance 
with Article 49 of the Financial Regulation.  
3.2.3. Impact of the baseline scenario 
This baseline would undermine users' and industrial confidence in GMES. The 
disappearance of any internal Commission stru cture to federate user needs, together 
with the discontinuation of operational funding in the absence of a legal base, would 
mean that the EU would not have the nece ssary decision making power for the future 
governance of GMES. 
• On the users' side, the baseline would be  read as a lack of commitment of the 
Commission towards GMES8. As a consequence, confidence in this initiative as a 
whole would be lost and users would not in vest to modify their own structures in 
order to integrate the first available services. As no entity would exist in charge of federating user needs and taking them in to account in shaping services, GMES 
would be seen as a technol ogy-push project (but wit hout political support), of 
little interest to users
9. 
• On the service provider side, according to  the stakeholder c onsultation, the main 
disappointment would come from the abse nce of perspective of EU financing 
outside research budgets. Service providers  would probably still continue seeking 
research co-financing and therefore co-inve sting in GMES for a short time, but the 
absence of a flourishing Earth Observati on downstream market coupled with the 
maturity of most GMES projects (already at  the level of demonstration rather than 
pure research), would very  likely preclude continue d interest from industry. 
• On the infrastructure side, the stakeholde r consultation demonstrated that it would 
become extremely difficult to justify European investment in the absence of European-level user representation. The already approved co-financing of 
satellites through ESA w ould represent a sub-optimal investment if the data from 
those satellites could not be used for su stainable operational services but only for 
research purposes. As a result, the con tinuation of those observation capacities 
would be put at risk. In parallel, no downstream business would be created or 
expanded without the certainty that the n ecessary flow of data will be there 
without interruption; 
• Regarding the activities of public authoriti es in the field of  Earth monitoring 
(including regional, national and intergove rnmental authorities), the baseline 
scenario would mean that the developmen t and operation of infrastructure and the 
provision of services at regional, na tional and intergovernmental level could 
remain fragmented. Without a governance framework for GMES, which would provide for efficient coordination mechanis ms a risk of infrastructure and service 
duplication  exists 
                                                
 
8 As outlined in the Vega study entitled “The state of the health of the European and Canadian EO 
industry in 2006“, the downstream sector is still dependent on public investments.  
9 In its study entitled „Space 2030, Tackling society’s challenges“ the OECD confirmed the necessity to 
encourage private and public sector use of space data. 
EN 16   EN 3.3. Does the EU have the right to act? 
The Communication responds to a mandate de fined in Paragraph 6 of the Resolution 
on the European Space Policy10. Further, the governance and financing schemes 
proposed in the Communication have been ex amined in the light of the subsidiarity 
principle. Past experience has clearly s hown that the national/intergovernmental 
framework alone is inadequate to move GM ES to an operational stage. Action at EU 
level will not replace but rather comple ment actions at Member States and 
intergovernmental levels (ESA, EUMETSAT, etc.) in order to achieve the common policy objectives. The overall structure will be designed so that GMES remains user-
driven. The step-by-step approach follo wed until now in the GMES development 
will be further promoted. Therefore the a pproach proposed in the Communication is 
fully in line with the subsidiarity principle. 
4. W
HAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNICATION  
As GMES is a system of systems building on existing capacities at regional, national 
and intergovernmental level, the EU needs to formalise and consolidate its involvement in terms of decision making and financing and ensure that its own 
interest as a principal user of GMES servi ces is preserved. To this aim, it will be 
necessary to formalise the c ontributions of all GMES part ners in the same way and 
establish the programme as a contribution to a partnership of different actors in 
which the EU plays an important role. 
Moreover , in order for the envisaged benefits to materialise, it is necessary to 
establish a framework for a programme definition and implementation, with particular focus on the involvement of user s and the appropriate management of EU 
financial resources, in addition with res ources contributed by other partners and 
mobilised for the common objectives. 
Consequently, the EU has to fulfil a double role: 
• the overall partnership coordination  including contributions financed by other 
partners at national, regional, lo cal and intergovernmental levels. 
• the implementation of the Community contribution  in this partnership. 
4.1. Objectives 
The main objective of the 2008 Communication is therefore to 
• address the fundamental problems, name ly lack of govern ance structures, 
sustainable funding and us er representation; and 
• indicate the willingness of the Commission to propose a Basic Act establishing 
the EU GMES programme, which, however, does not prejudge future financial 
decisions. 
                                                
 
10 OJ C136/2 of 20.6.2007. 
EN 17   EN The specific objectives of the Communication are to: 
(5) define a transparent and sustainable governance framework that contains a 
clear division of the roles of the partners  in the GMES partnership, based on 
the principle that GMES should use to the largest extend possible existing capacities; 
(6) guarantee user uptake, in particular th rough constant involvement of users so 
that GMES remains user driven  
(7) reassure stakeholders  about the EU commitment to GMES in the sensitive 
phase of demonstration which pr ecedes the move to operation;  
(8) outline how the governance and financing framework can be implemented 
within a reasonable timeframe . 
While the Communication will only identify broad principles and orientations, the 
detailed elements (scoping of the services, development and management of the observation infrastructure, share and proportion of the EU funding in the various 
GMES components) will be defi ned at a later stag e in the proposal of a legal act. As 
stated above, these measures, which w ill be presented as a follow-up the 
Communication, will be accompanied by their own impact assessment. 
Consequently, the Communication does in  no way prejudge future financial 
decisions and therefore does not have  a financial impact on the EU budget.  
4.2. Consistency with other EU policies 
4.2.1. General considerations 
GMES is a tool in support of  existing EU policies as well  as their implementation by 
Member States. Its Earth Ob servation-based services are meant to inform and 
support policy decisions that are knowledge-b ased, proportionate a nd effective, while 
respecting the principle of subsidiarity. Among these policies, there are areas of 
strategic importance such as climate change, security and the European Space Policy. 
GMES will similarly enable a better assess ment and evaluation of the effectiveness 
of EU policies, e.g. with regard to air po llution or water quality. For Member States, 
GMES will make it easier to fulfil th eir monitoring and reporting obligations 
imposed by European legislation e.g. in th e field of environment. Finally, GMES 
should also be a tool for cooperation actions  linked to development, humanitarian aid 
and emergency situations worldwide,  and more specifically with Africa
11. 
GMES will be expected to have a signif icant impact on the streamlining of such 
reporting requirements through consistent da ta and information approaches from 
European to national and re gional levels. Additionally, the Commission will ensure 
complementarity and consistency with othe r Community policies, in particular in 
relation to competition, the European GNSS programmes (see chapter 4.2.2), the 
                                                 
11  In Africa, presently the Lisbon  GMES Process is being implemented in collaboration with the African 
Union Commission and the African RECs. This w ill lead to a pan-African Earth Observation 
programme in the framework of the EU-Africa Part nership on S&T, Information Society and Space 
Technologies.. 
EN 18   EN protection of personal data, the establishm ent of an infrastructure for spatial 
information in the European Community (INSPIRE), and the cohesion policy12.  
In the environmental sphere, th e Communication announcing a Shared 
Environmental Information System (SEIS)  adopted in February 2008 sets out the 
Commission's view on the approach needed  to modernise and simplify the collection, 
exchange and use of the data and in formation required for the design and 
implementation of environmental policy. SEIS is  based on a number of principles that the Commission sees as necessary in order to take full advantage of modern 
technology to provide the information ba se needed to address environmental 
challenges. In this context, GMES—now GMES—is seen as a basis for improving 
the provision of services both to publ ic policy makers and to citizens. 
 Moreover, GMES services produce inform ation for monitoring and understanding 
climate change and may contribute towards improvements in the transport sector and the deeper marine knowledge needed for im plementation of the EU's new Integrated 
Maritime Policy
13. 
It should also be mentioned that GMES is fully in line with the regional policy of the 
EU. Within the Regions For Economic Change initiative funded under the 
INTERREG IVC and URBACT II programmes, transnational networks of voluntary 
regions can work together to capitalise on the wealth of knowledge, experience and 
good practice available in other regions. This initiative works on the basis that ideas, 
tools and approaches are developed, experi ences exchanged, and these then can be 
implemented through the mainstream Operational Programmes. 'Improving 
monitoring of environment and security by and for the regions' is one of the themes 
recommended by the Commission. Finally, the development of an Urban Atlas 
included in the Land Monitoring Core Se rvice is financed through the budget for 
regional development.  
Finally, the GMES services are considered essential not only because their more 
direct users are policy makers, but also in order to stimulate innovation and growth in 
the downstream sector. The Earth Observatio n-based services sector is, in fact, 
expected to develop much faster owing to  GMES, mostly to the benefit of SME's. 
While the GMES downstream sector competitiveness study has shown how this sector is today relatively small and in an immature stage, the availability of GMES 
services has the potential to accompany th e sector towards maturity while creating 
innovation spin-offs in other sectors, but also to integrate GMES information in 
major industrial sectors such as energy, agriculture, water resources management, 
transports, etc. In these aspects, GM ES fully supports the Lisbon objectives. 
4.2.2. Consistency with the European GN SS programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) 
Galileo and GMES are both flagship program mes of the European Space Policy. It is 
therefore of paramount importance to a void inconsistencies between Galileo and 
GMES, to use synergies to the maximum extent possible, and to take into 
                                                
 
12 The Community Strategic guidelines on Cohesion 2007 and 2013 underline the need to strengthen the 
links between environmental protection and growth and make specific reference to GMES in section 1.1.2. 
13 An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union ("The Blue Book"), Brussels, 10.10.2007, 
COM(2007) 575 final 
EN 19   EN consideration lessons learned from Galileo and the European Geostationary 
Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), a pred ecessor of Galileo. For this reasons, 
staff members of DG TREN a nd DG ENTR are in regular c ontacts at working level. 
Further, the governance and financing of Ga lileo has been assessed in detail in the 
context of the assessment of the options an alysed in chapter 6 below. Nevertheless it 
should be recalled that major differen ces exist between Galileo and GMES: 
• technically speaking, GMES and Galileo co ver two different fields: GMES is 
essentially an Earth observation progr amme, whereas Galileo is a satellite 
navigation programme; 
• the architecture of GMES infrastructure , a system of systems, is much more 
complex than the architecture of Galileo and EGNOS; 
• the five Galileo services will mainly depend on input from Galileo space 
infrastructure, whereas GMES services will use input from multiple sources, 
including space infrastructure co-financed by the EC and contributing space missions, and a large variety of in situ infrastructure.  
Further, it should be recalled that the ma nagement structures established for the 
Galileo development phase (in particular the Galileo Joint Undertaking created under Article 171 of the EC Treaty) are of limited relevance for the purpose of the Communication, which mainly covers the legal, institutional and financial 
framework for operational act ivities. A Joint Undertaking is body established for 
research and development purposes according to the EC Treaty. Therefore they could 
not be used to manage operational GMES activities
14.  
The Community agency that assists in  the management of deployment and 
operational phases of the European GN SS programmes, the GNSS Supervisory 
Authority (GSA), is also currently not en tirely relevant for GMES because of the 
moratorium concerning the establishment of new regulatory agencies (see Scenarios 2 and 4 below).  
5. P
OLICY OPTIONS  
For the sake of clarity, policy options will be outlined separately for the two key 
issues covered by the Communication: su stainability of funding and governance 
scheme. These options are based on the a ssumption that GMES services will be 
made available fully and openl y, unless this would endanger  EU security interests. 
This will help to promote the widest po ssible use and sharing of Earth observation 
data and information according to the principles of the European Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)
15 and Global Earth Observation System 
of Systems (GEOSS) initia tives. Additionally, public investment will encourage 
industry to explore innovative ways of integrating observing, communications and 
                                                 
14 For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that the co-operation with ESA relating to the 
development of space infrastructure for GMES (the Sentinel missions) is based on a delegation agreement under Article 53d of the Financial Regulation, whereas the other funds available under FP 7 
for GMES are managed under standard grant mech anisms, in line with normal FP 7 procedures.  
15  Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) (COM(2008) 46 final ) 
EN 20   EN information technologies and should facilita te market uptake by value-adding service 
providers, notably Small and Medium Enterprises (SME).  
5.1. Options on Sustainable financing 
Concerning the sustainability of financing (S)  of service provision and contribution 
to infrastructure development and operations  beyond research, policy options at hand 
are: 
• No action, S0-option: the 2008 preparat ory action has no follow-up. The EU 
continues to limit its financial contributi on to GMES to research funds, without 
proposing a legal base for the continuati on of the operational activities launched 
through the preparatory actions. 
• Option S1: same as the previous opti on until 2013, but a programme is proposed 
in the context of the preparation of the next financial framew ork. A gap is left 
between the preparatory action (2008-2010) and 2014. 
• Option S2: a Community programme is pr oposed in due time to bridge the gap 
between 2011 and 2014, giving continuity to the preparat ory actions and defining 
the role of the actors in the impl ementation of the GMES programme. 
The exact scope and the underlying rationale  of the activities covered either by a 
programme starting in 2014 (see option S1) or in 2011 (see option S 2) will be 
analysed in the Impact Assessment acco mpanying the corresponding Basic Acts. In 
this context, it is recalled that GMES is a system of systems that can be implemented 
in a modular way, depending on the availabl e EU resources, which will determine 
the EU contribution to each co mponent (Space, In situ, services). Unlike Galileo, 
which aims at deploying a constellation w ith a predetermined num ber of satellites 
and (corresponding ground segment facilities ), GMES will be subject to a phased 
implementation approach. For instance, th e current agreed priorities include the 
development of land monitoring, emerge ncy response, marine and atmosphere 
services and corresponding infrastructure. 
5.2. Options on Governance schemes 
Concerning the roles and responsib ilities of different actors (governance scheme- 
G), policy options at hand are: 
• No action G0 option: The mandate of th e GMES Bureau is not prolonged in 2009 
and no other dedicated internal manageme nt is created. Further, no specific 
governance structure is established in ad dition to applicable rules for research 
funds. 
• Option G1: The Commission takes strong poli tical and managerial control and is 
in charge of the management of the GM ES programme, a formal process for the 
compilation of user requirements and of th e coordination of the contributions of 
various GMES partners which continue to  act according to their mandate and own 
governance scheme. Within the Commission, a dedicated internal management 
structure is responsible for coordi nating GMES, whose mandate should be 
defined, based on the outcome of the eval uation of the GMES Bureau, which will 
EN 21   EN be available at the end of 2008. Tec hnical implementation tasks could be 
delegated to ot her entities.  
• Option G2: The Commission could propose to create a new external  entity (e.g. a 
Community agency, or to extend the mandate  of an existing Community entity) to 
manage the programme on its behalf. 
• Option G3: A single governance body managing all GMES elements and 
representing all stakeh olders is established. 
• Option G4. The responsibility for overall programme management is delegated to 
the ESA. 
5.3. The discarded options 
An analysis in the light of the objectives presented in chapter 4.1. demonstrates that 
some options (or combination of options) ar e clearly not viable and will therefore not 
be discussed in further detail in chapter 6 below.  
In particular, combining the G0 option with options S1 and 2 is inconsistent because 
the first specific objective of the Comm unication, namely to propose a stable and 
transparent governance framework, would not  be met. In fact, any combination 
involving the G0 option would pose subs tantial management problems, as the 
preparation and management of a new program me either before or in the context of 
the preparation of the next financial fr amework cannot be implemented without a 
responsible body, with appropria te mandate and staff. A lthough it would be possible, 
in theory, to manage Community funds simply on the basis of the Financial 
Regulation, this approach would not corr espond to the specific characteristics of 
GMES, a complex system of systems i nvolving many partners. Combinations 
involving G0, which are close to the baselin e scenario described in chapter 3.2, are 
therefore discarded. 
Similarly, all combinations involving the Option S0 are inconsistent. Generally 
speaking, the impacts of the different governan ce options are stric tly related to the 
sustainability scenarios: in the absence of a programmatic  approach beyond research 
no governance option would be beneficial. It is  obvious that the thir d objective of the 
Communication, namely to reassure stak eholders, would not be met if the 
Community continued to finance GMES on th e basis of research projects only. The 
stakeholder consultation has clearly shown that a research environment alone cannot 
provide the stability and confidence necessary  to allow for significant investments in 
the downstream sector. Additionally, it woul d be inefficient to create specific 
management structures if no budgets othe r than research ones are available for 
GMES, given that the structures for th e management of FP funds are in place 
anyway. Combinations involving option S0 are to a certain extent a variation of the 
baseline and are thus discarded. 
Even though at first sight option G3 could make the programme easier to manage, it 
has also been discarded since: 
EN 22   EN • GMES is a system of systems, it would th erefore not be feasible for political and 
legal reasons to centralise decision-ma king power that would also concern 
activities financed through nati onal budgets in a single entity. 
• Option G3 could probably only be implem ented through the establishment of a 
new intergovernmental organisation, which would be extremely burdensome 
(needing the creation of a large manageme nt and technical team) and difficult to 
accept for existing actors. 
• Option G3 would not be built on existing structures and would run the risk to 
duplicate what is already exiting and be in direct competition. 
• This option is also the most difficult to  reconcile with the mandate given by the 
Council to build GMES on existing capacities. 
As a consequence, all combinations of op tions containing G3 are not taken into 
account in the impact assessment. 
Finally, all combinations involving option G4 have been discarded for two main 
reasons. First, the governance framework must respect the role of the Commission as 
defined in the EC Treaty and the jurispru dence of the European Court of Justice 
concerning the institutional balance within the EC16. Consequently, it is not possible 
that the Commission delegates the politic al responsibility fo r coordinating and 
managing the GMES programme to an external entity, such as ESA.  
Additionally, the implementation of GMES  goes beyond the technical capacity and 
mandate of ESA. In particular, although ES A is assigned a key c oordination role for 
the space component, for politic al, practical and legal reas ons, it cannot be delegated 
the management of the in situ and service components.  
5.4. The baseline and combined options 
The baseline scenario described above w ould correspond to a combination of the no 
change S0-G0 options. It serves as the benchmark for the impacts of the other 
scenarios. 
The combination of options on Sustainable funding and Governance can be 
summarised as follows and leads to the furthe r analysis of four scenarios, the impacts 
of which have to be assessed with respect  to the objectives of  the Communication as 
defined above, and in comparison to the baseline. 
 G0 G1 G2 G3 G4 
S0 Base line Discarded Discarded Discarded Discarded 
S1 Discarded Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Discarded Discarded 
S2 Discarded Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Discarded Discarded 
                                                 
16 See, in particular, the Judgment of the Court of 13 June 1958. - Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, 
SpA v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Case 9-56. 
EN 23   EN 6. A NALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF SCENARIOS  
As outlined in Chapter 1 the object of this Impact Assessment is not the 
socioeconomic and environmental impact of GMES itself, which will be analysed in detail in the Impact Assessment concerni ng the Basic Act esta blishing the GMES 
programme. Conversely, the present documen t assesses the impact of options for the 
establishment of efficient governance and funding framework for GMES. The 
following chapter therefore concentrates on an assessment of the impact of these 
options in the light of the obj ectives defined in chapter 4.1. 
6.1. Baseline Scenario 
The impact of the baseline scenario is analysed above in chapter 3.2.  
6.2. Scenario 1 
Scenario 1 consists of a combination of Op tions S1 and G1. In this scenario, a GMES 
programme coordinated by a dedicated inte rnal management structure would be 
launched in 2014. A strong role of the Comm ission in the management of GMES, as 
foreseen in option G1, would fulfil the firs t objective stated above, as the programme 
would be managed in a stable governance framework. The Stakeholder Consultation 
described in more detail in Annex II to this Impact Assessment demonstrated the 
importance of a robust programme management , particularly to ensure integration 
between existing GMES components, coherent management of key programme elements, and full involvement of all pl ayers. The ultimate responsibility for 
programme management will therefore be w ith the Commission, as in the case of the 
European GNSS programmes. Experience w ith these programmes has shown that an 
outsourcing of programme management tasks (either to a Community agency or an 
external entity outside the EU framework, such as ESA) may limit the capacity of the 
Commission to take effective politic al responsibility of the programme
17. 
Nevertheless, it is in line with the pr inciple of sound financial management to 
delegate technical implementation tasks to ESA, which will be responsible for the 
coordination of the GMES space compone nt, including the development of new 
satellites, the procurement of recurrent sate llites, the operation of space infrastructure 
and the coordination of access to data from contributing missions. 
The management of the GMES programme shou ld be the task of a specific internal 
management structure. Options for such in ternal management structure include the 
establishment of a normal Commission unit within a Dire ctorate that takes over the 
tasks of the GMES Bureau, without a d ecision of the Commi ssion, or a prolongation 
of the mandate of the GMES Bureau. Th e decision on the way the tasks currently 
under the responsibility of the GMES Bu reau will be covered after May 2009 
depends on the outcome of an independent  evaluation of the GMES Bureau. The 
final report of the evaluation will be avai lable at the end of 2008 and is in no way 
prejudged by the present Communication and Impact Assessment. The contract with 
the external evaluator does not  provide for Interim Reports.  
                                                 
17 In this context, see also page 11 of the Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council - Progressing Galileo:  Re-Profiling the European GNSS Programmes of 
19.9.2007, COM(2007) 534 final. 
EN 24   EN Regarding stakeholder involvement, the Co mmission could be assisted (i) by the 
GMES Partners Board, for the co-ordination of contributions of GMES partners (i.e. 
in particular the Member States owning or controlling infrastructure that will be 
made available to GMES), and (ii) a com itology committee. It is obvious that the 
comitology committee cannot be set up before the adoption of the Basic Act establishing the GMES programme. The establishment of two separate bodies 
(GMES Partners Board and a comitology committee) is necessary for legal and institutional reasons. The comitology commit ee will assist in the management of EU 
funds, whereas the GMES Partners Board will coordinate activities that are financed 
not only by EU funds, but also through national or in tergovernmental funds. The 
creation of one single body both for the mana gement of EU funds  in line with the 
comitology procedure, and the coordina tion of other activities funded through non-
EU sources that are managed according to national or intergovernmental governance 
schemes could lead to important institutional difficulties.  
Further, it is likely that under Scenario 1 a dedicated internal Commission structure 
would delegate the technical implementati on of the programme to other entities. 
Within the infrastructure component, 
• ESA could coordinate the implemen tation of space infrastructure; 
• the European Environment Agency ( EEA) could coordina te the in situ 
component.
18 
Within the service component, in particular the following entities could play a role: 
• the European Centre for Medium -range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF)19; 
• Joint Research Centre (JRC); 
• Eurostat; 
• the European Environment Agency (EEA); 
• the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)20; 
• the European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC); 
• the European Defence Agency (EDA); 
                                                 
18 Some specific coordination activities could be delegated to other existing relevant coordination bodies 
For instance, EUMETNET (the European network of meteorological services) for meteorological in-
situ observation systems and services; EUROGOOS (the European Association for the Global 
Observing System); EUROGEOGRAPHICS (the European association of National Mapping and Cadastral Agencies) and Eurogeosurveys (the European Association of Geological Surveys) for 
cartography, geology, mapping and reference data; and EMODNET (the European Marine Observation 
and Data Network) for marine data. The EEA should take into consideration research activities of the 
Commission services (including DG INFSO) in the in situ field.  
19 The ECMWF could be assigned the coordination of the Atmosphere network, in consultation with the 
EEA, which could compile user requirements.  
20 Both EDA and EMSA do not have a competence in  security matters, which will be managed by 
FRONTEX, EUSC and EDA.   
EN 25   EN • European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 
Borders (FRONTEX). 
Regarding user involvement, a risk exists that a delay in the implementation of long-
term governance mechanisms could jeopardi ze user acceptance be fore 2014. This is 
because the current ad hoc mechanisms for compiling user requirements, based on standard rules concerning public consu ltations organised by the Commission, might 
not be sufficient to guarantee a structured involvement of users in the establishment 
of their requirements. In this context, it is to be recalled that  the ultimate decision 
concerning user requirements will be with  the Commission, which will manage the 
programme on behalf of the Community. A di rect involvement of users other than 
Member States in the adoption of formal decisions is difficult to implement in the current legal environment.  
The impacts of option S1 on users and provide rs of GMES services are more difficult 
to estimate. While operational fi nancing would in the end be present, a gap is left in a 
phase when demonstration would be practical ly at its end. It is  possible that both 
industry and users could adapt to a further stretch of th e demonstration phase (with 
the positive signals sent by preparatory actions) and accept to wait until 2014 before 
seeing operational financing from the EU. Ho wever, there would be  a significant risk 
of losing support from both sides if conf idence is eroded in this timeframe, for 
several reasons. First, the Vega  study referred to in foot note 5 clearly indicates that 
the Earth observation market in Europe is still dependent to a relatively large extent 
on national, ESA or EC contracts. This m eans that a lack of EU funding would have 
a negative impact on GMES service provide rs. Secondly, a delay in the introduction 
of operational services woul d mean that downstream servic es would not have access 
to information produced by GMES servi ce providers, which could hamper the 
development of this sector. Thirdly, a de layed provision of GM ES services would 
result in a lower demand for data from space and in situ infrastructure. This could 
have a negative impact on the sustainability of these infrastructure s, which are of key 
importance for the development of the sect or according to the OECD. Moreover, one 
would have to consider a risk of losing any first-mover advantage internationally 
through this delay, as emerging and establ ished space nations ha ve shown signs of 
following European plans on their own agenda to compete with Europe. Consequently, it cannot be excluded that S1 meets the objective of reassuring 
stakeholders only in part. 
Finally, it must be asked wh ether S1 would allow for a timely implementation of the 
governance and funding framework of GMES. As mentioned above, there is a risk 
that even though this Scenario  would provide for a stable governance framework, the 
launch of the GMES programme in 2014 coul d result in a discontinuity of some 
services. Consequently, users that have in tegrated GMES services provided through 
research projects in their management procedures would face a gap in the information input necessary to fulfil their sp ecific needs. This means that users might 
not be willing any more to use GMES se rvices available operationally only after 
2013. 
6.3. Scenario 2 
Scenario 2 corresponds to a combination of the options S1 and G2 where a 
programme prepared in the context of the next financial framework would be 
EN 26   EN managed by an external entity. The main di fference between Scenario 1 and 2 lies in 
the way the Commission organises overall programme management  and coordination 
of the GMES partnerships. In Scenario 2, management tasks would be outsourced to 
an external Community body, which could be an executive agency or a regulatory agency. Regarding the establishment of an  executive agency, it would have to be 
assessed whether the extra costs incurred to create a new body woul d be justified by 
efficiency gains. Currently, it is assumed that an externalisa tion of management 
function would not be cost-efficient because it could lead to a duplication of existing capacities (in particular the GMES Bureau). 
Alternatively, the Commission could propose the establishment of a new regulatory 
agency or extending the mandate of an alre ady existing one. Nevertheless the current 
Commission position is not to propose th e creation of new agencies pending the 
results of the evaluati on of existing agencies
21. 
Stakeholder involvement would be organised in a way compar able to Scenario 1, i.e. 
through a GMES Partners Board and a comitology committee. Depending on the set up of the external Community body, there could be additional ways of involving 
Member States, including an Administrative  Board in the event a regulatory agency 
were to be created.  
 In theory, Scenario 2 would therefore meet  the first objective referred to in chapter 
4.1. It is assumed, however, that this Scenario  is not cost-efficient, or would be in 
contradiction with the current community  position concerning regulatory agencies. 
6.4. Scenario 3  
Scenario 3 consists of a combination of options G1 and S2. In  this scenario, the 
Commission would directly manage a GM ES programme that would already be 
launched before 2013. The fact that the Commission takes strong political and 
managerial control would ensure a stable  and transparent governance mechanism. 
Furthermore this corresponds to the view s of stakeholders which expect the 
Commission to take the lead  for the definition, by the EU, of the overall vision for 
GMES and the extent of the use of its av ailable instruments such as coordination, 
financing and regulatory m easures for the governance of the different components of 
GMES. 
As in the subchapter concerning Scenario  1, the internal management of the 
Commission could be based on the GMES Bureau or a nother specific internal 
management structure. Before the adop tion of the Basic Act establishing the 
programme, an interim govern ance structure would be put  in place (see 6.2. above). 
Scenario 3 would also allow the Commission to formalise the process leading to the 
establishment of user requirements already in  the short to medium run. This is one of 
the main expectations expressed by the user communities during the consultation process. The close involvement of users w ithin a stable mechanism would encourage 
public sector use, which is of key importa nce according to the OECD study referred 
to in chapter 4 of Annex 3. Further, pr ivate users, including downstream service 
                                                
 
21 See the Communication from the Co mmission to the European Parliame nt and the Council, “European 
agencies – the way forward”, COM(2008) 135 final of 11.3.2008. 
EN 27   EN providers, will have the possibility to contribute to the compilation of user 
requirements, thereby ensuring that the in formation produced by GMES services will 
correspond to their needs.  
Stakeholders contributing in situ or space in frastructure would be part of the GMES 
Partners Board; Member States would be  represented in a comitology committee. 
Scenario 3 would have maximu m benefits in terms of stabilising the industrial base 
and also in terms of involving users, as a smooth and seamless transition from research to operation would be guarant eed. This would also trigger maximum 
benefits as compared to other options in  terms of stimulating the Earth observation 
downstream sector in a short timeframe, help ing to sustain the im pressive growth of 
Earth observation markets in Europe
22 and encouraging private sector participation, 
as recommended by the OECD. This means that Scenario 3 would fully meet the 
third objective referred to in chapter 4.1. above. 
Regarding the fourth objective, the major adva ntage of this scenario is the timing of 
entry into operation of GMES services, wh ich would allow the EU to reap maximum 
benefits from the environmental inform ation coming from GMES (and where the 
establishment of trends requires the provisi on of long, uninterrupted time series), and 
other users who intend to continue usi ng operational GMES services previously 
provided on a pre-operational ba sis by research consortia. 
6.5. Scenario 4 
Scenario 4 is a combination of options G2 and S2. In this scen ario, the Commission 
would externalise the management of a programme launched already before 2013. 
For the reasons already mentioned in the sub-chapter covering Scenario 2, this Scenario does not seem to meet the first objective referred to in chapter 4.1 1 in the 
most efficient way: 
• An externalisation of management function would not be cost-efficient because it 
could lead to a duplication of existing capacities (in part icular the GMES Bureau); 
• It would be premature to propose the crea tion of an external entity that could 
contradict community orientations concerni ng regulatory agencies. 
7. C
OMPARING THE SCENARIOS  
In the table below, the scenarios assessed in chapter 6 (with the exception of the 
discarded ones as explained above) are comp ared to the baseline examined in chapter 
3.2. above in the light of the objectives of the Communication. 
Comparison is based on qualitative analysis, which is proportionate to the form and 
content of the Commission Co mmunication (not lega lly binding) and to the issue at 
stake (not GMES as a whole, but  its implementation mechanisms). 
                                                 
22 According to the Vega study, European earth observation markets have grown 7 – 8% per annum in the 
last years. 
EN 28   EN More detailed cost-benefit analyses w ill be performed if necessary when the 
Commission will propose a Basic Act establishing a GMES programme, including the relevant budget appropriations. 
Objectives 
 Transparent 
and 
sustainable 
governance 
framework Users buy-in Stabilisation 
of industrial 
base 
(upstream and 
downstream) Feasibility in 
needed 
timeframe 
Scenario 1 + + - + 
Scenario 2 + + - -- 
Scenario 3 ++ ++ ++ + 
Scenario 4 + ++ ++ -- 
 
The timely submission of a proposal fo r a Community programme to ensure 
continuity after the preparatory actions, as foreseen in Scenario 3, seems to best fit the Communication objectives and best respond  to stakeholders' concerns expressed 
so far. Its combination with an intern al Commission management structure would 
minimise implementation obstacles. 
In Scenario 3, Commission would opt for adopting the necessary proposals in 2009 
and work as closely as possible with the le gislator in order to have a final adoption 
by 2011. This would represent an important signal to stakeholde rs, to industry and 
users in particular, that would ease transi tion to the operational phase and avoid loss 
of confidence. 
Alternatively, postponing the programme to th e next financial fram ework (while also 
avoiding creation of new exte rnal entities) would repres ent the easiest option to 
implement (see Scenario 1). However, as explained above, the gap between 2010 and 2014 represents an important risk of losi ng stakeholders' confidence that should be 
carefully managed. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Communication itself will not directly result in the financing of new activities 
through the EU budget, in addition to the actions financed through FP 7 and the preparatory action. The latter  activities are not the object of this impact assessment, 
they will be monitored and evaluated acco rding to standard Commission procedures. 
The Communication, however, cont ains a list of actions that  will be carried out by 
the Commission itself. For the implementatio n of theses actions , the Commission 
will also consult the GMES Advisory C ouncil, or its successor in an interim 
governance framework. An evaluation of the re levance, efficiency and effectiveness 
of the European Commission's GMES Bureau  activities was started in July 2008 and 
the final report is expected for January  2009, in time to feed any further proposals 
implementing this communication. 
EN 29   EN The preparation of the Basic Act establishing the GMES Services will be carried out 
by the Commission itself in line with appli cable rules. In particular, an Impact 
Assessment will be prepared, which will cont ain an evaluation of the costs of the 
activities to be implemented either starting from 2010/2011 or 2014, depending on 
the option chosen. 
The Basic Act establishing the GMES programme will contain detailed provision on 
the monitoring and evaluation of activ ities financed through the EU budget. 
EN 30   EN  
ANNEX I  
REFERENCE STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS  
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, October 2006, Socio-Economic  Benefits Analysis of GMES, prepared for 
ESA http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEMJZ10DU8E_LPgmes_0.html
 
Impact Assessment of the European Space Policy, including GMES 
 http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/space/off_docs_en.html   
GOSIS study (funded under FP6) on GMES governance models 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sp ace_research/pdf/gosis.pdf  
SEIS Impact Assessment: Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008SC0112:EN:HTML  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0046:FIN:EN:PDF  
http://eurlex.europa.eu/Noti ce.do?val=464212:cs&lang=en&list= 464212:cs,&pos=1&page=1&nbl=1
&pgs=10&hwords=&checktex te=checkbox&visu=#texte  
Impact Assessment relating to the Economic and Governance Evolution of Space in Europe, RPA 
February 2007, prepared for EC DG Enterprise & Industry 
 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/calls/files/08_004/rpa_study.pdf  
European Commission Green Paper, European Space Policy, COM(2003)17 final (21.1.2003) -  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSe rv/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0017en01.pdf  
European Commission White Paper Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union: 
An action plan for implementing the European Space policy, COM(2003)673 (11 November 2003) http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/whitepa per/whitepaper/whitepaper_en.html
 
European Commission 'European Space Policy - Preliminary Elements' COM(2005) 208 final 
(23.May 2005) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/space/doc_pdf/pep.pdf
 
SPASEC March 2005: Report of the panel of experts on space and security, prepared for EC DG 
Enterprise & Industry 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/space/news/article_2262.pdf  
ECORYS / ESYS 2006: SATMAC – Satellite Communica tion Market Assessment and Cost Benefit -, 
Market Characterisation Report a nd Satellite Communication Applica tion and Services, prepared for 
EC DG Enterprise & Industry http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sp ace/doc_pdf/impact_assessment_en.pdf
 
BICEPS report - Building an Information Capacity  for Environmental Protection and Security 
(European Commission, DG RTD, 2004) 
http://www.gmes.info/library/i ndex.php?&direction=0&orde r=&directory=6.%20Cross-
Cutting%20Studies%20Documents  
DPAG report - Data Policy Assessment for GMES (European Commission DG RTD) - http://www.gmes.info/library/i ndex.php?&direction=0&orde r=&directory=6.%20Cross-
Cutting%20Studies%20Documents  
INSPIRE Extended Impact Analysis – European Commission, SEC(2004)980 – http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/inspir e_extended_impact_assessment.pdf
 
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/AANS DI_Italy_Final Approved_v12en.pdf  
Costs for monitoring and reporting 
GINIE (10/2003): Geographic Information in the Wider Europe, DG-INFSO Contract IST-2000-
29493 
http://www.ec-gis.org/ginie/doc/ginie_book.pdf  
EN 31   EN PIRA (09/2000): Commercial Exploitation of Eur ope’s Public Sector Information © European 
Communities, 2000 ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/p ub/econtent/docs/2000_1558_en.pdf
 
Craglia M and J. Nowak (2006): “ Assessing the Impacts of Spatial Data Infrastructures - Report of the 
International Workshop on the Cost to Benefit and Return on Investment Ratios of SDIs” . 2006, Ispra, 
Italy http://www.ec-gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/ reports/report_sdi_crossbenefit%20.pdf
  
European KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE Services based on Earth Observation: “Doing business with 
the help of GMES” by S.Galant, T.Pagano, A. Vaféas, TECHNOFI, October 2007 (copy available) 
Geospatial Interoperability Return on Investment Study , National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA): Geospatial Inte roperability Office, April, 2005. 
http://www.ec-gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/reference/ROI_Study.pdf  
OECD Environmental outlook to 2003 
 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/33/40200582.pdf  
OECD(2005): Space 2030 – “Tackling society’s challenges” 
http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,23 40,en_2649_34815_350 59341_1_1_1_1,00.html  
Space for GeoInformation, The Netherlands (02/2003) 
http://www.ravi.nl/ruimte/index.htm  
MICUS (01/2003): The market for geospatial inform ation: potential for employment, innovation and 
added value, study for the Germen government 
http://www.micus.de/pdf/m icus_study_br oadband.pdf  
P.Weiss (NOAA, 02/2002): Borders in Cyberspace – conflicting public sector information policies and 
their economic impacts (for the EU/US comparison) http://www.weather.gov/sp/Borders_report.pdf
 
Environmental Performance Index 2008, Yale and Columbia, http://epi.yale.edu/Home  
Euroconsult 2007, Assessment of the downstream value-adding sectors of space-based applications 
VEGA and Booz Allen and Hamilton, 2004, The state and health of the European and Canadian EO 
service industry VEGA, 2008, The state and health of the European and Canadian EO service industry in 2006 ECORYS, 2008, Study on the competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, prepared for DG 
Enterprise and Industry 
EN 32   EN ANNEX II  
RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
Introduction 
In 200423 the Commission underlined the strategi c role of GMES, id entified elements 
for its implementation and the next year defi ned the strategy to move from concept to 
reality notably through a phased implementation approach24. The Space Council 
supported this approach and at the same tim e stressed the need for a consolidation of 
the overall GMES architecture, and the id entification of appropriate governance and 
financing schemes. 
In 2006, the Commission set up the GMES Bureau to strengthen the management of 
GMES. The Bureau is tasked to prepare, in close coordination with the relevant 
stakeholders and users, the Commi ssion proposals and requirements on GMES. 
The following chapters provide a synthesi s of the input received by the Commission 
in the last two years from expert groups , stakeholders and Member States, and 
highlight the consensus achieved on the main issues where it is necessary to act to 
ensure an operational implementation of GMES. 
Towards an Operational EU GMES Programme 
So far, GMES has been a European initiative  that has drawn political attention to the 
need to preserve and strengthen service a nd infrastructure elements. Substantial R&D 
effort has been invested by the EU, ESA a nd their respective Member States. In the 
future, it is considered that GMES should be  the product of a series of partnerships 
that need to be defined at the EU level, ta king into consideration the role of agencies, 
Member States, value added services industry (including SME’s) and user 
communities. 
The variety of partnerships, infrastructure and services involved in GMES is linked 
with the areas of interest of the diffe rent partners, notably Member States. 
Consequently, in the operat ional phase of GMES, this should be reflected in the 
programmatic, management and financing schemes. 
As a user-driven initiative, GMES should be designed in such a way that there is 
continuous user uptake through constant cons ultation with users and integration of 
their changing needs in an iterative process. 
Financial and programmatic schemes shoul d be designed to guarantee long-term 
sustainability of GMES and the efficient management of Community funds, and to 
support scientific and tec hnical service evolution. 
                                                 
23 Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): Establishing a GMES capacity by 2008 – 
Action Plan 2004-2008 (COM (2004) 65 Final). 
24 Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): from concept to reality (COM (2005) 565 
Final). 
EN 33   EN 8.1. Definition of the EU GMES Programme 
Following various Council Orientations and Resolutions, the EU has been assigned a 
leading role in the development of GMES , with ESA being the implementing agency 
for its space observation component. The roles of all actors need to be consolidated. 
It is imperative that the EU defines th e overall vision for GMES and uses its 
available instruments such as coordination, financing and regulatory measures for the 
governance of the different compone nts of GMES. Those financial and 
programmatic instruments should guarantee a long-term sustainability of services 
and infrastructure. 
Building on existing operational activities,  previous and current R&D activities and 
the Preparatory Action, the GMES program me should contain a definition of its 
overall objectives and the areas wher e EU action is required, and indicative 
budgetary resources. It should have a clea r scoping complementing the actions at 
national and intergovernmental levels and ensuring the user driven character of 
GMES. 
The GMES architecture consists of seve ral individual component s. Each of these 
components has its own characteristics in terms of ownership, facilities, decision-
making process, financing model, industr ial and economic set-up and management. 
Where lacking, dedicated governance mechanisms should be implemented for each of these GMES components taking into account existing and future technical and 
institutional specific char acteristics and structures. 
The overall governance scheme will aim at establishing a sustainable institutional 
and financial framework for GMES and inte grating GMES actors with a view to 
establishing genuine partnershi ps. It should allow for the in teraction of the individual 
GMES components and their associated s ub-governance schemes, and should ensure 
the efficient management of Community funds allocated to the programme, the 
management of necessary contractual rela tions for the operation of GMES, and legal 
representation towards external actors and international communities and coordination bodies, including the Gr oup on Earth Observations (GEO). 
Within the overall governance of the program me, mechanisms able to bring together 
actors of different institutional nature  should be defined, ensuring a proper 
representation of the EU Member States. Th e specific issue of c ountries who are not 
members of the EU and who are involved in  the implementation of GMES has to be 
addressed in this context. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders
 
• Ensuring that the EU and its Member States ha ve the level of engage ment and incentive to 
commit to the long-term availability of institu tional observation and service infrastructure 
and resources for GMES. 
• The EU GMES Programme should be define d in such a way that it adequately 
complements existing financing and programma tic schemes, thereby becoming a decisive 
factor for the establishment of a part nership between the EU and national and 
intergovernmental actors. 
EN 34   EN • Decision-making should be streamlined with cl ear roles and responsib ilities involving all 
different actors, and especially funding bodies, and putting users at th e forefront. The role 
of mandated bodies in this pro cess is particularly important. The process at the operational 
phase should be transparent and binding on reaching consensus and on implementing decisions including the evolution of GMES. 
• To ensure transition to a governance system for an operational GMES  architecture, robust 
programme management is needed, particularly  to ensure integration between existing 
GMES components, coherent management  of key programme elements, and full 
involvement of all players. 
• User communities should be involved in gove rnance and management at overarching and 
component level, so as to promote a continuing dialogue between the entities defining 
user requirements, observation and service infr astructure and service operators, and the 
bodies deciding on the future evolution and funding of GMES. 
 
8.2. Funding 
GMES is essentially a shared and distributed  system and therefore it is expected to 
be co-financed at European, inte rgovernmental and national levels. 
The costs of GMES during its operational pha se depend on the scope of the services, 
the consolidated cost of the observation infrastructure needed to provide these services, and the extension of  the international cooperation. 
The share of the EU budget in the overall amount will depend on the scope for the 
activities funded and managed at EU level. According to the addi tionality principle, 
the EU contribution will not  replace existing and planne d national investments but 
will rather complement them in order to en sure a long-term sustainability for GMES. 
There is a need for continuity of EU R&D budgets as well as for the establishment of 
new budgets at EU level to s upport the operations of GMES. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders
 
• Preparing an operational funding line in the European Union budget by 2014 while 
ensuring the phased operational implementatio n of GMES in line with Space Council 
orientations at the same timeframe. 
• Taking the necessary steps to expand the preparatory operational budget line introduced in 
2008 in order to cover expenses required for the finalisation of the build-up and early 
operation of GMES services and the GMES observation component. 
• The long-term GMES funding a pproach should ensure a smoot h transition between three 
stages that partly overlap: demonstration st age to be funded from R&D appropriations, 
pre-operational stage with mixed R&D a nd operational funding, operational stage with 
operational funding from EU a nd national operati onal budgets, bearing in mind that 
demonstration activities and future operational elements will continue to require R&D funding during the ope rational stage. 
EN 35   EN 8.3. The Downstream Sector 
GMES has been selected as one of the quick start projects in the Commission’s 
Initiative for Growth25. It should stimulate the industrial sector to expand its service 
offer and to develop the innovative integr ation of observing, communications and 
information technologies that will create oppor tunities for increased private sector 
usage of information sources. The European industrial base will be an important asset in maintaining a European autonom ous capacity and political independence in 
decision making. 
The stimulation of the downstream sect or should also be facilitated by the 
mobilisation of traditional EU instrume nts in support of competitiveness and 
innovation. Full, equal and open access to GMES data and information will contribute to the Lisbon growth  and job strategy and pres erve the competitive market 
in the value adding sector. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders
 
• The GMES data and information policy should be based on the principle of “full and open 
access” to the extent allowed by the overall fi nancial model and other legal and security-
related constraints. 
• Structured user support measures, with specia l focus on capacity build ing for shared needs 
among different Member States and fo r different application sectors. 
• Structured business support measures with sp ecial focus on small and medium enterprises 
should stimulate growth and job creation. 
• In order to support the continued developmen t of innovative services , primarily in the 
downstream sector, R&D funds must c ontinue to be made available. 
8.4. International Cooperation 
Although European autonomy for GMES serv ices is of key importance, the EU 
recognises that international cooperation in Earth Observati on is imperative to fulfill 
the need for information based on global in -situ and remote sens ing data. This cannot 
be pursued without exchanging equivalent  observation data through cooperation 
schemes, thereby sharing the burden a nd cost of an expe nsive observation 
infrastructure with major non-European partners. 
Further, only a coordinated approach bringi ng together the main actors in the world 
can lead to efficient counteraction facing global threats. The joint development of 
shared or complementary Earth observati on tools has led the major actors in the 
world to recognise the reality and critical ity of the on-going climate change process. 
International cooperation should, when appropr iate and efficient, build on existing 
cooperation schemes developed by European  national and intergovernmental actors 
with international counterparts. 
                                                 
25 “A European initiative for growth: Investing in networks and knowledge for growth and jobs: Final 
report to the European Council” COM(2003) 690 final/2 (21.11.2003) 
EN 36   EN Among those is the GEO process. GMES will be the main European contribution to 
the global 10-year implementation plan for the Global Earth Observation System of 
Systems (GEOSS). By registering GMES components in the GEOSS, GMES will 
contribute to increasing the knowledge of th e Earth processes, e nhance the prediction 
of the Earth systems, and will encourage the increased use of Earth observation, the development of a system of worldwide obs ervation systems, and collaborative tools 
for observation and analysis w ith international partners. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders
 
The strategy regarding possibi lities of international coopera tion linked to GMES should be 
built along the following lines: 
• Balanced cooperation on observation infrastruc ture that does not compromise the GMES 
objective for European autonomy in information generation, access and control and 
technological capacity  in key areas;  
• R&D cooperation to prepare the future and foster interoperability; 
• Cooperation, in line with EU external relati ons policies, especially  for contributing to 
sustainable development, as well as for European solidarity and capacity building 
approach including for instance support to food security, hu manitarian aid, management 
of emergencies and crises. 
• Strengthening the existing political mandate to support a co-ordinated European approach 
within the current development of the GE O process to implement the GEOSS data 
sharing principles and to define the European  contribution to this international endeavour. 
Implementing GMES: consolidated views and open issues per component 
Following the wide consultation notably th rough the GMES Advisory Council and in 
accordance with the Munich Roadmap , there is now a shared vision on the scope, 
architecture, and governance principles  for GMES. The following sections 
summarise, starting from the existing stakeholders’ consensus where available, the main issues raised by Stakeholders and linked to the different components of the 
GMES architecture. 
8.5. The GMES Service Component 
Through its service component, GMES w ill ensure regular  observation and 
monitoring of the sub-systems of the Earth– including its atmosphere, oceans and 
continental surfaces – and will provide reliab le, validated information in support of a 
broad range of environmental and security applications and decisions. According the 
current analysis of the user needs, the scoping of these services is as follows: 
• Land monitoring 
The Land Monitoring Core Service (LMCS) addre sses a wide range of resources and policies 
(concerning soils, water, agricu lture, forestry, biodiversity, tr ansport, regional development 
etc.) involving very diverse user communities at  global, European, national, regional and local 
level, requiring different types of inform ation, from common multi-purpose up to specific 
information in terms of thematic or geographical area. 
EN 37   EN The LMCS will offer a portfolio of data and pr oducts, with different levels of elaboration 
(from pre-processed images to elaborated in formation), finding a compromise between multi-
purpose requirements and specific thematic requirements, that are important for addressing European policies and for land management support. 
Multi-purpose products will include pre-processed spaceborne and airborne observation 
products, specific reference data complementi ng existing reference data (e.g. European 
Digital Elevation Model), bio-geophysical parameters (dynamic vegetation and surface 
parameters in real-time at global level); a se t of land use / land cover and land cover change 
products. 
Thematic products at European or global levels such as crop forecasts, agricultural statistics, 
water models (quality, irrigation), environmen tal indicators, carbon fluxes, soil degradation 
and desertification models, urban and industr ial areas and hot spots, will address more 
specific thematic requirements. 
• Marine 
The objective of the Marine Core Service (MCS ) is to establish an integrated European 
capacity for ocean forecasting and monitoring allowing a systematic delivery of forecasts 
(from one day nowcasting to one month seasonal forecasting), re-analysis (time series) and 
scenario simulations (for climat e change impact assessments): 
– on sea state and dynamics (e.g. 3D  currents, temperature, sa linity) and primary ecosystem 
(surface phytoplankton and primary production) characteristics; and 
– at global scale (all world ocean) with da ily updates on 5-10 km horizontal grids and over 
European regional seas (Baltic, Mediterranean, No rth Sea, North East Atlantic Basin), with 
daily updates at customised space reso lution (1-5 km horizontal grids). 
As oceanographic models form the basis of its global and regional foreca st services, the MCS 
depends on observation data from space and in-situ  infrastructure and weather analysis and 
forecast information from numerical weather pr ediction models. Thematic Assembly Centres 
will be responsible for specific pre-processing of differe nt parameters to be used as 
observation time-series and in put to the global and regi onal Monitoring and Forecasting 
Centres. Regional models are foreseen for th e Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Seas, Arctic 
Ocean, Northwest Shelf and the North Atlantic. 
• Atmosphere 
The GMES Atmosphere Core Service (GACS) provides products for three main application 
areas: (i) air quality, including long range transport of pollution, (ii) climate forcing and (iii) 
stratospheric ozone, UV and solar radiation. Thes e products cover short term (including near 
real-time) to long term information n eeds (especially through reanalysis). 
The atmospheric service will fill existing gaps in accessible information on atmospheric 
chemistry and composition. This will include: 
– provision of Global Climate Observing System
 (GCOS) Essential Climate Variables 
(ECV's) compliant with Global Climate Observing System  (GCOS) requirements; 
– gridded information on atmospheric composition; 
EN 38   EN – long-term databases in order to  clearly establish trends;  
– reanalysis at regular intervals; 
– ensuring effective access to in-situ and satellite observation data, including in near real 
time for services, e.g. in the field of solar energy; 
– forecasting and assessment capabilities for policy development, health and other 
applications. 
• Emergency management 
The objective is to deli ver a set of basic servic es to improve the capability of users to face 
major emergencies at national, European and globa l levels either within or outside Europe. It 
will cover information relating to natural di sasters including meteorological-driven hazards 
(e.g. storms, fires, floods), geophysical ha zards (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic 
eruptions, landslides and subsidence), and man made disasters and humanitarian emergencies. 
The initial scope of the GMES Emergency Resp onse Core Service (ERCS) is to provide rapid 
mapping services, delivering reference maps  and assessment maps with a synthetic 
representation of anomalous events, their impact  following effects and their time and space 
evolution, as well as the distri bution in space and time of the available resources (rescue 
teams, equipment, material etc.), assets, and the actual damage. The ERCS will expand 
beyond the emergency response part of the crisis cycle and evolve to cover the entire crisis 
cycle (crisis prevention, early warning, post-crisis reconstruc tion and situation assessment). 
The products will be diversified (mapping serv ices, forecasts and early warning systems, 
scenario preparation). 
• Security 
Preliminary discussions with diffe rent stakeholders have shown that security users should be 
offered the same rights as other user users of GMES services bearing in mind that GMES is a 
civil system under civil control.  Experienced security actors unde rlined the sensitivity linked 
to the acquisition, handling and dissemination of  geospatial information. Security users have 
specific needs which justify the creation of specific services. 
In order for GMES services, data and informa tion, to be used for public decision-making, 
most particularly but not solely for what concerns security-related services, they should fulfill basic security criteria in term s of confidentiality, anonymity, traceab ility as well as security of 
infrastructure and processes. These requirements will need to be considered by GMES services in general without hi ndering their overall development. 
With the aim to raise stakeholder's awaren ess and to obtain guidance for scoping and 
implementation, the EU Institute for Security  Studies held a seminar on the security 
dimension of GMES in March 2007. The discussi ons at the seminar identified a number of 
areas where GMES could have a relevant ro le to play in facilitating monitoring or 
implementation of policies, including e.g. maritime and border su rveillance and global 
situation awareness. Following the coordina tion between the Commission and the General 
Secretariat of the Council, a number of action areas meeting policy requirements have been 
identified including: border surveillance, mar itime surveillance and support to EU external 
action. 
EN 39   EN The specific support of GMES to se curity applications as well as  the importance of correctly 
addressing security of information produced by  GMES is currently being elaborated by the 
Commission. The results of ongoing analyses w ill be communicated at a later stage. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders  
• Ensure in the definition of the initial scope for GMES services  that their deliverables meet 
user needs (including the needs of downstream sector). 
• Establish a mechanism for approval and con tinuous management of user feedback and 
requirements as well as for the va lidation of their implementation. 
• Appropriate balance among c oordination, financing and re gulatory actions by the EU. 
• Establish operational financing source s and associated procurement policy. 
8.6. The GMES Space Component 
The GMES Space Component (KSC) shall ensu re sustainable provi sion of satellite 
derived Earth observation data to th e GMES service component. The KSC 
architecture is driven by and derived from  service requirements provided by the user 
communities represented in the overall GMES  governance scheme. This requires that 
any investment in the space component needs to correspond to user requirements aggregated by the Commission. 
The GSC is subject to a space infrastruct ure mission lifecycle which is driven by 
service requirements and which determin es the roles and re sponsibilities of the 
various actors, funding sources and decisi on-making process. This lifecycle includes 
the following stages: 
• demonstration stage through missions or technologies implemented with R&D 
funding;  
• pre-operational stage with initial elements  of an operational series through a mix 
of R&D and operational funding; and  
• operational stage with recurrent el ements of an operational series
26. 
Stakeholders agree that the main challenge today is to ensure the implementation of 
the second and third stages mentioned above. This is true for a major part of KSC 
missions, including the ESA Sentinels and mo st of the national missions in Europe. 
The current situation presents gaps and cannot guarantee the availability and 
continuity of the whole GSC mission ra nge and mission lifecycle described above. 
The availability of GSC missions covering the third stage of lifecycle, i.e. recurrent elements of operational series, should be specifically consider ed. This would imply 
organising different funding and a ssociated procurement policies. 
                                                
 
26 For instance, regarding the Sentinel missions, the recurrent units are defined as those units that follow 
after the completion of the full operational capability. In addition, it is essential that also during the 
operational stage R&D elements are implemented, e.g. for the development of the next generation 
Sentinels, which will incur the need for R&D funds. 
EN 40   EN Moreover, it is clear that at least four ma jor functional roles ar e required, including 
coordination of infrastructure availabi lity, procurement and operations of the 
operational infrastructure, and R&D for future  infrastructure. These functions need to 
be further developed or crea ted for sustaining an operatio nal European capacity as 
shown in the following paragraphs. While the operation of national assets will clearly remain in the hands of respective na tional and commercial operators, the 
EUMETSAT and ESA capacities will be oper ated by European public entities that 
have the appropriate mandate and are technically capable of providing such 
operational services. 
There is need to identify a decision-ma king process which brings together all 
relevant GMES Space Component partners in  Europe. This process should build on 
the distributed architecture of the GMES  Space Component. It should start with the 
definition and prioritisation of GMES se rvice requirements through the general 
GMES governance scheme. Subsequently, these service requirements should be 
translated into mission and architecture requirements taking into consideration especially the available resources a nd plans for Earth Observation space 
infrastructure. ESA, as coordinator of th is GMES component, should then develop an 
implementation plan to be steered and approved by the general GMES governance 
which will allocate its resour ces, if necessary with prio ritisation decisions. At this 
stage, the GMES Space Component part ners coordinated by ESA should then 
proceed with the implementation following the most appropriate programmatic scheme. 
The decision-making process should take  into consideration the implementation 
process, including decision making and fundi ng, of individual partners. Nevertheless, 
there is a need to establish a process linki ng the various partners enabling to reach 
consensus and to drive the implementa tion (including financing) process. 
Regarding financing, as the GSC capacities gradually reach the third stage of the 
operational lifecycle (i.e. recurrent elements  of operational series), one major issue 
linked to the long-term continuity of th e GSC is the availability of operational 
funding sources, notably the possibility to establish operational funding from the EU 
budget completing future operational funding sources at national level. 
The precise content and costing of the GSC will drive the establishment of new 
operational budgets. Such issues are ca refully examined in the long-term 
implementation plans for the GMES Space Comp onent to be elaborated by ESA with 
EUMETSAT, Member States and other stakeholders. This process is expected to be finalised by 2009 to allow the Commission to fulfil its commitment to prepare 
proposals on the necessary  EU operational budget. 
EN 41   EN  
Key issues raised by Stakeholders  
• Ensure that the KSC corresponds to the requirements of GMES services 
• Ensure an overall programmatic approach for a full mission lifecycle with special focus 
on a sustainable approach for recurrent elements of operational series. 
• Identify how Member States can contribute  to the GMES Space Component with their 
national missions and how the continuity  of these missions can be ensured. 
• Finalise content and costing of  the GSC through overall consensus of the long-term KSC 
implementation plans to be coordinated by ESA. 
• Identify the steps towards the establishmen t of operating entities and the definition of 
their role. 
• Establish decision-making processes within the GMES Space Component and identify its 
involvement in the GMES overall governance. 
• Establish operational financing sources and the associated industrial policy for 
infrastructure and data. 
8.7. The In-situ Component  
The in-situ observation component is based on an observation infrastructure owned 
and operated to a large degr ee by the Member States, in some cases coordinated in 
the frame of European or international ne tworks. In-situ observ ation activities and 
associated infrastructure derive from a range of national, EU  and international 
regulatory requirements and agr eements or form part of research processes. None 
were created to meet the needs of GMES, and they generally cover a much wider field than the requirements of GMES servic es. In-situ data flows, and products, are 
often inconsistent between different collection bodies, incomplete, not well-adapted to GMES service needs (e.g. for near real tim e data), subject to usage conditions that 
can affect their ready availa bility, and dependent on rese arch funding. They therefore 
do not have the necessary operational sustainability. 
In-situ observation data provide data not available from space sources (e.g. in the 
marine area, data from submersible floa ts) or essential reference data (e.g. 
topographic maps), and could also be used for calibration of space  data or validation 
of space-based derived parameters. 
The existing observation infrastructure is subject to a complex pattern of ownership 
and management, responds to a range of na tional, EU and international regulatory 
requirements and from numerous research processes. Many national, European and 
international networks coordinate monitori ng and the analysis and consolidation of 
data. 
In-situ observation data flows are highly frag mented; there are significant gaps in the 
data; there are inconsistenc ies between data collected by different bodies; and 
EN 42   EN systems are not well adapted to GMES service needs (e.g. for near real time 
observation requirements in some cases). 
Each service Implementation Group (IG) has pr oduced its own list of  essential in-situ 
data flows. This process has demons trated wide differences between the 
requirements of the services. Given the complexity of the in-situ observation 
component, the European Environment Ag ency (EEA) has been tasked by the 
Commission to analyse and c oordinate the in-situ observation data requirements of 
GMES. 
Discussion among stakeholders of how to realise these requirem ents has brought to 
the surface a number of issues, including: 
• concerns that Member States might not in practice, and for various reasons, be 
able or willing to guarantee the provision of in-situ observation input and that EU 
funding might need to be considered; 
• a need for more clarity about what envi ronmental communities might gain from 
GMES services in return for the provision of  input, particularly as in practice their 
interest would often be in downstream services; 
• what some regard as lack of transparency in the development of the initiative so 
far, and inadequate engageme nt of national authorities; 
• the importance of quality control for input data for services. 
A service-driven approach based on the evolving GMES Services needs to be 
followed. This will require close engagement with bodies in Member States and international and European coordinati ng bodies, which are key players in the 
management of data provision; global in-s itu observation networ ks; and channels of 
user focus, especially in ensuring that da ta and products delivered by GMES services 
to which they contribute genuinely meet their need s – including for downstream 
services. 
The financial responsibility for most in-situ observation data gathering and 
management is outside the EU framework, and GMES should not change this. But 
funding issues for new elements may need to be addressed in the framework of 
GMES funding. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders
 
• Reviewing organisational structures and ensuri ng adequate engageme nt of environmental 
bodies as both providers of data and products, and users of services. 
• Identifying possible instrument s of coordination, regulatio n or funding, shared between 
the EU and Member States, to facilitate the provision of in-situ input. 
• Identification of content and costs of GMES in-situ observa tion component through 
overall consensus on the medium and long term scenarios under the coordination of 
relevant European institutions. 
• Identification and co-ordination of the Euro pean approach on globa l in-situ observation 
EN 43   EN networks. 
• Contributing to the continuity of data pr ovision and a mechanism for assessing data 
quality. 
8.8. GMES Data and Information Policy and data management 
The complex GMES architecture includes data and information flowing among the 
different components and from/to sources outsi de the GMES perimeter. In particular, 
the observation infrastructure  component produces and delivers data of various 
processing levels and sources. Data from this component are regularly processed by 
the GMES Service component (in this case , there is a flow of data between the 
components) in order to generate informa tion made available to users, including the 
downstream sector. 
Due to the complexity of an operational GMES architecture, a two-step process 
should be envisaged for elaborating a GMES  data and information policy, based on 
(i) the definition of objectives and principles of a GMES Data Policy, and (ii) the implementation of these objectives and principles.  
The principles of the GMES data policy ar e to promote the widest possible use and 
sharing of GMES data, to strengthen  markets using Earth Observation (and 
especially the European downstream sector) and consequently to enable growth and 
job creation, to contribute to the sustaina bility of the provision of GMES data, to 
ensure adequate protection of  GMES data, and to support the European public sector, 
including its research communities. An obj ective should then be that GMES data 
should therefore be fully and openly accessibl e, within the constraints and exceptions 
(e.g. security issues) deriving from the ove rall GMES legal and policy environment. 
This principle is not only compliant with the INSPIRE rules and in accordance with the GEOSS Data Sharing Principles, but also targets the objective of promoting the widest possible use and sharing of GMES data. 
GMES data are provided in a complex lega l and financial environment. Data flows 
will be subject to binding rules at national,  Community and international level. The 
detailed implementation mechanisms for a GMES data and information policy will not only depend on
 these legal constraints, but al so on the governance framework 
and financing model for the GMES Service in question. 
Key issues raised by Stakeholders  
• Achieve consensus on the high-level objecti ves and principles for GMES data and 
information policy and the related financial model. 
• Identify ways to implement data policy objectives and principles. 
EN 44   EN ANNEX III  
GMES SOCIETAL BENEFITS AND INDUSTRIAL IMPACT  
Background 
The socio-economic benefits of GMES a nd the expected impact on the related 
European industry sectors have been comp rehensively characterised and documented 
in a series of independent studi es conducted over the period 1995-2008. 
The prime purpose of GMES is to provide information to support public policy. As 
such the GMES information services are a public good. From the available data, it 
seems reasonable to assume that the bene fits resulting from GMES significantly 
exceed the associated costs for its development and operations. 
Public sector investment to ensure the availability and operations of a Europeean 
autonomous global observing capability is a pre-requisite to achieving the long term 
societal benefits and facili tating the progressive particip ation of the private sector. 
This annex provides an overview of studies conducted on societal benefits of GMES 
and assessments of related industrial sect ors and commercial markets at European 
and global levels. 
Two analyses of the benefits  and impacts expected to resu lt from GMES have been 
conducted; the “GMES Socio-Economic Study”, commissioned by EC was 
completed by ESYS in 2003, and the “GME S Socio-economic Benefits Analysis” 
commissioned by ESA, was complete d by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2006. The 
analysis by PWC incorporated the results of  12 smaller scale cost-benefit analyses of 
individual services from the ESA GMES Services Elements (2002-2005). Both these 
studies concluded that GMES informati on products are public goods, i.e. the same 
information products can be used and reused  by many different stakeholders to serve 
a wide range of public polic ies, and identified significant benefits from GMES. 
The major benefit of GMES was identified as  avoided costs. A more effective policy 
regime, using improved and up-to-date information from GMES, will avoid costs that would otherwise be in curred as a consequence of less well-informed decision 
making. In both studies, impact was assess ed with respect to a no-GMES scenario. 
Thus benefits uniquely dependent upon GMES were identif ied. The no-GMES 
scenario was based on the BICEPS report, commissioned by the EC in 2003, which documents the technical baseline scenario  for environmental monitoring within 
Europe. 
Societal Benefits 
The value of GMES information as a suppor t to public policy decisions depends on 
several factors, such as: (i) the cost implications of a po licy decision, (ii) the quality 
of information that is already availabl e and (iii) the capacity of governments to 
exploit better information. Thus GMES information is of greatest value for policy sectors which are affected by high uncerta inty associated with geospatial or 
environmental conditions, sign ificant cost implications, and a lack of alternative 
information. For example, several of the Millennium Ecosystem Reports specifically 
EN 45   EN cite lack of such information as a major constraint for effective policy in domains 
such as deforestation, desertification a nd wetlands management. Most recently, the 
IPCC 4th Assessment Report identified gaps in climate observations over developing 
countries as an obstacle to eff ective policies on climate change. 
The approach being taken in the on-going study of GEO SS societal benefits is 
consistent with the GMES socio-economic benefits studies. The GEOSS analysis 
also assesses benefits and im pacts in terms of societal outcomes enabled by better 
informed decisions. 
Major GMES benefits in the following EU policy domains were identified: 
• Europe as a global player (climate change adaptation, global environment 
protection, humanitarian response); 
• preservation and management of natu ral resources (air quality, marine 
environment, forest ecosystem management, civil protection); and 
• sustainable growth (efficient delivery of public services). 
Significant benefits were also identified in areas such as climate change mitigation 
and development aid (with respect to Europe  as a global partner) and urban and rural 
policy, agriculture policy, water quality, ma nagement of wetlands (with respect to 
preservation and management of natural re sources). However, an already established 
and widely accepted method for quantifying the economic value of these benefits 
was not available. 
The benefits were grouped into three categor ies in order to provide insight into the 
timescales, external dependencies and uncer tainties involved in realizing these 
benefits: 
• efficiencies in implementing existing polic ies. These benefits could be realized 
almost immediately; 
• European policy formulation benefits.  Since they depend on future policy 
evolution, these benefits would accrue later, typically one decade hence; 
• global action benefits: Sin ce they depend on new intern ational policy agreements, 
these benefits would accrue later again. Similarly, the external dependencies and 
uncertainties in their realization are gr eater. However, by virtue of their global 
scope, they hold the greate st potential benefits. 
Industry and Markets 
In addition to these socio-economic bene fits, GMES will support the goals of the 
Lisbon Agenda of building a competitive knowledge based European economy. This 
concerns several industrial sectors within Eu rope, in particular but not only the space 
industry. At a global level OECD has, sinc e 2004, been conducting an analysis of the 
global space economy. Input to this analysis came from the “Global Forum on Space 
Economics” set up in 2006, and the results (“The Space Economy at a Glance”) were published in 2007. 
EN 46   EN OECD has estimated multipliers which characterise the direct impact of investment 
in the space manufacturing industry on OECD  economies. In a cited case study, the 
US Department of Commerce estimated that in 2004, the US space sector was 
responsible for more than US$ 98 B in economic activity, i.e. approximately three 
times the space budget at that time. At presen t the satellite manuf acturing turnover in 
Europe is approximately €5 B per annum. The planned annual investments in the 
GMES Space Component represent less than 8% of this and can be expected to 
deliver benefits to the European economy with comparable multiplier effects. In 
addition to the economic multipliers, invest ment in space also creates benefits via 
directs sales spin-offs. A second OECD case study demonstrates that these can be 4 
to 5 times the value of the initial invest ment. Most recently the UK Case for Space 
analysis identified broader economic cons iderations such as the impact on job 
creation and the higher level of economic re turn achieved from investment in the 
space sector. 
At the downstream level, the relevant GMES sector can be defined as those 
organisations that offer value added servic es based on Earth Observation (EO) data, 
but also large industrial sectors which in tegrate information derived from Earth 
observation in their service o ffer or production processes, according to the model of 
meteorological or geographical informa tion. Within the downstream sector, two 
distinctions should be made: 
• Companies that use EO data and de rived information, the provision and 
availability of which would be affected  by the introduction of GMES services, 
versus those that use other EO data; 
• Public entities versus private actors. 
The economic performance of the GMES dow nstream sector has been reported in 
three studies: a study by Euroconsult in 200727, and two studies by VEGA, from 
200428 and updated in 200829. 
Euroconsult assessed the downstream value-adding sectors of space-based 
applications. This concerned earth obse rvation (EO), communication and navigation. 
An overview of the world and European revenues and the compound annual growth 
rate (CAGR) is provided in the following table. 
Sector World revenues 
2005 European revenues 
2005 Europe % 2000-2005 CAGR 
Europe 
Telecom €54.3 billion €18.1 billion 33% 6.5% 
Navigation €17.3 billion €2.3 billion 13% 22% 
Earth observation €1.3 billion €0.4 billion 31% 4% 
Total €72.9 billion €20.8 billion 29% 11% 
                                                 
27 Euroconsult, 20 07, Assessment of the downstream value-a dding sectors of space-based applications. 
28 VEGA and Booz Allen and Hamilton, 2004, The state and health of the European and Canadian EO 
service industry 
29 VEGA, 2008, The state and health of the European and Canadian EO service industry in 2006 
EN 47   EN Table 1: Revenues of the downstream value addi ng sectors of space-based applications for 
2005. Source: Euroconsult (2007). European data include Canada, an associate member of 
ESA, which accounts for around 10%. 
The table indicates that EO is the smallest  of the three value adding space segments 
in absolute numbers. European revenues take up around one-third of world revenues. 
European revenues from EO amount to approximately 2% of total European 
revenues of downstream value adding sectors,  which is equal the share that world EO 
revenues have in world value-adding revenues. 
The revenue figures above are for EO  value adding activ ity undertaken on a 
contracted basis includi ng public sector revenues, which account for around €150 
million, mostly coming from Meteorology and Met-ocean. European data quoted above include Canada, an associate memb er of ESA, which accounts for around 10% 
of the total. The following table provides as split of total European revenues per segment, and additionally provides th e growth rate in the period 2000-2005. 
Segment Revenue in 2005 CAGR 2000-2005 
Meteorology € 211 million 2% 
Defence and security € 65 million 5% 
Oceanography € 49 million 10% 
Natural Resource Monitoring € 52 million 2% 
Land Monitoring € 13 million 2% 
Total  € 390 million 4% 
Table 2. European revenues EO value adding industry per segment in 2005. Source: 
Euroconsult (2007). European data include C anada, an associate member of ESA, which 
accounts for around 10%. 
Euroconsult also indicated th at EO value adding industry is the only segment where, 
in commercial activity, the downstream sect or is smaller than the upstream sector 
(Satellites, launches, oper ations and ground equipment). 
The Euroconsult figures as mentioned a bove can be compared with the figures 
provided by VEGA. VEGA reports the total revenue in Europe and Canada for EO 
value adding industry at € 285 in 2002, growing 2% per annum on average to € 306 million in 2006. This figure does not entirely  match with the € 390 million in 2005, 
as presented by Euroconsult. However, th ese revenues include pub lic sector revenues 
from meteorology and met-ocean, while we u nderstand that this is excluded in the 
VEGA study. If we correct for this, there is a ‘gap’ of around € 60 million. Part of 
this can be explained by the difference in base year (2005 for Euroconsult, and 2006 for VEGA), but not all. The discrepancy may arise from methodological differences. 
VEGA indicates that about 30% of all re venues are from National/ESA/EC grants, 
hence not from customers paying for services. This figure rises to 50% for small/medium sized companies. 
EN 48   EN VEGA estimates employment in the sector  to have risen from 2,900 employees in 
2002 to 3,000 in 2006.An overview of employm ent and revenue is presented in the 
following table. 
 2002 2006 CAGR 
Revenue* € 285 million € 306 million 1.8% 
Employees* 2,900 3,000 0.85% 
Labour productivity (revenue per 
employee) € 98,00030 € 102,000 0.93% 
Table 3. European revenue and employment. Source: VEGA. *Does not include revenue or 
employment generated by the public sector 
The table indicates that revenues have increased by around 2% per annum on average 
between 2002 and 2006, while employment e volved in a lower pace, slight under 
1%. This implies that the produc tivity per employee has grown. 
These figures from both Euroconsult and VEGA are for all EO activity, even if the 
company concerned is not in the “space sect or”. Hence they include, for example, the 
EO related revenues of large engineering /s urvey companies that use EO as part of 
their overall business. VEGA also estimat ed that the value adding products and 
services provided by the EO value addi ng industry are made  up for 80% from a 
combination of spaceborne plus aerial or ground data. The OECD31 indicates that in 
the total EO downstream sector (commercia l remote sensing, including data sales), 
the revenues amounted to € 2 billion worldwid e (satellite plus ae rial component) in 
2003. It was estimated that the satellite component amounted to  one third of the total. 
Conclusion  
The GMES direct downstream sector employs around 3,000 persons in 2006. The total 
revenue in Europe amounts to € 250 - 300 million in 2006, excluding revenues by the public 
sector, which amount around € 150 million. These values include revenues from grants; 
corrected for this, revenues from paying customers amount to € 175 -210 million, excluding 
revenues by the public sector. 
According to VEGA, there are 151 companie s in Europe and Canada which can be 
defined as value adding companies (2006), excluding the public sector. In 2002 there 
were 162 companies identified. The decrea se can be explained by consolidation 
activities that have taken place. 
The sector is primarily made up of sm all and medium sized companies. The 
distribution among categories is pr esented in the following table. 
                                                 
30 VEGA reports revenue per employee being € 107,000, which is based on a correction for outliers in the 
survey sample. However, these outliers were not ex cluded when calculating total revenue, which does 
not seem methodologically sound. Therefore this tabl e presents the ‘raw’ figu res without correction for 
outliers. 
31 Space 2030, Tackling society’ s challenges, OECD, 2005 
EN 49   EN Size class Number of companies 
Small (0-10 employees) 87 
Medium (11-60 employees) 68 
Large (>60 employees) 6 
Total 151 
Table 4. Size distribution of value addi ng companies (Europe and Canada). Source: VEGA 
On average, the sector employs 20 persons  per company and generates a turnover of 
around € 2 million per company. VEGA not es that profitability is highly 
concentrated with 89% of the profits comi ng from just 5 companies. VEGA indicates 
that the main operational centres of EO activity are in the UK and Germany, with 
France, Italy and Spain also ma king a significant contribution. 
Conclusion  
The GMES downstream sector is a relati vely small sector, composed of around 150 
companies. More than half of these compan ies are small companies employing less than 10 
persons. The average turnover amounts to € 2 million per company. Note that the public 
sector is not include d in these figures. 
The use of GMES information in large industria l sectors such as energy, agriculture, water 
resources, etc should be comparable to those of similar information such as meteorology or 
cartography and remains to be assessed. 
VEGA indicates that about 30%  of all revenues of the EO value adding sector is 
from National/ESA/EC grants, hence not fr om customers paying for services. This 
figure rises to 50% for small/medium sized companies. 
The European EO value adding sector take s up around one-third of  global revenues. 
Both the below revenue and non weighted revenue tables give a picture of the 
geographical market reach of companies. The graph indicates that the majority of the 
users or customers of European value addi ng companies are located  in the country of 
the company itself. The revenue weighted analysis shows that where there are activities outside Europe, the market is dominated by the activities of large companies operating in Asia and North America according to VEGA. 
EN 50   EN 
 
  
Figure : User locations for EO companies. Source: VEGA 
Overall, nearly 10% of all European produc ts are also sold to global users (VEGA 
2008). Historical comparisons of growth in  EO Services by customer location shows 
that in the period 2003 – 2006 there was a growth in products sold globally. 
In terms of the profitability trend of the EO  service industry as a whole, profitability 
is typically below 10% and concentrated in  a few larger companies, with only 89% 
of profit value across the sample compan ies from the VEGA survey (VEGA 2008) 
being delivered by five organisations. In 2006, a significant profit (greater than 1 
million Euros) is limited to just fi ve companies in the research sample32, including all 
the large respondents and just one medium sized organisation. 
Whilst it is not directly related to profitability, the current ratio33 of the industry has 
been analysed in the literature. Whilst th e trend is upwards in the EO value adding 
industry, many companies remain below the ‘s afe’ level of 1 (for  the current ratio) 
and the industry remains below benchmar ks. For example, current ratios for 
engineering companies in the EU are 1.5 and in the US 1.1, while the EO industry as 
a whole is 0.89. (Galant 2007). 
Despite issues with funding re lating to support from th e public institutions34, the EO 
sector shows above average investment in R&D compared with other sectors, with 
the average R&D expenditure accounting for 27. 5% of EO revenue. It is important to 
                                                 
32 Source: VEGA (2008). It should be noted that prof itability of EO companies is shown by this study to 
be typically presented in low single figures as percentage of revenue, variable between companies and 
volatile year on year. 
33 An indication of a company's ability to meet short-term debt obligations; the higher the ratio, the more 
liquid the company is. Current ratio is equal to  current assets divided by current liabilities. 
34 Issues being that revenues are primarily generate d from operational services but revenues grants still 
comprise about a quarter of company revenues on average (VEGA 2008). Organisations awarding 
grants to the EO sector included National public grants, European public grants - ESA EC & other 
(VEGA 2008) 
EN 51   EN note that technical developm ent activities in th e EO sector are funded by clients / 
public funds and not direct by in ternal investment (VEGA 2008). 
GMES aims at the delivery of information services. At the global level, a recent 
study of total revenues for meteorology, ai rborne and satellite  remote sensing 
estimated global revenues of the order US $ 7B for 2007 rising to approximately US$ 
10B in 2012. These figures include the larger  airborne remote sensing data market. 
Concentrating only on EO, the projected gr owth is approximately 8% per annum. 
These estimates are consistent with an i ndependent study by Euroconsult as well as 
related studies of the market for Geographic Information Systems. 
Since 1995, total revenue of the European  and Canadian EO service industry has 
been regularly assessed by a series of independent studies commissioned by both EC 
and ESA. Three snapshots of annual reve nues within the i ndustry (including both 
R&D grants and commercial  sales) were compiled in  1995, 1998 and 2001 followed 
by two detailed assessments of the state a nd health of the EO service industry in 
2004 and most recently in 2007. These studies show a consistent picture – Europe 
earns between 33% and 50% of the global co mmercial market for EO based services 
and this market is growing at approximately 7 – 8 % per annum. The most recent assessment estimates total European and Ca nadian EO service revenue (not including 
data sales) as approximately €306 M for 2006. In addition, combined data sales and ground station procurement revenues were estimated to be approximately €106M. 
 
Historic evolution of total revenue in the Eu ropean EO service industry – source ESYS and 
Vega 
In comparison, the global commercial revenues in the much larger satellite 
telecommunications and navigation service sectors are estimated at approximately 
US$ 55 B per annum and US$ 21 B per annum respectively. 
Relevance for GMES implementation 
As well as assessing the space economy, OECD has also formulated a set of 
recommendations on emerging economic sectors, including the space sector. These 
recommendations are of direct relevance to  GMES. In particular , the context cited 
for economic value to be delivered from space is centred on a set of key societal needs and challenges including environmen tal, managing natu ral resources and 
agriculture, security, mobility and challenges relate d to the move to the knowledge 
society. 
EN 52   EN OECD recognises that the financial sust ainability of operational space systems 
delivering public good services remains a ke y challenge. Thus the recommendations, 
listed below, concern the role of governme nt in strengthening the contribution of 
space in the context of gl obal societal challenges: 
• Implement a sustainable space infrastructure: 
Implement a sustainable user oriented space infrastructure 
Develop and maintain cost-efficient space transport and servicing infrastructure 
• Encourage public sector use: 
Encourage public sector use at national level, including creation of mechanisms for 
the effective generation and use of space based data and strengthening cooperation 
between user ministries and space agencies 
Encourage public sector use at internati onal level, including encouragement of the 
use of space applications for global disaster preven tion, treaty monitoring and 
fostering social and economic development 
• Encourage private sector participation: 
Create a supportive legal a nd regulatory environment for commercial activities 
Strengthen private provision of space based goods and services, including fostering 
of public procurement from the private se ctor and privatization of commercially 
viable business oriented government activities 
• Foster a more supportive internati onal business and finance environment 
Although GMES was initiated prior to  the OECD analysis, the GMES 
implementation strategy closely matches the independent OECD recommendations. 
At present a sustainable GMES space observa tion infrastructure is being built up by 
sustaining existing missions and developi ng new missions (e.g. the ESA Sentinels). 
The requirements for the Space Component are based on documented needs of public sector users derived from long term EU po licy goals. Public sector usage of GMES 
(space and in-situ observation and service components) is being fostered by the 
implementation of dedicated GMES services . Specific mechanisms to ensure service 
to users at international a nd national level are being put in place. Over the next 5 
years, GMES implementation will progress fr om the present pre-operational services 
and preliminary space component to a fully  operational service capability with the 
launch of the first dedicat ed Sentinel mission in 2012. Thereafter,  long-term 
sustainability of public sector usage and real isation of the socio-economic benefits is 
contingent on the establishment of stab le governance and funding scheme for GMES 
operations. This will encour age private sector particip ation by establishing stable 
conditions within which industry and comme rcial operators can undertake their own 
independent initiatives and investments. 
The conditions under which GMES observati ons and core services will be made 
available to users and servic e providers are an important factor in the encouragement 
of both public sector use and priv ate sector partic ipation. The PWC
 reports highlights 
EN 53   EN that an inappropriate access policy for GMES  data and services would inhibit public 
sector use and private sector initiatives , and thus limit the realisation of socio-
economic benefits. Several studies have de monstrated that an effective means to 
maximize public use and private sector deve lopment is to ensure free access to the 
basic observation data and some basic services via public funding. The economic 
benefits of such a policy were documented in a 1998 study which compared US and EU data access policies, a nd assessed the associated economic impacts. A 2001 study 
by KPMG demonstrated that free data a ccess offered by US Government Agencies 
resulted in greater public sector utilisation and higher resulting economic activity than in comparable economies that implemented a policy of cost recovery via data sales. 
EN 54   EN ANNEX IV  
POLITICAL FRAMEWORK FOR GMES  AND STEPS AHEAD  
 
The Global Monitoring for Environment and S ecurity (GMES) initiative was launched in 
1998 through the Baveno Manifesto35 signed by a number of European space agencies, the 
Commission, ESA and EUMETSAT. In its Reso lution of 16 November 2000 on a European 
space strategy (2000/C 371/02) Council noted “the im portance of satellite data in managing 
the environment and regional planning, in  safeguarding human life by managing the 
consequences of disasters, in monitoring risk s and in improving civil security, and noting the 
need to develop, without delay, operational or  pre-operational applic ation services,” and 
called on “the Commission, together with the ES A and the Member States, to complete the 
outline for this initiative, starting from the needs of users and civil society, so that specific implementing proposals can be drawn up by the end of June 2001”.  In its Communication entitled “Global Monitori ng for Environment and Security (GMES) - 
Outline GMES EC Action Plan - (Initi al Period: 2001 – 2003) of 23.10.2001, COM(2001) 
609 final reiterated the objective of to develop operational systems and services by 2008, 
making reference to Commission Staff Working Paper - Joint document from the European 
Commission services and European Space Agency
36. Following this Communication, Council 
adopted the Resolution of 13 November 2001 on th e launch of the initi al period of global 
monitoring for environment and security (GMES) , in which it was mentioned that the Council 
“URGES the Commission to start, in close coor dination with the ESA, the initial period of 
global monitoring for environment and secur ity (GMES), […] STRESSES the importance of 
the initial period in prepari ng the next phase of GMES…". 
 After the end of the initial period of GMES, the Co mmission adopted the Communication 
entitled “Global Monitoring for Environment a nd Security (GMES): Es tablishing a GMES 
capacity by 2008 - (Action Plan (2004-2008) )” of 3.2.2004, COM (2004) 65 final. The 
Communication underlined that “from the experien ce gained during the initi al period, there is 
significant support to ju stify the further development of the GMES, the obj ective being to 
achieve a “core capacity”, i.e. th e initial set of serv ices and the supporting components needed 
to deliver these services on an operational basis by 2008. The capacity is to be built-up gradually, based on clearly identified priorities  and by using existing elements wherever 
possible.” This approach was supported by the European Parliament
37. 
 In its Communication entitled “Global Mon itoring for Environment and Security 
(GMES):From Concept to Reality” of  10.11.2005, COM(2005) 565 final, the Commission 
reiterated that the he command of information on environment and security has geostrategic 
implications, referring to the a bove mentioned to the  political mandate expressed at the June 
2001 Gothenburg summit and in the later Council Resolution (see above)  towards “achieving 
by 2008 an operational and autonomous European cap ability”. Further, it wa s recalled that the 
                                                
 
35  The initial name of the initiative stated in the Baveno Manifesto was Global Monitoring for 
Environmental Security. 
36  SEC(2001) 993 of 16/06/2001. 
37  B5-0045/2004 European Parliament resolution on the action plan for implementing the European space 
policy. 
EN 55   EN second Space Council has confirmed that GMES  will be the second EU  flagship of space 
policy after Galileo.  In the orientations of the second Space Counc il, it was recalled that the EU will focus on 
space-based applications to contribute to the ach ievement of its policies, particularly Galileo 
and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES). The Third Space Council 
reaffirmed “the strategic dimension of GM ES, which should be user-driven and service-
oriented, meeting initially public sector needs through services de livered in the most efficient 
way , where possible by the private sector;”  and supported “a phased approach for the 
implementation of GMES based on clearly identif ied priorities, starting with the development 
of three fast-track services on Emergency Re sponse, Land Monitoring, and Marine Services 
due to begin their pilot phase as operational services by 2008, with other services to be 
developed and validated in due time…”  In its Resolution of 21 May 2007  on the European Space Policy
38, the Space Council 
recognized the strategic value of sustainability for GMES and reaffirmed the objective for an 
operational and autonomous capability for GMES  before the end of 2008. it was emphasised 
that the European Commission needs to pro pose for GMES in due time and after full 
consultation with Member States  and ESA, arrangements for: 
 (i) financing, including facil itation of funding by the users, 
(ii) operational infrastructures, and (iii) effective management — to become fully op erational and to ensure sustainable services 
responding to identified user needs,  Finally, in its Resolution of 26 September 2008 entitled “Taking forward the European Space 
Policy”, the Space Council identified the need to  elaborate an action plan leading to the 
setting-up of an EU GMES programme, aiming at  securing the continuity of GMES services 
and of the critical observation data which th ey require. This action plan should include: 
• an approach for the overall GMES governance; 
• a plan for sustainable f unding of GMES, based on an assessment of the overall 
financing needs for GMES and the definition of the budgetary strategy at national and 
European levels; 
• the definition of operational service deliv ery mechanisms for each GMES service; 
• the definition between the EU and Member States of a process to formalise their 
commitments to contribute to GMES through existing in-situ observation and service 
infrastructures; 
• τhe identification of the ro le of the GEO initiative and other intergovernmental or 
• multilateral initiatives, such as CEOS, in accessing the whole range of data available, 
as 
• well as the contribution of GMES to these inte rnational endeavours; 
• a process to establish a comprehensive data policy for all data ge nerated by the GMES 
system. 
 The Space Council of 26 September 2008 also welc omed the intention of the Commission to 
address all of these issues in a Communica tion to be adopted by the end of October 2008, 
                                                
 
38  2007/C 136/01. 
EN 56   EN having consulted with the main stakeholders, in particular agreeing with ESA an overall 
programmatic approach for the GMES Space Component.   The details of the action plan, which contains  all the major steps to  be taken, will be 
elaborated in the course of 2009. Further, it is envisaged that  in 2009, the Commission will 
propose a Basic Act concerning a “b ridge financing” of operati onal activities in the period 
2011 – 2013, accompanied by a detailed assessment of the costs and the impact of such activities. The funding of activitie s in the next financial perspective, starting in 2014, will be 
covered by an additional Basic Act to be adopted before the end of 2013.