EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 12.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2809 
  
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" 
   
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 748 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2808}  
 
EN 2   EN EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
This Impact Assessment has been prepared  by the Commission services to support the 
Communication entitled “ Global Monitoring for Environment 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 initiative for Globa l Monitoring for Environment and Security 
(GMES) should be implemented operationally through the establishment of an EU-led programme, GMES. The objective of GMES is to provide services allowing access to 
accurate environmental and security data and in formation, 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 charac ter of GMES and the establishment of expert groups (known 
as service implementation groups), there is curr ently no formal process to involve the users 
in the definition of the scope a nd architecture of the services;  
• equally, there is no process to consolidate the contributions of the va rious partners in the 
development of GMES, which could result in a duplication of efforts in Europe. In this 
context, it should be remembered that the Member States an d intergovernmental 
organisations, in particular ESA, have been investing significant sums in earth monitoring 
activities. Nevertheless, a common approach  is still missing among co-existing frameworks 
at EC, intergovernmental and na tional level which al l have separate de cision and financing 
mechanisms;  
• GMES is currently a set of re search projects financed by th e EU, ESA and Member States 
budgets. These projects aim at developing servic es and infrastructure, but cannot ensure a 
continuous and sustainable fl ow 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 in frastructure components; and 
• indicate the willingness of the Commission to propose a Basi c 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 partnershi p, 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 GM ES 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 unt il 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 proposed 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 takes strong political and managerial  control and is in charge 
of the management of the GMES programme, a formal process for the compilation of user 
requirements and of the coordination of the c ontributions of various GMES partners which 
continue to act according to thei r mandate and own governance scheme.  
• 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. 
 
EN 4   EN • Option G3: A single governance body managing all GMES elements and representing all 
stakeholders is established. 
• Option G4. The responsibility fo r overall programme 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 jurisprudence 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 
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.