EN    EN EN
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1440 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
Accompanying document to 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):  
Challenges and Next Steps for the Space Component" 
  
 
 
{COM(2009) 589 final} 
{SEC(2009) 1439} {SEC(2009) 1441} 
 
EN 2   EN This report commits only the Commission's servic es involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any deci sion to be taken by the Commission. 
IMPACT  ASSESSMENT 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 4 1.2. Stakeholders consultation............................................................................................. 4 1.3. Key issues regarding the GMES Space Co mponent emerging from the stakeholders 
consultation .................................................................................................................. 5  
2. What is the challenge? ................................................................................................. 7 2.1. Overall context and objectives..................................................................................... 7 2.2. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 11  
2.3. Does the EU have the right to act?............................................................................. 13 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 14 
3.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 14  
3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 14  
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies ........................................................................... 14 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 1 5 
4.1. Definition of the options ............................................................................................ 15 4.2. Underlying assumptions............................................................................................. 16 5. Analysis of impacts of options................................................................................... 20 5.1. Assumptions concerning cost-benefit analysis .......................................................... 20 
5.2. Option 1: Baseline...................................................................................................... 24  
5.3. Option 2.................................................................................................................. .... 27 
5.4. Option 3.................................................................................................................. .... 31 
6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 34 7. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 36 Annex I GMES: observing the Planet for a safer world – a short description......................... 37 
ANNEX II Reference studies and documents.......................................................................... 38 ANNEX III Technical content of the ESA GSC pr ogramme and schedule of launches in the 
ESA Long term Scenario ........................................................................................... 40 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 40 
2. User Requirements Process........................................................................................ 40 2.1. Space Segment Overview (Sentinel-1 to -5) overview.............................................. 41 2.2. Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 activities............................................................................ 42 2.3. Ground segment activities.......................................................................................... 42 
 
EN 3   EN 2.4. Data Access activities ................................................................................................ 44 
2.5. Pre-Operations............................................................................................................ 44 
2.6. Launch schedule......................................................................................................... 45  
Annex IV The PWC study – methodology and limitations ..................................................... 46 
1. Context ..................................................................................................................... .. 46 
2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 46 2.1. Stakeholders engagement........................................................................................... 47 2.2. Approach to benefits assessment ............................................................................... 48 2.3. Indicators and tools for assigning value..................................................................... 50 
2.4. Key modelling assumptions and discount rate........................................................... 52 3. Presentation of the results .......................................................................................... 52 4. Limitations of the PWC benefits assessment............................................................. 53 ANNEX V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 56 
 
EN 4   EN IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
This Impact Assessment accompanies a Commission Communication entitled "Global 
Monitoring for Environment and Security (GME S): Challenges and Next Steps for the Space 
Component". A general descriptio n of GMES can be found in Anne x I, a list of abbreviations 
is contained in Annex VI. The political context for presenting this proposal at this time is 
explained below in section 2.1. 
The Impact Assessment was elaborated in consultation with a St eering group to which 
representatives of the following DGs were i nvited: ENV, BUDG, SG , RTD, AGRI, ESTAT, 
JRC, RTD, TAXUD, DEV, AIDCO, ECHO , INFSO, TREN, RELEX,  MARE, REGIO and 
JLS. The Steering group met twice1 and was consulted on the draft submitted herewith. 
The Impact Assessment was discussed by the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) 
on 9 September 2009. In the discussion, as re flected in the IAB opinion issued on 11 
September 2009, the author DG agreed to indicate more explicitly the interactions between 
GMES components; that costs a nd benefits depend on all component s; to clarify the issues of 
ownership and funding of the Space and other com ponents; to better explain the timing of the 
proposal; and to present more clea rly the positions of stakeholde rs on the different IA options. 
As a consequence, the present Impact Assessment report has been modified as follows:  – Section 1.3 has been expanded to better reflect th e positions of stakehol ders with respect to 
the GSC financing, and has integrated the former Annex III; 
– Section 2.1 has been integrated with a chap ter on the policy context and timing of the 
foreseen Communication and with an additiona l chapter justifying the focus on the Space 
component; 
– At the beginning of section 4 and in chapte r 5.1 it has been made clear that while all 
options are centred on the Space component, cost s and benefits depend more in general on 
variations of the whole GMES system, i.e. on va riations also of the in situ and services 
components; 
– Section 4.2.3 on data and information policy ha s been integrated to better explain the 
rationale behind full and open access; 
– Section 4.2.4 on financing schemes has been modifi ed to clarify that different co-financing 
options are open for the other GMES components; 
– A specific section on ownership has been added (4.2.4.3). 
1.2. Stakeholders consultation 
• This Impact Assessment is based on a number of external studies (see Annex II) and a 
multiannual consultation process of stakehol ders which has been organised by the 
European Commission's GMES Bureau
2. This consultation proce ss was launched with the 
                                                 
1 On 15 July 2009 and 23 July 2009. 
2 The GMES Bureau is the Commission's focal point for all GMES matters. It was initially created in 
2006 with a mandate of three years. In 2009, the mandate has been extended until end 2010. From the 
administrative point of view, the Bureau is a Unit of DG Enterprise and Industry 
 
EN 5   EN Communication entitled “GMES: from concept to reality”3 and led to the adoption of the 
2008 Communication entitled "GMES: we care for a safer Planet"4. Further consultation 
was performed in order to prepare the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the 
European Earth observation programme (GME S) and its initial operations (2011-2013) 
(the "GMES proposal")5. This multiannual consultation process included: 
• thematic workshops with users of Eart h observation-based information services; 
• the establishment of 'Implementation Groups' composed of user representatives. The 
Implementation Groups prepared recommendati ons concerning the scope, architecture and 
implementation plans for each thematic area in the service component, including the 
necessary infrastructure requirements; 
• the consultation of national GMES coordina tors, appointed by thei r respective Member 
States, in the framework of the GMES A dvisory Council, an expert group with the 
mandate to provide strategic a dvice to the GMES Bureau, foster the co-ordination between 
European and national activit ies, and facilitate consensu s-building in the relevant 
communities around the development of GMES; 
• regular bilateral meetings between the European Commission's GMES Bureau and 
stakeholders from industry, re gions and other players; and 
• conferences6 dedicated to GMES by successive EU Presidencies. 
1.3. Key issues regarding the GMES Space Component emerging from the 
stakeholders consultation 
The stakeholder consultation referred to in s ection 1.2. has clearly dem onstrated that users 
cannot rely on research projects only. They n eed access to reliable and accurate data and 
information that is made available in a time ly fashion, which requires a sustainable Earth 
observation infrastructure. 
Operational information services depend on a continuous flow of inputs from the GMES 
infrastructure component. The present analysis focuses on the GMES Space Component (GSC), i.e. Earth observation satellite s producing data needed for GMES.  
The GSC depends on the space infrastructure mi ssion lifecycle, which is driven by service 
requirements and which determines the roles a nd responsibilities of the various actors, 
funding sources and decision-making process. This lifecycle includes the following stages: 
• development stage; and 
• exploitation stage, which could include r ecurrent elements of an operational series
7. 
                                                 
3 COM (2005) 565 final of 10 November 2005 
4 COM(2008)748 final of 11.12.2008. 
5 COM(2009) 223 final of 20.5.2009. 
6 See e.g. the conference organised by the Austrian presidency in Ju ne 2006 “A Market for GMES in 
Europe and its regions - the Graz Dialogue”, the M unich 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 de eds” conference, hosted 
by the Slovenian presidency in Portoroz in May 2008, the GMES Forum organised by the French 
presidency in Lille in September 2008, and the conference entitled " Towards eEnvironment " which 
took place on 25-27 March 2009, in Prague. 
7 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 
 
EN 6   EN Stakeholders agree that the main challenge today is to ensure the implementation of the 
second stage mentioned above. This is true fo r a major part of GSC missions, including the 
ESA Sentinels and most of the national missions in Europe. 
The current situation presents gaps and cannot gua rantee the availability and continuity of the 
whole GSC mission range and mission lifecycle described above. The av ailability of GSC 
missions covering the second stage of lifecycle, i.e. exploitation including recurrent elements 
of operational series, should be specifically c onsidered. This would imply organising different 
funding and associated procurement policies. 
In addition, stakeholders underlined the importance to: 
• establish operational financing sources and the associated industrial policy for 
infrastructure and data; 
• ensure that the GSC corresponds to the requi rements of the GMES services component; 
• ensure a stable programmatic approach for the GMES mission lifecycle with special focus 
on a sustainable approach for recurrent elements of operational series; 
• identify how the GSC can benefit from exis ting and planned nationa l, intergovernmental 
and commercial missions and how GMES can generate a positive impact on these 
missions; 
• finalise content and costing of the GSC thr ough overall consensus of the long-term GSC 
implementation plans to be coordinated by ESA; 
• identify operating entities and specify their roles; 
• establish decision-making processes for th e GSC within the GM ES overall governance. 
The contributions of two intergovernmental organisations – the European Space Agency 
(ESA) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteor ological Satellites 
(EUMETSAT) to the public consultation "Reforming the budget, changing Europe"8 are of 
particular interest to highlight the position of their Member States, which include several EU Member States. ESA
9 calls for a " multi-annual commitment of funding to establish and 
sustain spaced-based infrastructure and services  for which the EU is to be the major user. 
The EU should consider addressing these issu es in its future budgets and the rules which 
govern expenditure. Potential ac tions could include establishing a dedica ted budget line for 
necessary operational satellite-based system s, beginning with th e Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security services, and rules relating to EU ownership of related assets ." 
EUMETSAT recommended that the EU budget " plan for the co-existence  of separate funding 
mechanisms […] covering Research and D evelopment activities on the one hand and 
operational activitie s on the other hand ." 
At an Information Day organised in Septembe r 2009 with industry on the data policy of the 
GSC, two main issues were raised by industr y stakeholders: (i) the downstream services 
industry welcomes the proposed free and open acce ss to Sentinels data, which they expect to 
open new market opportunities; a nd (ii) the existing satellite data providers have a more 
"wait-and-see" attitude as they  see at the same time opportuniti es from "data buy" contracts to 
                                                                                                                                                         
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. 
8 SEC(2007) 1188 final of 12.9.2007. 
9 ESA contribution is signed by the agency's Direct or-General, who has consulted ESA Member States in 
the ESA Council on it. 
 
EN 7   EN feed GMES services and threats from competition between their data and Sentinel data in 
some limited domains. 
Member States representatives in the GM ES Advisory Council, a group assisting the 
Commission in the development of GMES, have also expressed in various occasions their 
support to the EU engagement in and financ ing of GMES Space component operations. For 
instance, when discussing in March 2009 the preparation of the proposal for a GMES 
programme and its initial operations, Member States supported the establishment of a budget 
line for operating satellites, and some even questioned whether the potentially available budget would be sufficient. The ESA representati ve underlined, in that  occasion, that the 
Space Agency's Programme Board on Earth observation delegates " clearly stated that they 
will not contribute to the operation of the Sentinel s, then it is the EC responsibility, as it 
represents the users' communities, to find the necessary funding sources ". This position was 
not challenged by any EU Member States' de legates, who on the contrary called on the 
Commission to make all efforts to fill the budget gap. Germany informed the Commission in 
writing that "
Germany will continue to provide active support to the European Commission in 
developing the programme and taking on respons ibility for the long-term operation of GMES "10. 
A comparable position had already been expressed e.g. by Spain at the 198th meeting of the ESA 
Council on 15 February 2008 and France at the 203rd ESA Council of 15 October 2008.  
2. WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE ? 
2.1. Overall context and objectives 
2.1.1.  Political context and timing of  the proposed Communication 
GMES has been an EU initiative for more than  10 years. This initiativ e has been shaped under 
the current Commission mandate towards an EU  Programme. In the last Communication on 
GMES, adopted in November 2008, the Commission presented: 
– the need for an EU GMES Programme  to be proposed already in 2009; 
– the architecture (including th e space, service and in-situ components) and governance that 
needs to be put in place; 
– the method to estimate the financing needs of GMES. 
There has been strong political  support for the approach proposed by the Commission by 
Member States both at the EU Council and at the Councils of important  stakeholders (ESA, 
EUMETSAT). The Competitiveness Council in  December 2008 invited the Commission to 
implement quickly as from 2009 its Communicati on; the Space Council in May welcomed the 
Commission proposal for the GMES Regulat ion. The ESA Council in November 2008 
allocated additional funding to the development phase of the space component and invited the EU to complete all necessary preparations for the operations and replenishment of the 
developed infrastructure. The Communicati on was thus followed by a proposal for a 
Regulation on the European Eart h observation programme (GMES)  and its initial operations 
(2011-2013). 
The main objective of the foreseen Communi cation on the GMES Space Component is to 
present the position of the Commission vis-à-vi s the political expectation of EU Member 
States and Member States of the main intergover nmental stakeholders. In particular, it aims at 
                                                
 
10 See the letter from the German Infrastructure Ministry to H. Zourek dated 9 February 2009.  
 
EN 8   EN outlining the key actions to be taken in order to ensure a sustainable environmental data flow 
from space.  
Thus, without prejudice to the fu ture decisions that will be taken by the Commission in the 
context of the preparation the financial fr amework post-2013, a Communication on the space 
component before the end of 2009 is n ecessary for the following main reasons: 
• to facilitate the negotiati ons with Council and Parliament for the GMES Programme 
Regulation, that needs to be adopted early in order to be  implemented in 2011. Member 
States have asked the Commission to put prio rity on the space component in the context of 
this proposal. Clarity on the intention for the long-term a rrangements will facilitate 
adopting arrangements on the short-term. 
• to prepare the ground for an analysis of a ll components by the Commission for the period 
post-2013. This analysis needs to be performed in order to feed th e discussions and the 
assessment of the priorities of the various Community programmes in the broader context 
of the definition of the next Multiannual framework.  
2.1.2.  Background 
In the last thirty years, substantial R&D effo rts in the field of Earth observation have been 
made by the EU, the European Space Agency (E SA) and their respective Member States, with 
a view to developing Earth obser vation infrastructure information services. These efforts led 
to the development of world-class scientif ic Earth observation satellites, operational 
meteorological satellites managed by Europ ean Organisation for the Exploitation of 
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)11 and operational imaging missions at national level 
(both civil and military). However, at European  level no coherent for operating environmental 
satellites was in place. Without  such an operational framework, it would be difficult for the 
EU to obtain sufficient information on the state of the environment and climate change. GMES has been launched to respond to this need. 
2.1.3.  EU objectives 
The general EU objectives for GMES are to 
• enable sustainable Earth observation informatio n services, tailored to the needs of users, 
including public policy  makers and private citizens. The GMES service component will 
allow public policy makers  in particular to 
– prepare national, European, and intern ational legislation on environmental 
matters, including climate change; 
– monitor the implementation of this legislation; 
– access comprehensive and accurate information concerning security matters (e.g. 
for border surveillance). 
• ensure the continuous availabi lity of the observation infrastructure necessary for the 
thematic areas in the GMES service com ponent, either through the establishment of 
partnerships with infrastructure owners, or through the development of new infrastructure 
in the event existing infrastructure is not  sufficient to produce the data needed; 
• give a boost to the Earth observation sector  in Europe, by creating opportunities for 
increased private sector usage of Earth obs ervation-based information sources, and by 
                                                
 
11 Like ESA, EUMETSAT is an intergovernmen tal organisation outside the EU framework.  
 
EN 9   EN facilitating market uptake by value-adding serv ice providers, many of which are small and 
medium enterprises (SME). 
2.1.4.  Content of GMES 
As outlined in Article 2 of the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and the Council on the European Earth observation programme (GMES) and its 
initial operations (2011 – 2013)12, GMES consists of the following: 
(a) a service component ensuring access to information covering the following 
thematic areas: 
– land monitoring; 
– emergency management; 
– security; 
– monitoring of the marine environment; 
– atmosphere monitoring; 
– climate change adaptation and mitigation; 
(b) a space component ensuri ng sustainable space-borne  observations for the 
thematic areas referred to in point (a); 
(c) an in situ  component ensuring observations through airborne, seaborne and 
ground-based installations fo r the thematic areas referred to in point (a). 
2.1.5.  The focus on the Space component 
The foreseen Communication should be seen in the context of the 2008 Communication, 
which presented the full architecture of GMES and made clear that the Space developments 
are driven by the user needs. 
All components are intrinsic parts of the GMES architecture. They all have specific 
characteristics which need to be addressed. Th e infrastructure component generates data. The 
services component processes th ese data in order to produce information for users. The 
interactions between components have been es tablished following the user needs definition 
process and the result is implemented in each  component of GMES. Mo re specifically, the 
content of the space component depends on the need s of the services, which in turn have been 
derived from user needs. The space component is  therefore not analysed in isolation. On the 
contrary, the zoom on the space  component following the overarc hing analysis contained in 
the 2008 GMES Communication fully takes into  consideration the other components.  
The foreseen Communication focuses on the space component where there is still an urgent 
need to define a more concrete basis to ensu re the functioning of the Sentinels, notably in 
view of the implementation of the proposed GMES Programme regulation currently under co-
decision.  
Regarding the in-situ and servi ce components, work on the stabil isation of the cost estimates 
is ongoing. For the in-situ component, the 2008 Communication acknowledged that it mostly 
falls within the remit of Member States. Accord ing to the subsidiarity principle, Community 
action for this component should focus on coordination and some specific limited 
infrastructure aspects, notably linked to global ne tworks. For the services, the next step is to 
                                                 
12 COM(2009) 223 final of 20 May 2009 (the "GMES proposal"). 
 
EN 10   EN launch the process for reaching a common vision with Member States on the basis for cost 
estimates for the services beyond the initial operations. 
In any case, long-term commitments on the space component by the EU would pave the way 
to ensuring the sustainability of  the services, and overall coherence across components will be 
maintained in the programme proposal to be submitted for the period after 2013. 
2.1.6.  Timeline and financing 
GMES is a system of systems that relies on inputs from existing satellite constellations, in situ  
installations and service infrastructure. Diffe rent components or sub-components of GMES 
could therefore enter into operation at different  stages. The Commission thus used the concept 
of gradual implementation in the 2005 GMES Communication, starting w ith three fast-track 
services13, and later the term "modular approach"14. From a governance perspective, three 
stages of GMES can be distinguished, namely (i) pre-operational activities lasting up to the 
end of 2013, financed through FP5, FP6 and FP 7, (ii) GMES initial operations (2011 – 2013), 
to be financed on the basis of the regul ation proposed by the Commission on 20 May 2009, 
and (iii) GMES exploitation post-2013, which will continue to be accompanied by research activities. 
Within FP 6, the EU has spent EUR 100 milli on on GMES projects, whereas ESA invested 
another EUR 100 million in the GMES Service El ements projects. In the space theme of the 
specific programme "cooperation" of FP 7, the EU will make available approximately EUR 430 million for GMES information service projects between 2007 and 2013. Additionally, EUR 624 million from the space theme of FP 7 w ill be used to contribute to the development 
of the ESA Space component programme
15, which amounts to EUR 2246 million (2008 
prices) in total, including funds  contributed by ESA Member States16. 
First information services in the field of emergency management and land monitoring are 
being financed under preparatory actions in add ition to some other opera tional elements in the 
land domain (Corine Land Cover, Urban Atlas). 
At the beginning of the next decade (2011 – 2013) , services could be provided on a larger 
scale, in line with the GMES proposal. This pr oposal is intended not only to transform GMES 
from a political initiative into a coherent programme, but also to ensure the financing of services and the GMES space component, nece ssary for the operation of GMES during the 
period 2011 - 2013. The Commission proposes that the overall fina ncial envelope for GMES 
initial operations should be EUR 107 million, 40  million of which are to be dedicated to the 
operation of the Space component. It is envisa ged that this financia l envelope will be 
complemented by an amount of EUR 43 million from the space theme of the Seventh Framework Programme for research actio ns accompanying GMES initial operations. 
                                                
 
13 See the Communication entitled “Global Monitoring  for Environment and Security (GMES): From 
Concept to Reality” COM(2005) 565 final of 10.11.20 05 (the "2005 GMES Communication"), p. 7 – 8. 
14 See the Communication entitled Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): we care for 
a safer planet", COM(2008)748 final of 12.11.2008 (the "2008 GMES Communication"), p. 6, and the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication "Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security (GMES): we Care for a sa fer planet" - Impact Asse ssment, SEC(2008) 2808 
of 12.11.2008, p. 20. 
15 For more details, see section 2.2. below. 
16 See also the Commission Staff Work ing Document accompanying the pr oposal for a regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council on the European Earth observation programme (GMES) and its 
initial operations (2011 – 2013), Impact Assessment a nd ex ante evaluation, SEC(2009)639 of 20 May 
2009, p. 2 (the "Impact Assessment  accompanying the GMES proposal"). 
 
EN 11   EN Should the Regulation be adopted by Council and Parliament without significant budget 
changes, the estimated overall amount made av ailable to the GSC (including FP 7 funds for 
satellite development and funds for data access and Sentinel operations in the GMES initial 
operations envelope) would be around EUR 233 million in 2013. 
In coherence with the strategy a dopted and investments made so far, it is foreseen that the 
exploitation of GMES continues after 2013, on the basis of a Basic Act that will be proposed 
by the Commission in 2011 at the latest, as part  of the preparation of  the next multiannual 
financial framework. The detailed  exploitation costs post-2013 will  be analysed in the Impact 
Assessment accompanying the proposal for such Ba sic Act. With regard to the GSC, in its 
Resolution adopted at the 6th Space Council meeting17 of 29 May 2009, the Council recalled 
the need to define, at national and European levels, a sustainable funding approach for the 
GMES Space Component based on an assessment  of the overall financing needs for this 
infrastructure. 
2.2. Problem definition 
2.2.1.  The GMES Space Component 
As mentioned above, GMES services depend on th e sustainability of th e GMES infrastructure 
components, in particular the space component . Space data is a key input into the GMES 
service component. If the flow of  space data is interrupted or comes to an end, for instance 
because the underlying infrastructure is not op erational any more, this  means that a given 
service cannot be provided. 
The thematic areas within the GMES service co mponent will rely both on  access to data from 
existing Earth observation satellites owned by third parties, including EU Member States, 
intergovernmental organisations such as ES A and EUMETSAT, non-EU countries and private 
entities (hereinafter re ferred to as "data access"18), and on space infrastructure developed 
specifically for GMES. Given that it is a ma jor principle of GMES that the Community 
should not duplicate existing capacities in Europe, the selection of the la tter infrastructure was 
based on a detailed "gap analysis", in order to establish to what extent the user requirements 
compiled by the EU could not be met by existing or planned infrastructure. 
The result of this "gap analysis" led to the de finition of the content of the ESA GMES Space 
component programme referred to above, to which the EU contribu tes financially. This 
programme aims at developing a number of sa tellite missions known as “the Sentinels”, as 
follows: 
• Sentinel-1: high-resolution synt hetic aperture rada r (SAR) imaging, which can be used for 
imaging even in the case of cloud cover; 
• Sentinel-2: high-resolution multispectral imaging; 
• Sentinel-3: global ocean and land monitoring; 
• Sentinel-4: geostationary atmospheric monitoring; 
                                                 
17 The Space Council is a joint and concomitant meeting of the Council of the EU and the ESA Council 
meeting at ministerial level, in line with Article 8 of the Framework Agreem ent between the European 
Community and the European Space Agency, published in OJ L 261/66 of 6.8.2004. 
18 Existing space missions that will provide data for GMES include Spot, TerraSAR-X, EUMETSAT 
satellites, CosmoSkymed, DMC Deimos, Ikonos, GeoEye, and Quickbird. 
 
EN 12   EN • Sentinel-5: low-orbit atmospheric monitoring19. 
The first constellations of Sentinels that are currently developed in th e framework of the ESA 
GSC programme include the first two Units of Sen tinel 1 to 3, the first tw o Units of Sentinel 4 
and the Sentinel 5 precursor, i.e. 7 satell ites and two instruments flown onboard of 
EUMETSAT satellites. These missi ons are necessary to fill gaps  regarding space data needed 
for GMES services. The technical content of the Sentinels missions and the launch schedule 
are described in more detail in Annex IV. 
2.2.2.  What is the problem? 
The ESA GSC programme comprises the devel opment of an initial constellation of the 
Sentinels, but not their exploitation once in orbit.  Exploitation activities include the control of 
the satellites themselves, of the instruments onboard, the pr ocessing of observation data 
collected through these instruments and the time ly distribution of data to GMES users. 
Exploitation activities are necessary to collect the environmental data that will serve as an 
input for the thematic areas within the GMES se rvice component. The pr oblem is therefore to 
manage and finance: 
• the exploitation of the initial constellati ons of Sentinels deve loped by ESA in the 
framework of the ESA GSC programme, after the end of the development phase, and; 
• the renewal of the Sentinels, many of which have a life span of around seven years, in 
parallel to the exploitation of the initial cons tellations of Sentinels,  thereby paving the way 
for long-term continuity  of data collection. 
The financing and management of the exploita tion of the Sentinels has been discussed in 
several documents, including the Commission Communication entitled "Global monitoring 
for Environment and Security (GME S): we care for a safer planet"20. As outlined in chapter 5 
of this Communication, a future Commun ity Programme should contribute to the 
sustainability of the space infrastructure, notab ly to the in-orbit availability and operations. 
Nevertheless, it was not possible to  take any binding decisions c oncerning the financing of the 
exploitation of the Sentinels on the EU side, as the period  in questions goes beyond the 
current financial framework. A decision on the financing of the space component therefore 
needs to be prepared soon, in the context of the preparation of the next multiannual financial 
framework. 
ESA Member States have made clear that the Sentinel infrastructure represents their 
contribution to the GMES Space Compone nt and that their financial effort21 is made on the 
assumption that EU will take over the responsib ility for the exploita tion and renewal across 
time of an equivalent infrastructure, under EU funding.22 It is thus unlikely that, in the 
absence of EU commitment, an organisation ot her than the EU would assume responsibility 
                                                 
19 See V. Liebig/J. Aschbacher/S. Briggs/G. Kohlhammer/R. Zobl, GMES - Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security: The Seco nd European Flagship in Space, ES A Bulletin 130 (M ay 2007), 14 
– 15. 
20 COM (2008) 748 final of 12 November 2008 
21 See section 2.1.4. 
22 See e.g. the minutes of the 198th meeting of the ESA Council on 15 February 2008, p. 4, and the 
minutes of the 203rd meeting of the ESA Council on 15 and 16 October 2008, p. 6.  
 
EN 13   EN for the GSC beyond 2013. Consequently, the GMES  service component as it is currently 
conceived could not exist23. 
2.3. Does the EU have the right to act? 
It is envisaged that the legal basis for operations post-2013 will continue to be the title on 
Industry in the EC Treaty (or of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU, once ratified)24, 
which does not establish an exclusive competen ce for the EU. It is th erefore necessary to 
ensure that the subsidiarity and propo rtionality principles are respected. 
2.3.1.  Subsidiarity 
Subsidiarity means that the Community shall take  action only if and in so  far as the objectives 
of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently  achieved by the Member States and can 
therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the 
Community. 
The Community contribution to the exploita tion and eventually the renewal of space 
infrastructure developed at European level is fully  in line with the subsidiarity principle, for 
the following reason: 
Assuming responsibility for the exploitation and possibly the renewal of space infrastructure 
developed with Community and intergovernment al funds cannot be su fficiently achieved by 
the Member States because of the costs incurred. It is precisely fo r this reason that in the field 
of space-based observation for operational mete orology, European States have pooled their 
resources to develop and exploit meteorological satellites in the framework of the European 
Organisation for the Exploitation of Mete orological Satellites (EUMETSAT). European 
States also developed demonstrators of envi ronmental satellites either through ESA or 
through national space agencies. They could, however, not find a way to co-operate with 
regard to the funding of sustained operationa l programmes in the field of environmental 
monitoring similar to those in meteorology. However the need for continuing such observations is becoming critical, in considerat ion of the increasing political pressure for 
public authorities taking informed decisions in th e field of environment, security and climate 
change. 
2.3.2.  Proportionality 
Any action by the Community shall not go beyond wh at is necessary to achieve the objectives 
of the EC Treaty. The EU action under consid eration in this document relates to the 
exploitation and renewal across time of the Sentinel  infrastructure. The data expected to flow 
out of this infrastructure is  of common public inte rest and its continuous  availability is 
recognised as being essential in the field of  environment, security, and climate change 
monitoring, both for public policies and fo r boosting the development of downstream 
applications. As outlined in se ction 2.2.1, it is a major principl e of GMES that the Community 
should not duplicate existing capac ities in Europe. The selection of  the Sentinel infrastructure 
was thus based on a detailed "gap analysis" to es tablish to what extent the user requirements 
compiled by the EU could not be met by existing or planned infrastructure. The scope of the 
Sentinel infrastructure currently under developmen t is the result of an existing consensus, and 
                                                
 
23 See also recital 12 of the proposal for GMES Regulation. Although it would be possible to provide 
some services only on the basis of in situ data, or data from missions other than the Sentinels, such 
services would not be comparable any more to the thematic areas in the GMES service component. 
24 See also the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European 
Earth observation programme (GME S) and its initial operations (201 – 2013), COM(2009)223 final of 
20.5.2009. 
 
EN 14   EN therefore does not overlap with other Space infrastructure, nor does it crowd out private 
investment. Consequently, the financing of this  space infrastructure does not go beyond what 
is necessary to achieve the objectives of GMES  and is therefore fully in line with the 
proportionality principle. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General objectives  
The general objectives of the proposed Commun ication correspond to the EU objectives for 
GMES itself, as outlined in section 2.1. above, without pre-judging futu re decisions to be 
taken in the preparation of the next multiannual financial framework. 
3.2. Specific objectives 
The specific objectives of the EU actions re lating to the GMES space component (i.e. the 
Sentinels) are to: 
• ensure the continuous availability of environm ental data collected through a set of space-
based sensors as an input for the thematic areas in the GMES serv ice component; through: 
– the continuous exploitation of the Sentinel s and accompanying research activities through 
adequate governance and financing structures; 
– the timely definition, development and procur ement actions for renewing the Sentinels as 
necessary; 
• stimulate, by lowering the costs of access to earth observation data, the growth of the Earth 
Observation downstream sector in term s of jobs, innovation and international 
competitiveness. 
3.3. Consistency with other EU policies 
GMES is the second flagship programme of the European space policy. The importance of 
GMES has been underlined in many official documents25. Whereas the overall GMES 
initiative, including its service component, concerns several EU  policies, including climate 
change adaptation and mitigation, environment, transport, external relations, and development aid
26, in the field of the GSC it is mainly the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems 
(GNSS) programmes (Galileo and EGNOS27) that are of relevance. This is because the GNSS 
programmes are the only other space infrastr ucture programmes mana ged directly by the 
Community. Lessons learnt from other majo r infrastructure programmes to which the 
Community contributes, including the Si ngle European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) 
programme in the field of air traffic management , and ITER in the field of nuclear fusion, will 
be taken into consideration, where appropriate. 
                                                 
25 For an overview of these do cuments, see the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the 
2008 Communication - Impact Assessment, SEC(2008) 2808 of 12.11.2008 (the "2008 GMES Impact Assessment"), Annex IV. GMES also was a key topic of the orientations adopted at the 6
th Space 
Council of 29 May 2009. 
26 For an overview see the Commission Staff Work ing Document accompanying the proposal for a 
regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Earth observation programme 
(GMES) and its initial operations (2011 – 2013),  Impact Assessment and ex ante evaluation, 
SEC(2009)639 of 20 May 2009 (the "Impact Assessment accompanying the GMES proposal"), section 
3.4 and Annex IV. 
27 the European Geostationary Navigation Over lay Service (EGNOS), a predecessor of Galileo 
 
EN 15   EN It should be underlined that major differences  exist between Galileo and GMES. Technically 
speaking, GMES and Galileo cover two different  fields: GMES is essentially an Earth 
observation programme, whereas Galileo is a satellite navigation programme. 
Nevertheless it is of paramount importance to avoid inconsistencies between Galileo and 
GMES, to use synergies to the maximum extent  possible, and to take  into consideration 
lessons learned from Galileo and EGNOS. In or der to ensure coherenc e between Galileo and 
GMES, staff members of DG TREN  and DG ENTR are in regular contacts at working level. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
It has been recalled th at GMES comprises a services co mponent and an infrastructure 
component, the latter comprising in turn in si tu infrastructure and space infrastructure. 
As the scope of the current report only covers  the space infrastructure , options are modulated 
on the GSC, assuming that the in situ and services components are adequate and do not 
change in any of the options. 
4.1. Definition of the options 
The policy options at hand to a ddress the objectives as defined in Chapter 3 above are as 
follows: 
• Option 1: 
Option 1 corresponds to the baseline scenario. U nder the baseline scenario, the EU would not 
assume responsibility for the exploitation of th e Sentinels after GMES initial operations (2011 
– 2013). This means that the EU would not exploit the GSC at all beyond 2013. As outlined in section 4.2.4, it cannot be assumed that another enti ty would be willing to finance the totality 
of the Sentinel exploitation costs. Consequently, no data collected through the Sentinels 
would be available for the thematic areas in the GMES service component. 
• Option 2: 
Comprises the EU financing and management  of the exploitation only of the first 
constellations of Sentinels, but not the renewal of the Sentinels
28. The first constellations of 
Sentinels are currently being developed in the framework of the ESA GSC programme and 
include the first two Units of Sentinel 1 to 3, th e first two Units of Sentinel 4 and the Sentinel 
5 precursor, i.e. 7 satellites and two instrument s flown onboard of EUMETSAT satellites. It is 
therefore assumed that under Option 2 no data from Sentinels will be available beyond the 
first constellation of Sentinels. 
• Option 3: 
Comprises the EU financing and management  of (i) the exploitation of the initial 
constellations of Sentinels, and (ii) the renewa l of space infrastructure to ensure sustainable 
observation over time, taking into considerati on that most of the units of the Sentinels 
currently developed have a nominal  lifetime of seven years and that the thematic areas in the 
GMES service component rely on a continuous  access to the corresponding data. Decisions 
on the renewal will have to be taken in parallel to the exploitation of the initial constellations of Sentinels. 
                                                
 
28 The assumptions concerning financing schemes are discussed in more detail in section 4.2.2. In 
particular, a PPP is not envisaged at this stage. 
 
EN 16   EN 4.2. Underlying assumptions 
4.2.1.  Accompanying research activities 
In options 2 and 3, exploitati on activities will be accompanied by research activities carried 
out with a view to optimising existing technol ogies and preparing new generations of earth 
observation instruments of relevance for GMES. These R&D activities could be financed e.g. 
through the Community framework programmes fo r research, technologi cal development and 
validation activities, and ESA programmes. 
4.2.2.  Data access activities 
Both options 2 and 3 include data access activities, i.e. access to data from existing Earth 
observation satellites owned by third parties in cluding EU Member States, intergovernmental 
organisations such as ESA and EUMETSAT, non- EU countries and privat e entities. It should 
be recalled that, without the Sentinels, access to data from third party missions is insufficient 
to meet service requirements29, even when coupled with in situ  data. 
4.2.3.  Full and open access to GMES data and information 
The objective of full and open access to GMES data and information was endorsed by the 
Commission in chapter 3 of the 2008 GMES Comm unication and is contained in Article 8 of 
the GMES proposal. The rationale for this ap proach was already outlined in the Impact 
Assessment reports accompanying those documents. 
In a nutshell, the reason why GMES data and information should be fully and openly 
accessible is that full and open access will help to promote the widest possible use and sharing of data and information. Downstream service pr oviders could use GMES information and data 
as an input to provide and market innovative serv ices. Studies have identif ied the cost of data 
as a major obstacle to the development of  this market and a barrier to entry
30. This was also 
demonstrated during the review of the Directiv e on the re-use of public  sector information 
(the PSI Directive)31. These findings have been confir med by the industry stakeholders' 
consultation process, in particular at the 11 September 2009 Sentinel data policy information 
day. 
Generally speaking, the GMES Data and Info rmation policy should help to promote the 
widest possible use and sharing of Earth obser vation data and information in line with the 
framework for the dissemination of environm ental and geospatial information (SEIS and 
INSPIRE)32. Further, it is recalled that the Community has endorsed the principle of full and 
open access to Earth observation data when it  adopted the Resolution of the Third Earth 
Observation Summit on 16 February 2005. This Resolution includes a reference to the 10-
Year Implementation Plan of Earth Observatio n System of Systems (GEOSS), which contains 
the principle of full and open access. 
Additionally, it shou ld be noted that beneficiaries of  Community funding would be mostly 
public authorities. This is w hy, at least in an in itial period, it seems advisable to make 
                                                 
29 See also section 2.2.1 
30 See e.g. ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiv eness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 13. 
31 Directive 2003/98/EC of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-
use of public sector information, OJ L 345/90 of 31.12.2003. Respondents to the public consultation in 
the framework of the review (available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/ docs/pdfs/online_consultation/report_psi_online_con
sultaion_stakeholders.pdf) have signalled that the high prices charged for PSI may be limiting the 
economic development of particular sectors. 
32 See p 5 of the 2008 Communication. 
 
EN 17   EN available data fully and openly, especially c onsidering the current small size of the sector . A 
full and open data policy also means that at leas t in the short and medium run, the provision of 
GMES services would not be based on a con cession or Public Priv ate Partnership (PPP) 
scheme33. 
In the light of the above elements, it is cons idered disproportionate to analyse alternative 
options to full and open access, given that this  issue has already been subject to various 
assessments in the recent past and that the policy for the distribution of GMES data and information has been agreed upon by th e Commission. The Commission will however 
continue to explore whether th e development of market oppor tunities and cost-based user 
charges could eventually allow the reduction of  the proportion of public investment in the 
long run. 
4.2.4.  Financing schemes 
Without prejudice to possible co-financing sc hemes to be explored for the other GMES 
components, this section a ddresses the financing schemes available for the GSC. 
Under options 2 and 3, it is assumed that the Community funds and manages the totality of 
the costs relating to the exploita tion of the initial constellation of Sentinels, and (for option 3 
only) the renewal of the Sentinels, under a da ta policy that is based on full and open access
34. 
Nevertheless, the potential financ ial effort that it will be possible to deploy under the 
Community budget is not yet know n, as priorities and alloca tions of the new multiannual 
financial framework (beyond 2013) will be  established at a later stage. 
In the following paragraphs the potential for co-financing by public or private entities is 
assessed. 
4.2.4.1.  Co-financing of the GSC by other public entities 
In theory, the Community could c ontribute to the costs of the re newal of Sentinels and/or the 
exploitation of the initial c onstellation of the Sentinels onl y partly, should financing from 
other entities in the public sector  complement Community financing. 
It is assumed that the exploita tion of the Sentinel infrastructu re would be too costly for a 
single Member State. This is the reason why the EU has become active in the field of 
operational Earth observati on, in line with the prin ciple of subsidiarity. 
Theoretically, it would be possible that a group of Member States establishes a new 
intergovernmental organisation in order to finance the expl oitation and renewal of the 
Sentinels. This, however, would be extremel y burdensome (needing the creation of a large 
management and technical team) and time consum ing, as an international treaty would have 
to be concluded by the Member States concerned35. Further, the establishment of a new 
intergovernmental agency w ould be in contradiction the European Space policy36, as it would 
result in the exploitation of a strategic infrastructure serving EU policy objectiv es in a non-EU 
framework 
Concerning existing intergovern mental organisations, ESA Me mber States have clearly 
indicated that they expect th e EU to take responsibility over the operation of the ESA-
                                                 
33 For a discussion of PPP, see section 4.2.4.2 below. 
34 See section 4.2.4. 
35 See also the Impact Assessm ent accompanying the 2008 Communication, SEC(2008) 2808 of 
12.11.2008, p. 22. 
36 See the Resolution of 21 Ma y 2007 on the European Space Policy, adopted at the 4th Space Council 
meeting, 2007/C 136/01. 
 
EN 18   EN developed infrastructure. In the past exploita tion of space assets developed by ESA have been 
outsourced to other entities after the end of their development phase, such as Arianespace in 
the field of launchers, EUTELS AT regarding satellite comm unications and EUMETSAT in 
the field of operational meteorol ogy. Up to now, ESA has thus focu ssed its activities rather on 
the development of major European space in frastructures, but not their exploitation. 
Generally speaking, a co-financing could be more  costly than Community financing only, for 
the following reasons: 
• First, past experience shows th at it is of key importance to  keep the governance framework 
as simple as possible. In the case of Galileo, the Commission thus underlined the 
importance "to have a single Programme Manager on the side of the public sector that is 
accountable for the entire Galileo programme, that has management and/or contractual 
control over all the subordinate implementation levels, that has access to both financial resources and to the political authorities, and that can provide th e necessary arbitrage 
between all elements of the programme. A split responsibility with different reporting and 
accountability lines will cause fractures in the programme and have structural, negative 
impacts"
37. 
• The importance of robust programme management and a clear governance framework was 
also underlined by the Court of Auditors sp ecial report 07/2009 on th e "management of the 
Galileo programme's development and validation phase" (the "Galileo Special Report"). In 
particular, the Court of Auditors ma de reference to the importance of "s etting clear, 
realistic and acceptable objectives",  of "defining appropriate st rategies and instruments to 
pursue them", of "providing for risk manageme nt at the programme’s outset" and "taking 
timely decisions on all programme features"38. The more players are involved in decision-
making, the more difficult it is to fulfil these tasks. 
• Further, the Galileo Special Report states that the tasks of supervising complex 
technological activities can be seriously constr ained by governance issues39, in particular if 
the role of the partners  is not defined clearly40. 
• A co-financing of the exploita tion and/or renewal of the Sentinels by different public 
entities would mean that funds come from different sources. Consequently, different 
financial, accounting, control a nd procurement rules could appl y to the management of the 
exploitation of the Sentinels. This could l ead to a governance struct ure for GMES that is 
too complex and ultimately to higher costs, as has happened in the case of Galileo41. This 
rationale applies to a large exte nt independently of the actual percentage of contribution by 
other public players. Even a small contributi on by a public entity other than the EU could 
mean that the multiple sets of financial and procurement rules could apply to the management of the exploitation of the first c onstellation of the Sen tinels. Additionally, the 
negotiation of agreements between different pub lic funding entities will  entail transaction 
costs independently of the level of contri butions, although it can be assumed that these 
costs would be negligible compared to overall costs. 
                                                
 
37 See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Progressing 
Galileo: re-profiling the European GNSS Prog rammes, COM(2007) 534 final of 19.9.2007. 
38 See the Galileo Special Report, p. 36 – 37. 
39 See the Galileo Special Report, p. 27. 
40 See the Galileo Special Report, p. 33. 
41 Regarding the financing of instruments on satellites owned by third parties, specific solutions could be 
necessary. 
 
EN 19   EN 4.2.4.2.  Co-financing of the GSC by the private sector 
It could also be theoretically  possible that a Community cont ribution to the costs of the 
renewal of Sentinels and/or ex ploitation of the initial constellation is complemented by 
financing from the private sector. A financial contribution of a pr ivate company to the costs of 
exploitation and renewal of the Sentinels coul d only be expected if the private company is 
allowed to develop a business model whereby it recoups its costs th rough user fees. Most 
likely the public side would co-operate with the private company in a concession-type PPP. 
A PPP for the exploitation and /or renewal of the Sentinel infras tructure would, however, face 
the following challenges: 
• like Galileo, GMES is a complex high tech project that poses hi gher technological risks 
than for instance the cons truction of a motorway; 
• revenue generation is difficult to predict, espe cially in the presence of fragmented and non 
structured users' communities, as it is the case for Earth observation; 
• as in the case of Galileo, a concession for GM ES would start after rather than before 
system design. The concession holder would th us have to commit itself to financing and 
operating a system that had been con ceived and handed over by the public sector42. 
For these reasons, it would be difficult for a priv ate company to accept th e transfer of market 
risk, which is a precondition for a functioni ng PPP. Regarding design risk, the private 
company would need an assurance that the design (prepared by the ESA during the 
development phase) "had no inherent problems that might result in a faulty or 
underperforming system (for which the con cession holder would be  responsible during 
operation)."43 It would be difficult to transfer this ri sk because of the technical complexity of 
GMES and the outputs expected of the concession holder during exploitation.  
Additionally, the fact that da ta would sold on a commercial basis would deviate from the 
objective of full and open access and therefore strongly limit the use of GMES information 
and, consequently, the related benefits. The objective of full and open access to GMES has 
already been endorsed by the Commission in  the 2008 communication and the GMES 
proposal. 
In this context, it should be underlined that  the development of downstream services is 
significantly constrained in Europe because of the conditions of access to and the price of Earth observation data
44. If Sentinel data is sold at commercial prices, the risks remains that 
one of the key problems that GMES is suppo sed to tackle would remain unsolved, which 
would mean that the general and specific EU objectives refe rred to in sections 3.1 and 3.2. 
would not be met. 
Taking into consideration the lessons learnt from the Galileo PPP and the objective of full and 
open access to GMES data, a PPP for GMES does not  seem to be a viable solution for the 
moment. In any event, the Comm ission will continue to explore whether the development of 
market opportunities and cost based user charge s could eventually allow the reduction of the 
proportion of public investment in the long run. 
                                                 
42 See the Galileo Special Report, p. 24 – 25. 
43 See the Galileo Special Report, p. 25. 
44 See ECORYS Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, executive summary, 
page 11: "In terms of data input, this has been proven to be a major concern for service providers. They 
indicate that the costs are increasing, which could hamper profitability and innovation". 
 
EN 20   EN 4.2.4.3.  Ownership of the GSC 
Ownership of the Space observation infrastructure confers exclusive rights and control over it 
and thus allows the owner to determine how a gi ven space infrastructure  should be used. In 
particular, the owner has the right to de termine how the data produced by an Earth 
observation infrastructure is collected and distributed. This is of key importance, as 
infrastructure is not a goal in itself, but an instrument to produce data needed for the implementation of several EU policies. 
The owner also has some obligations, e.g. under EU environmental legislation or in the event 
the space object causes damage on the Earth or to another space object.  
As outlined above, it is currently not envisage d to implement the Space component of GMES 
as a PPP in the short to medium run. Private ownership of the Sentinels is thus a purely 
hypothetical option, as no private entity would be willing to take over ownership. 
This means that, in practice, the question is whether ESA should remain owner (as it is the 
owner of the Sentinels which it develops accord ing to Article IV of Annex III to the ESA 
Convention), or whether owne rship should be transferred to the EU, normally following 
launch and in-orbit validation. ).  
In all comparable programmes, the EU has beco me owner of the infrastructure it develops. 
This is the case not only for Galileo
45, but also for SESAR, ITER and several JTI, including 
ARTEMIS (embedded systems) and ENIAC (n anoelectronics). Finally, it should be 
underlined that in the field of operational meteorology, EUM ETSAT owns the satellites, 
which are developed by ESA. 
As with Galileo, the transfer  of ownership itself would not imply specific costs.  
Different options for ownership of assets in th e other components will be  analysed at a later 
stage.  
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF OPTIONS  
Options have been analysed both qualitativel y and quantitatively. For th e quantitative part, a 
cost-benefit analysis has been performed based on  available data. To this purpose, all figures 
have been expressed in 2009 prices . A discount rate of 4% in real  terms was used to calculate 
Net Present Values (NPVs), in accordance to the Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines. 
A number of assumptions have been  made that are set out below. 
5.1. Assumptions concerning cost-benefit analysis 
First of all, due to the nature of GMES as a system comprising services and infrastructure 
components, it should be stressed that costs and benefits depend on the whole GMES system 
and not just on one of its components. More sp ecifically, benefits depe nd on the availability 
of services, which in turn rely on the availability of adequate infrastructure (space and in situ). 
As a consequence, variations in costs and be nefits are driven by va riations in all GMES 
components. 
However, due to the limited scope of the presen t report to the space infr astructure component, 
it is assumed that in all options  in situ infrastruc ture and services components are constant, 
                                                 
45 See Article 8 of the Regulation No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 
2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and 
Galileo), OJ L 196/1 of 24.7.2008. 
 
EN 21   EN both in terms of costs and benefits. The analys is focuses therefore on costs and benefits 
variations arising from vari ations in the space component. 
5.1.1.  Benefits 
Benefits arising from GMES have been qua ntified in the study en titled "Socio-economic 
benefits analysis of GMES" by PriceWater houseCoopers (the "PWC  study") of October 
200646. The PWC study monetises and expresses in present value terms the projected 
economic benefits (inclusive of  societal, environmental and other economic benefits) with 
respect to a baseline scenario without GMES. 
The PWC study results have been used  in the present Impact Assessment47. As a 
consequence, the PWC study limitations apply. Th ese are discussed in mo re detail in Annex 
V. It can be considered that the PWC assump tions for the "GMES full service scenario' and 
the corresponding assumptions fo r the Space component are in line with the current GMES 
thinking and with the Space component describe d in the ESA Long Term Scenario (see next 
section on costs). 
In the PWC study, GMES benefits have been gr ouped into three high-level categories, based 
on the different framework conditions necessary fo r the benefits to mate rialise in addition to 
the availability of the GMES services, which in  turn depend on the continuous availability of 
the GSC: 
• Category 1  benefits are efficiency benefits linke d to the use of GMES-related information 
in the implementation or enforcement of legisl ation or policies that are already in place. 
Continuous availability of GMES services (and hence the GSC) is needed for these benefits to materialise. Therefore they ar e supposed to start from 2014 (and even before 
actually, linked to the implementation of GMES initial operations in 2011-2013). For instance, the quick availability of reference maps and damage maps in the context of the 
GMES Emergency Response service will immedi ately deliver efficien cy benefits within 
the existing mechanisms for civil protection in Europe.  
• Category 2  benefits are linked to the availability of more and better information during the 
policy formulation stage. The result would be better policy making at European but also at 
national and regional level, eas ier and more efficient implementation and ultimately an 
improved delivery of policy objectives. For instance, the Land services of GMES will provide information on land use and other land parameters all over Europe, plus detailed, 
higher resolution maps of urba n areas (Urban Atlas). This information will allow better 
shaping and targeting, among others, of regiona l policies and better urban planning at local 
level. There is however a built-in delay between the availability of information and the 
materialisation of the benefits, linked to the pol icy cycle. As a consequence, these benefits 
are assumed not to materialise before 2012 and to grow progre ssively afterwards.  
• Category  3 benefits are, as in category 2, linked to the availability of more and better 
information from GMES services during policy formulation, but this time at global level, 
i.e. linked to the signature and implementa tion of international treaties (e.g. on climate 
change, desertification, deforestation). As a c onsequence, there is a much bigger time delay 
before they materialise, but at the same time their magnitude once the treaties are effectively implemented is much more important  than in the other categories. An example 
                                                
 
46 Available at http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/ GMES/261006_GMES_D10_final.pdf . 
47 The PWC study expresses results in 2005 prices. These have been converted to 2009 prices using a 2% 
constant inflation rate 
 
EN 22   EN of this category is the contri bution that GMES will give to climate change-related policies, 
through long-term data series on  several parameters (including sea surface temperature, sea 
level rise, CO 2 distribution). 
Benefits are calculated not only for Europe, but al so take into consideration the global level. 
This concerns in particular climate change, biodiversity, defo restation monitoring, marine 
monitoring (including oils spills) and se rvices in support of development aid48. 
The PWC study is based on conservative estima tes. Whenever stakeholders or secondary 
sources suggested a range, rather than an absolute number, the lower end was retained. A sensitivity analysis on these assumptions was also performed. For the period analysed (up to 2030), with the use of higher-end ra nge values as assumptions feeding into the GMES benefit 
assessment, the Present Value of projected bene fits increases considerably from €34.7 billion 
to €70.9 billion. When Terminal Values are ta ken into account, projec ted economic benefits 
increase to €173.3 billion
49. 
However, for the purpose of this Impact Assessme nt the conservative figures have been used. 
Corresponding benefits for the whole period up to 2030 are summarised in the figure below50. 
 
Source: PWC study, Figure 7-2: Summary of projected economic benefits: GMES 'full 
service' scenario – Excludes Terminal Values 
The uneven profile of the benefits is due to the assumption, in the PWC study, that category 2 
and 3 benefits begin materialisi ng at specific points in time. 
The PWC study also identifies significant socio- economic benefits without monetising them: 
• Europe as a global partner (climate change mitigation, development and aid) 
                                                 
48 With a focus on Africa, see PWC study, p. 82. 
49 All figures of the sensitivity analys is are expressed in the PWC study as "present values, discounted to 
1/1/2006 at 4% real" 
50 PWC study, page 163. 
 
EN 23   EN • preservation and management of natural re sources (urban and rural policy, agriculture 
policy, water quality, management of wetlands) 
The PWC study stresses51 that GMES offers significant stra tegic and political benefits for 
Europe. Although such benefits are inherently n on-quantifiable they are a capital element of 
the GMES benefit case. They concern Europe’s l eadership on global poli cy issues that have 
long term consequences for the quality of  life and security of its citizens. 
In addition to the above, it should be stress ed that the PWC study does not quantify some 
other economic and social benefits generated by exploitation and renewal of the Sentinels 
both in the satellite manufacturing industry and the Earth observation service sector. These 
could be called the "GMES econom y" benefits, and are linked i.a.  to creating and maintaining 
of a highly skilled workforce and to the innovati ve potential of Earth observation technologies 
and techniques, in particular fo r the switch to a low carbon economy. 
To conclude, it can be said that quantification of benefits in the present assessment is very 
conservative. When comparing the options, some qualitative elements have also been provided concerning the categories of be nefits outside the PWC study scope. 
5.1.2.  Costs 
As the PWC study benefits refer to the full provision of GMES  services rather than the 
implementation of the GSC only, the full costs of  GMES services provision had to be taken 
into account for a cost/benef it comparison to make sense. 
In the quantitative analysis of  options, therefore, the follow ing cost categories have been 
factored in: 
• Services component operation costs, derive d from current costs in the FP7 projects 
preparing pre-operational servic es and projected towards stea dy-state in th e period 2014-
2030; 
• Space component operation costs
52. Regarding the latter, the costs of the ESA Long term 
Scenario are taken into consideration. Thes e are taken from the European Space Agency's 
Long Term Scenario (ESA LTS), a cost asse ssment prepared by the ESA secretariat and 
discussed in ESA and EUMETSAT governance structures53. The ESA LTS has been 
recognised as a basis for costs estimations by the 6th Space Council54. The cost profiles are 
provided below, while a detailed descripti on of the planned launches dates, Sentinels 
characteristics and lifetime is presented in Annex IV. 
                                                 
51 PWC study executive summary, page 1 
52 See also section 5.2.1.1. 
53 Costs are expressed in the ESA LTS  in nominal prices, calculated with  2008 as a basis and using a fix 
2,3% annual inflation rate. For the present analysis, these costs have been converted to 2009 prices. 
54 Council Resolution on "The Contribution of space in novation and competitiveness in the context of the 
European Economic Recovery Plan, and further steps" – 10500/09 of 29 May 2009 
 
EN 24   EN GSC LTS - Funding for Operations/recurrent
0100200300400500600700
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
YearMillion €, nominal values
 
Source: ESA Long-Term Scenario 
5.2. Option 1: Baseline 
Under the baseline scenario, the EU would not assume responsibility for the exploitation of 
the Sentinels after GMES in itial operations (2011 – 2013). 
5.2.1.  Economic impact of Baseline 
The baseline would have an impact both on the satellite industry and se rvice providers. As the 
baseline would not only entail the end of the EU involvement in  the GSC, but also the end of 
the GSC itself, important know-how in the Eur opean satellite industry would be lost. This 
would also mean that the global competitive position of the relevant companies will be 
impaired. Additionally, research actions accomp anying exploitation activities would become 
redundant, which would have ne gative consequences for innova tion and the introduction and 
dissemination of new technologies. These impact s would not only concern the large system 
integrators, but also SMEs that supply co mponents and sub-components. The baseline 
scenario could thus lead to  the disintegration of industr ial teams, loss of employment 
opportunities in a high t ech sector and a negative impact on the growth potential of the 
companies producing and operating Earth observation satellites. 
Without EU intervention in the GSC55, no service providers could become active. 
Additionally, providers of downs tream services (i.e. providers that use the GMES service 
component financed or co-financed by the EU as  an input for their own services) might not be 
able to offer innovative services  owing to the lack of afford able upstream services. This 
would mean that the multiplier effect of the EU investment in operational services would be forgone. This would also hamper innovation in the European Earth observation service sector. 
As the downstream sector is composed predominantly of SMEs
56, which are essential for the 
                                                 
55 Regarding the importance of public intervention, see also ECORYS (2008), Study on the 
Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 82. 
56 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 88, and the 
impact Assessment accompanying the GMES proposal, p. 20 - 21 
 
EN 25   EN Lisbon Growth and Jobs Strategy57 the lack of EU action would be particularly detrimental 
for job creation and growth in the service sector. 
Additionally, the baseline would have an impact  on public authorities at  European, national, 
regional and local level. The pr ovision of accurate Earth observ ation services allowing these 
authorities to prepare and implement environm ental legislation is a key EU objective for 
GMES. Without the GSC, public authorities woul d have either to con tinue their activities 
without Earth observation-based information (w ith corresponding suboptimal results in cost-
effectiveness of their pol icies), or tender ad-hoc services  (with correspondi ng duplications and 
higher costs for data access, s hould data be available, or s ub-optimal information in the 
absence of data). This coul d ultimately mean that policy formulation and implementation 
becomes less efficient and therefore more costly for tax payers. 
The baseline would have a serious impact in the field of international relations. First GMES is 
the major contribution to th e Global Earth Observation Sy stem of Systems (GEOSS)58. If the 
EU did not move forward with operational GMES se rvices before 2014, this would limit its 
credibility within the Group on Earth Observation (GEO). The same is true for the "GMES 
and Africa" partnership. It should be reiterated that in th e field of Earth observation, the EU 
will only be a credible partner for developing countries if GMES delivers operational services 
in addition to existing research projects . The GSC is a prerequisite for this. 
5.2.2.  Environmental impact of Baseline 
As environmental monitoring is the "raison d'être"  of GMES, the baseline scenario would 
mean that that the EU objectives for GMES cannot be fulfilled. Without implementation of 
the GSC, the GMES service component cannot ex ist. Consequently, the EU would not have 
access to an autonomous capacity to monitor climate change. 
In particular, land monitoring services are important for monitoring of biodiversity and 
ecosystems, climate change mitigation and adapta tion and the management of a wide range of 
resources and policies, most of which relate to the natural environment: soil, water, agriculture, forests, energy and u tilities, built-up areas, recreat ional facilities, infrastructure 
and transport
59. Although authorities at European, nationa l, regional and local  level (including 
environmental agencies) to some extent alr eady use pre-operational or operational Earth 
observation services, two cross-cutting issues re main. First, existing pan-European services 
(e.g. the Corine Land Cover service) do not meet all the requirements of  users. Secondly, the 
sustainability of existing services  is not ensured, not only in the case of services provided in 
the framework of research projects but also in  general as existing da ta flows will not be 
available anymore, for instan ce after the end of Envisat60 lifetime). Without GSC, land 
monitoring services in Europe would thus remain at best frag mented, and in the some cases 
cease to exist in the ab sence of input data. 
For emergency response, the baseline would mean  (i) that the preventio n of risks relating to 
natural disasters (including forest  fires and floods) would continue  to be difficult owing to the 
lack of precise risk mapping services, and that  (ii) the response to natural disasters would 
have to rely on rather imprecise maps. 
                                                 
57 See p 1 of the Communication Think Small First” - A “Small Business Act” for Europe, COM(2008) 
394 final of 19.6.2008. 
58 See also p 5 of the 2008 Communication. 
59 See recital 11 of the GMES proposal. 
60 Envisat is an advanced polar-orbiting Earth observation satellite which provides measurements of the 
atmosphere, ocean, land, and ice. It was launched in 2002 and is planned to be operated until the 
beginning of the next decade. 
 
EN 26   EN GMES Services in the atmosphere thematic area are of key importance for monitoring air 
quality, greenhouse gases, and ozone. The servi ce in the area of mon itoring of the marine 
environment would allow better oil spill prevention, marine re sources management, seasonal 
forecast, ice surveys and water quality monitori ng. Without the GSC, the provision of these 
services will continue to be difficult. Although se rvices already exist in this field, as in the 
field of land monitoring the problem is that these existing services do not meet all user 
requirements and cannot be provided beyond the lifetime of existing satellites. 
5.2.3.  Social impacts of Baseline 
Without the implementation of the GSC, it can be expected that the full  potential for growth 
and job creation will be exploited neither in the satellite manufacturin g industry nor in the 
service sector. 
Satellites manufacturing industry in Europe employs approximately 30.000 FTE, with a clear 
concentration in large installa tions (the 30 largest units employ 80% of the workforce). Earth 
observation (EO) covers a share of a pproximately 15% of the total sales61. In the baseline 
option, part of these jobs would be at risk, as  the sector is highly dependent on public demand 
and long-term programming. As the jobs at stake are high-skill s ones, a brain drain towards 
the US or emerging space powers would be likely. 
Concerning the downstream sector, EO is today the smallest of the three value adding space 
segments (navigation, satellite communication a nd EO) in absolute numbers. The sector is 
made up of some 150 companies in Europe a nd Canada, with an average of 20 staff employed 
and a turnover of 2 million € per company. Total employment in the sector is estimated to have risen from 2,900 employees in 2002 to 3,000 in 2006. 
Under the baseline scenario, ex isting players in the downstream sector might either leave the 
market or reduce their activities in the fiel d of Earth observation. This is because the 
development of downstream services is depe ndent on reducing the current uncertainty over 
the conditions of access, price and data policy for GMES data and the real  content of services 
output, which has to date re presented an important c onstraint on investments
62. 
5.2.4.  Cost-benefit assessmen t of the Baseline 
In the baseline scenario, even in the absence of exploitation or renewal costs for the space 
infrastructure, there would be costs linked to the storage of about 2 to 3 million Euros per year 
of the already developed satellites listed in section 2.2.1 (see graphs below63). In the absence 
of the necessary data, no costs will be in curred to operate the GMES service component, 
which will simply not exist. 
On the benefits side, it is reasonable to assume that no benefits at all will materialise, as the 
baseline is equivalent to th e PWC study scenario "without GM ES". Moreover, no strategic 
and political GMES benefits, nor "GMES economy "-related benefits will materialise. As a 
result, the (small) costs will exceed the benefits  and net benefits will be negative throughout 
the period. 
                                                 
61 Source: ASD-EUROSPACE facts & figures, 13th edition, June 2009 
62 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 13. 
63 The second graph shows the cumulative net present value (in 2009) of a stream of payments starting in 
2014 and ending in year X, where X can take on any value between 2014 and 2030 
 
EN 27   EN Option 1 (baseline)
Annual Cost/Benefit in present values
- 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030YearMillion €Total Costs per year (2009 Present Value)
Total benefits per year (2009 Present Value)
 
Option 1 (baseline)
Cumulative Net benefits (Present Value 2009 up to year X)
-30,0 -25,0 -20,0 -15,0 -10,0 -5,0 - 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
YearMillion €
 
5.3. Option 2 
In Option 2, it is assumed that the exploitati on of the first constellation of Sentinels is 
financed by the Community, but not their renewal. 
5.3.1.  Economic impact of Option 2 
The Community financing of the GSC and GMES  services would have a positive impact on 
the competitiveness of EU firm s in comparison with non-EU competitors, as the private 
 
EN 28   EN sector, including downstream companies, woul d have planning certainty concerning the 
availability of GMES services64. This is essential for SMEs, which form the backbone of the 
Earth observation industry in Europe65. Nevertheless this positive impact would not be 
maintained if the Sentinels were not renewed. In other words, option 2 would only constitute a temporary solution. 
Further, the positive impact of innovations in the downstr eam sector, which depends on a 
flow of data at reasonable conditions
66 and which would significan tly contribute to job 
creation in a high tech sector of strategi c importance, would be limited to the first 
constellation of Sentinels and w ould thus be in contradiction with the goal of establishing 
sustainable capacities in Europe. 
Finally, EU financing of operationa l services would cons titute a political message also for the 
external relations of the EU, and would reinforce the credibility of the EU as a partner in the GEOSS and the strategic EU-Afri ca partnership. This positive impact would be impaired if 
the Sentinels were not operated on a continuous basis
67. 
5.3.2.  Environmental impact of Option 2 
As long as the Sentinels are or biting and providing their data, positive environmental impacts 
will occur owing to better information on the Earth's environment made available to policy 
makers. It could be assumed that these impacts are present for a short time after the stop of the 
data flow once Sentinels progressively end their life68, as policies are implemented and 
achieve their objectives. 
However, it can be assumed that very limite d impacts, if any, will be made on long-term 
environmental policies depending on long-time data  series, the most pr ominent example being 
climate change policies. As a consequence, th e benefits which constitute the bulk of the 
quantified benefits in the PWC study – and an important part of  the strategic and political 
benefits – will not materialise. This concerns, in particular, the long-term monitoring of climate change. 
5.3.3.  Social impact of Option 2 
The PWC study did not quantify the positive imp act of the GSC on the European Earth 
observation sector in terms of gr owth and job creation. However, it is possible to derive some 
data from a study on the competitiveness of  the GMES downstream sector performed by 
ECORYS for the European Com mission in November 2008. The study explains that "the 
public sector has an important influence on the [EO downstream] sector, not only because it sets the legal and regulatory framework for the s ector, but also because it  has a large influence 
as a client, by funding the development of the s ector and by shaping policies that influence 
market demand for EO services. […] In terms of  data input, this has been proven to be a 
major concern for service providers. They indica te that the costs are increasing, which could 
hamper profitability and innovati on". The exploitation of Sentinel s and the provision of data 
and sustainable information serv ices with full and ope n access will be th e basis for innovative 
value added services in Europe, which could reverse the trend of ve ry slow growth in 
                                                
 
64 See, in particular, ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES  Downstream Sector, p. 
812. 
65 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 93. 
66 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 13. 
67 See also section 4.2.5. 
68 For detailed schedules, see Annex IV, section 2.6. 
 
EN 29   EN employment in this key high tech sector69. In option 2, however, this positive impact would be 
negligible, as the industry stakeholders' consul tation has demonstrated that certainty over a 
long timeframe is a pre-requisite for the creatio n of new business models, as well as for the 
stabilisation of existing ones. 
Concerning the satellite manufact uring industry jobs, they would be temporarily preserved as 
compared to the baseline, but for a limited peri od of time and without a stable perspective. 
5.3.4.  Cost-benefit analysis of option 2 
In Option 2, it is assumed that the full palette  of GMES services will be made available until 
2020, i.e. in the period when all Sentinels ar e operating and delivering the necessary space 
data. 100% of the identified benefits will therefore materialise in the period 2014-2020. 
Between 2020 and 2022, in the ab sence of Sentinel 5 after the lifetime of its precursor, 
atmosphere data would be limited not only in terms of parameters but  also in terms of 
geographic coverage70. As a consequence, very limited atmosphere-related services could be 
delivered, owing to data access to other missions71. 
As of 2023, only Sentinel 4 would be operational72. With the sole flow of data coming from 
this satellite, it would be impossible to have any of the GMES services  provided with a scope 
foreseen today. In particular, Sentinel 4 is one  of the satellites necessary for delivering the 
GMES Atmosphere service, th e other one being Sentinel 5. 
Assumptions on benefits  are therefore as follows: 
• From 2014 to 2020 100% of the benefits  calculated by PWC materialise; 
• From 2020 to 2022, benefits have been reduc ed proportionally to the limited scope of 
available atmosphere services: 
– Efficiency benefits are not quantified for single services in the PWC study. It is 
therefore difficult to estimate the reduc tion corresponding to a limited scope of the 
atmosphere service. Assuming that these benefits are distributed equally among the four services (land, marine, atmo sphere, emergency), 87.5% of the total 
category 1 benefits has been accounted for in the period considered. This corresponds to the share of the three non-atmosphere serv ices, plus half of the 
atmosphere service share; 
– as concerns category 2 benefits, the PWC study identifies 1.6 billion € per 
annum
73 related to air quality services, out of a total of 2.9 billion € per annum74. 
However, as benefits are linked to  improved modelling capabilities through 
combining environmental and health relate d inputs, it is assu med that no category 
                                                 
69 Although nominal revenues of the downstream sector have increased by around 2% per annum on 
average between 2002 and 2006, employment evolved at a lower pace, slightly under 1%, see ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p.23. See also the Impact 
Assessment accompanying the GMES proposal, p. 30. 
70 Sentinel 4 is a geostationary satellite, orbiting in phase with the Earth and therefore 'viewing' only a 
portion of it, like it is the case for meteorolog ical satellites (e. g. the geostationary METEOSAT 
satellites, viewing mainly Europe and northern Africa. 
71 The problem is particularly severe in this configuration. While today, in the absence of Sentinels, it is 
possible to acquire data for pre-operational atmosphere services from the experimental ENVISAT 
satellite developed by ESA, the latter will not available anymore in 2023. 
72 The last year of Sentinel 3B in 2023 does not make a difference for the present analysis. 
73 In 2025, nominal undiscounted terms 
74 In 2030, nominal undiscounted terms 
 
EN 30   EN 2 benefits will materialise as soon as  Sentinel 5 data flows stop. As a 
consequence, it is assumed that only half of category 2 benefits will materialise between 2020 and 2022 (coming from non-atmosphere services); 
– Category 3 benefits are not present yet. 
• From 2023 to 2030: 
– the same assumption as for 2020-2022 have  been made for category 1 benefits; 
– no category 2 benefits have been accounted for; 
– no category 3 benefits have been accounted for, as it is assumed that the relevant 
data series generated until 2022 would not be  sufficient to generate them in the 
following years, and data discontinuity is  a major obstacle in the climate domain. 
In Option 2, only the following space component costs  have been extracted from the ESA 
LTS
75: 
• operation costs of Sentinel 1A, Sentinel 1B , Sentinel 2A, Sentinel 2B, Sentinel 3A, 
Sentinel 3B, Sentinel 4A, Sen tinel 4B, Sentinel 5 precursor; 
• access to contributing missions (still necessary for service provision); 
• operation of the ground segment. 
In addition, services operation costs have been taken into account, but li mited to the services 
that can effectively be made available each year depending on the available satellites. 
The results of the cost-benefit analysis  are summarised in the graphs below76. The total cost 
profile decreases sharply after 2022, as gradually Sentinels end their nominal life. In parallel, 
while most of the benefits materialise in the first period, no longer-term  benefits are enabled 
and as of 2023 costs approximately equal be nefits. Net present value remains positive 
throughout the period, with an increasing profile up to 2022 and then stabilising. 
From the point of view of the possible Commun ity contribution, this option would require an 
important rise in terms of budgets, even if the increase in non-res earch appropriations 
allocated to the GMES successor programme would be partly compensated by a corresponding decrease in th e allocations provided by th e next research framework 
programme. 
                                                
 
75 For an overview of missions up to 2030, see section 5.2.5. 
76 See footnote on the graphs for the baseline option. In this case, benefits are also taken into account. 
 
EN 31   EN Option 2
Annual Cost/Benefit in present values
- 100,0 200,0 300,0 400,0 500,0 600,0 700,0 800,0 900,0 1.000,0 
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030YearMillion €Total Costs per year (2009 Present Value)
Total benefits per year (2009 Present Value)
 
Option 2
Cumulative Net benefits (Present Value 2009 up to year X)
- 1.000,0 2.000,0 3.000,0 4.000,0 5.000,0 6.000,0 7.000,0 
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
YearMillion €
 
5.4. Option 3 
Option 3 is based on the assumption that financ ing not only of the exploitation of the first 
constellations of Sentinels, but also th eir renewal is secured by the Community. 
5.4.1.  Economic impact of Option 3 
The full set of socio-economic benefits iden tified in the PWC study will apply in option 3, 
including those related to long-term actions a nd impacts (category 3 be nefits). Moreover, the 
strategic, political and "GMES economy-related" impacts are exp ected to materialise as well. 
 
EN 32   EN In particular, the positive imp act of the Community financing of the GSC and GMES services 
on the competitiveness of EU firms in comparison with non-EU competitors could be maintained in the long run. This would increase the planning ce rtainty of the private sector 
concerning the availability of GMES services
77. This is essential for SMEs, which form the 
backbone of the Earth observation industry in Europe78. 
Further, the making available of data and info rmation produced by servic es that are supported 
financially by the Community according to the principle of full and open access could most likely lead to innovations in the downstream sector, which depends on a flow of data at 
reasonable conditions
79. This, in turn, would significantly contribute to job creation in a high 
tech sector of strategic importance. 
Finally, the commitment to finance not only of the exploitation, but also  the renewal of the 
Sentinels would reinforce the credibility of the EU as a partner in the GEOSS and the 
strategic EU-Africa partnership much more than in option 2. 
5.4.2.  Environmental impact of option 3 
Under Option 3, the full set of socio-economic benefits iden tified in the PWC study will 
apply, including those related to long-term acti ons and impacts (category 3 benefits). This 
concerns in particular the pos itive impacts on climate change-re lated actions, and constitutes 
the bulk of environmental impacts both in quan titative terms (see cost-benefits analysis 
below) and in political terms: the EU would ha ve at its disposal strategic information on the 
pace of climate change to support its leader role  in the negotiation of international treaties, 
such as the global convention on desertificatio n, a new Treaty on de-forestation or a future 
Treaty for climate change mitigation. 
5.4.3.  Social impact of option 3 
The social impact of option 3 largely corresponds  to option 2, with the difference that this 
impact would be more sustainable in option 3. 
Concerning the satellite manuf acturing industry, it can be expected that under option 3 new 
jobs would be created and maintained, increasing demand of highly skilled staff. 
Regarding the service sector, given that half  of the companies active in the downstream 
market are small companies em ploying less than 10 persons80, the sustained social impact of 
option 3 would be of particular relevance for SM Es. Additionally, the availability of Sentinel 
data could be instrumental in reducing the disparities between Me mber States in the field of 
Earth observation. This is because downstream serv ices market development, in particular in 
countries with a weaker industr ial base, will most likely acceler ate only with the full and open 
access to inputs from an operational GMES capacity. 
5.4.4.  Cost-benefit analysis of option 3 
As outlined in section 4.2.5, the PWC study mone tises and expresses in present value terms 
the projected benefits  (inclusive of societal, environmenta l and other economic benefits) with 
compared to a baseline scenario without GMES81. 
                                                 
77 See, in particular, ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES  Downstream Sector, p. 
812. 
78 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 93. 
79 See ECORYS (2008), Study on the Competitiveness of the GMES Downstream Sector, p. 13. 
80 See the VEGA study, 2008. The stat e and health of the European and Canadian EO service industry in 
2006. 
81 PWC study, page 9. 
 
EN 33   EN In Option 3, it is assumed that the full palette of  GMES services will be  made available owing 
to the permanent availability of space data. Therefore 100% of the identified benefits will 
materialise. 
The full costs  of the ESA LTS are taken into consid eration in option 3, as all Sentinels 
planned would have to be launched, exploite d and renewed, with the corresponding additional 
costs for the ground segment and the data purchase from other missions necessary to run the GMES services. 
The results of the cost-benefit analysis  are summarised in the graphs below
82. The total cost 
profile reflects the peaks in 2017-18 and 2024 of the GSC-related co sts (renewal of the 
Sentinels). 
Benefits exceed costs from 2014 and throughout  the whole period considered. Benefits 
increase sharply starting from 2023, when the Category 2 and 3 benefits materialise. As a 
consequence, net benefits are always positive and show a very high return on the investment in the long term. 
Nevertheless, the implementation of this op tion would require a co nsiderable financial 
contribution from the Community budget for a long period of time
83. As such, this option 
could only be motivated if it is recognised th at GMES is a key tool for climate change 
mitigation and adaptation, which is a priority of the EU. 
Option 3
Annual Cost/Benefit in present values
- 1.000,0 2.000,0 3.000,0 4.000,0 5.000,0 
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030YearMillion €Total Costs per year (2009 Present Value)
Total benefits per year (2009 Present Value)
 
                                                 
82 See footnote concerning the graphs under options 1 and 2 
83 See also the cost table in section 5.1.2. 
 
EN 34   EN Option 3
Cumulative Net benefits (Present Value 2009 up to year X)
- 5.000,0 10.000,0 15.000,0 20.000,0 25.000,0 30.000,0 35.000,0 
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
YearMillion €
 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
In quantitative terms, the options can be compared most easily on the basis of their generated 
Net Present Values in the period under consid eration. Results are repr esented in the figure 
below84. 
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030Option 1 baselineOption 2Option 3-5.000,0 - 5.000,0 10.000,0 15.000,0 20.000,0 25.000,0 30.000,0 35.000,0 
Million €
YearNPV comparison among options
2009 prices
Option 1 baseline Option 2 Option 3 
                                                 
84 The figure shows, for each option, the cumulative net present value (in 2009) of a stream of payments 
and benefits starting in 2014 and ending in year X, where X can ta ke on any value between 2014 and 
2030 
 
EN 35   EN Taking into account also the impacts not included in the PWC study and therefore in the 
above graph, the following comparison can be made  in the light of the objectives defined in 
chapter 3 (keeping in mind that costs are referred to the GSC, benefits to GMES as a whole): 
 Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 
Option 1 
(baseline) Does not achieve 
any of the objectives 
Impact on the 
Community budget, 
however, would be 
zero, which means that funds would be 
available for other 
initiatives and programmes. Some (low) costs to achieve no benefits 
(storage of developed satellites) No benefits therefore no trade-offs. 
Strongly inconsistent with the 
previous EU efforts in developing the GSC and with the positioning of 
the EU within the global Earth 
Observation community within the last 10 years. 
Would be coherent only in case of a 
major shift of policy priorities in the EU, namely lowering climate 
change and citizens' security in the 
political agenda. 
Option 2 Achieves the 
objectives of 
provision of 
information services 
through sustainable 
infrastructure only for a limited period 
(up to 2020). Does 
not achieve objective related to 
sustainable 
downstream growth. A EU budget contribution to the GSC of 
approximately 200 M€/year on average 
in the next financial framework would 
enable achieving benefits between 400 
and 900 M€ per year until 2022. After 
2020, benefits would drop to about 130 M€/year, approximately equal to costs 
in the following period. 
This option has important built-in cost 
inefficiencies linked to the "stop-and-go 
approach". The EU would not benefit 
from economies of scale in the production of recurrent satellite units, 
which are important in the space sector.  The impact on EU budget, although 
higher than in the baseline, is likely 
to be offset by limited 
environmental and economic 
benefits.  
Policy coherence would be 
dependent on the capacity of the 
EU and the rest of the European EO 
community to bridge the gap after the lifetime of the first generation.  
Inconsistent with EU declared 
ambitions to lead in the climate change arena (in any event climate 
change will necessitate long-term 
monitoring activities).  
Option 3 Achieves all policy 
objectives. A EU budget contribution to the GSC of 
approximately 430 M€/year on average 
in the next financial framework would 
enable delivering benefits of slightly less than a billion €/year until 2022, 
then peaking at more than 5 billion 
€/year as of 2027.  The longer-term investment, higher 
than in the baseline, would enable 
positive trade-offs in political 
priority areas, such as climate change. Coherence with political 
agenda and EU objectives. 
Potential for strategic benefits for 
the EU as global actor. 
The necessary envelope and 
corresponding shif t from research 
to operation would require the 
insertion of GMES among the financing priorities in the next EU 
financial framework and may imply 
corresponding adjustments in other policy areas. 
 
 
EN 36   EN 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Communication itself will not  directly result in the fina ncing of new activities through 
the EU budget, in addition to the actions fi nanced through FP7, pr eparatory actions and 
GMES initial operations until 2013 . The latter activities are not the object of this impact 
assessment and will be monitored and eval uated according to standard Commission 
procedures. 
Should one of the Options requi ring the exploitation of the Sentinels post-2014 be chosen by 
the next College of Commissioners, the propos al for the relevant basic act(s) will be 
elaborated in line with applicable rules, in pa rticular regarding the pr eparation of the next 
multiannual financial framework. Such basic act( s) would contain deta iled provision on the 
monitoring and evaluation of activities to be financed through the EU budget. The 
accompanying Impact Assessment would have  to analyse monitoring and evaluation 
mechanisms. 
Nevertheless, it is useful to give here an outline of the main lines of evaluation and 
monitoring mechanisms that co uld apply in general terms. 
Evaluation 
In line with standard Commission practices, ev aluation tasks will be carried out in three 
phases (ex ante, interim and ex post). The inter im and ex post evaluation will assess whether 
the operational objectives referred  to in chapter 3.3 are met. 
Additionally, the Commission will evaluate the progress of exploitation activities before any 
major decision milestones, including the decisi on on the renewal of the Sentinels, which may 
have to be taken before the beginning of one or more financial frameworks due to the long 
development cycles for satellites. Measures will ha ve to be taken so that, in each policy cycle, 
decisions are informed by i.a. an update of the cost-benefit case for the various options and a 
wide stakeholders' consultation, with a focus on user communities, on effectiveness and usefulness of the system. 
Monitoring 
The Commission will ensure that agreements c oncluded in the framework of GMES services 
provide for supervision and fi nancial control by the Commi ssion, if necessary by means of 
on-the-spot checks, including sample checks, and audits by the Court of Auditors. If need be, 
the Commission could be assisted by extern al technical experts when monitoring the 
implementation of the programme. On the basis of  the results of the on-the-spot checks, the 
Commission will ensure that, if necessary, the scale or the conditions of allocation of the 
financial contribution originally  approved and also the timetable for payments are adjusted. 
In addition to financial supervision, the Commis sion will put in place me chanisms to ensure 
continuous technical monitoring. 
 
EN 37   EN Annex I  
GMES: observing the Planet for a safer world – a short description  
Managing natural resources and biodiversity, adapting to sea level rise, monitoring the 
chemical composition of our atmosphere: all depend on accurate information delivered in 
time to make a difference. 
The European Earth Observation Programme (G MES) provides data useful in a range of 
issues including climate change and citizen's security. Land, sea and at mosphere – each Earth 
component is observed through GMES, he lping to make our lives safer. 
The purpose of GMES is to de liver information which corresponds to user needs. The 
processing and dissemination of this informat ion is carried out within the "GMES service 
component". The thematic areas within the GMES service component comprise: 
• land, marine and atmosphere information – ensuring systematic monitoring and forecasting 
the state of the Earth's subsystems at regional and global levels; 
• climate change information – helping to mon itor the effects of climate change, assessing 
mitigation measures and contributing to the knowledge base for adaptation policies and 
investments; 
• emergency and security information – providi ng support in the event of emergencies and 
humanitarian aid needs, in particular to civil protection authorit ies, also to produce 
accurate information on security related aspect s (e.g. maritime surveilla nce, border control, 
global stability, etc.). 
The GMES service component depends on Ea rth observation data, collected from space 
(satellites), air (airborne instruments, balloons to record strato sphere data, etc.), water (floats, 
shipboard instruments, etc.) or land (measuring st ations, seismographs, et c.). These facilities 
are called the GMES infrastructure componen t; non-space based installations in the GMES 
infrastructure component are generally referred to as " in situ  component". 
By securing the sustainability of an informa tion infrastructure necessary to produce output 
information in the form of maps, datasets, re ports, targeted alerts, etc…, GMES helps people 
and organisations to take action, make appropr iate policy decisions a nd decide on necessary 
investments. GMES also represents a great pot ential for businesses in the services market, 
which will be able to make use of the data and information it provides according a full an 
open access principle. 
Earth observation-based services al ready exist in Europe , but they are disper sed at national or 
regional level and cannot rely on a sustainabl e observation capacity. With the exception of 
meteorological services, long-term availabil ity and reliability of  information is not 
guaranteed. This is why, in order to contri bute to improve its response to ever growing 
challenges of global safety and climate change , Europe develops a sustained and reliable 
Earth observation system of its own. 
 
EN 38   EN ANNEX II  
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
 
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
 
 
EN 39   EN 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 th e GMES Downstream Sector, prepared for DG 
Enterprise and Industry
 
EN 40   EN ANNEX III  
Technical content of the ESA GSC programme  and schedule of launches in the ESA 
Long term Scenario  
1. INTRODUCTION  
The objective of GMES is to provi de, on a sustained basis, reliabl e and timely services related 
to environmental a nd security issues. 
As stated in the European Space Policy Reso lution, GMES comprises a service component 
and an infrastructure component, including sp ace and in-situ. ESA is in charge of the 
coordination and the implementation of the spa ce infrastructure component starting with the 
GSC Programme. 
The objective of the ESA GMES Space Component  Programme is to fulfil the space-based 
observation requirements in response to European  policy priorities with a particular emphasis 
on the fast track and pilot services identified by  the EC for early implementation. It aims at 
developing a fully operational cap ability in view of feeding GMES services with satellite 
data. 
The GMES Space Component programme, within it s available resources, also aims at the 
operational provision of satelli te data for other Europ ean and national services. 
In addition, the ESA GSC Program me covers the development (a nd pre-operations phase) of a 
Data Access Layer ground infrastructure aiming at  feeding GMES Services  with satellite data 
from all missions (ESA, National, EUMETSAT and other Third Party Mi ssions) of relevance 
to the overall space component of GMES. 
The ground segment will be designed in a wa y to ensure coherence and interoperability 
between the Sentinel and specific contributing missi ons in order to fully exploit their data for 
both GMES and other regist ered national services.  
2. USER REQUIREMENTS PROCESS  
The Commission set up Implementation Groups to provide guidance on th e definition of the 
GMES services and to support it in its role of  aggregating user requirements, starting with 
land monitoring, emergency response and marine services and subsequently for atmosphere 
composition monitoring services. The results we re debated and consolidated by the GMES 
Advisory Council and user requirements we re transmitted to ESA. Subsequently, ESA 
consulted the EC and the Implementation Groups  to accurately reflect the related space 
infrastructure needs in the Sentinel-1 to -5 Mission Requirement Documents prepared by ESA. The need for the long-term availability  of low-inclination altimetry missions was 
expressed by the Marine Core Services Impl ementation Group and subsequently endorsed by 
the EC. 
The technical objectives of the GSC prog ramme clearly correspond to these user 
requirements. Regarding data requirements for the GMES services, ESA will prepare a 
corresponding Data Access Portfolio (DAP) and its future updates. Specific references to the 
content of these requirements ar e provided in the following sec tions. Future updates of user 
requirements will be implemented in the GSC fo llowing the agreed scheme within the GMES 
Governance. A first preliminary way how this co uld be treated is described in GAC document 
GAC-11-04, which will be further refined. 
 
EN 41   EN 2.1. Space Segment Overview (Sentinel-1 to -5) overview 
The key aspects of the individual Sentinel missions are as follows: 
• The Sentinel-1 satellite carries a SAR in  a well-controlled dawn-dusk sun-synchronous 
orbit at approx. 700 km altitude with an exact  repeat cycle of 12 days in support of multi-
pass interferometry. With the SAR swath of approx. 240 km, a 12-day quasi-global 
coverage is ensured. The ground resolution exce eds that of ERS and ENVISAT in imaging 
mode. The satellite, weighing about 2.2 tons, is adapted to the large SAR instrument, 
which features a phased-array antenna with 5 kW total radiated power. A duty cycle of 
20% is achieved. Following the launch with a S oyuz-class vehicle, th e Sentinel-1 design 
lifetime is 7 years. 
• The Sentinel-2 satellite carries a medium to high resolution push-broom multi-spectral 
imager operating in the VNIR (Visible a nd Near-InfraRed) and SWIR (Short-Wave 
InfraRed) in a Sun synchronous polar (E NVISAT-like) orbit. The imaging ground 
resolution is 10, 20 and 60 m (depending on channel). The swath width of the multi-
spectral imager is approx. 285 km, which ensu res systematic acquisition of all land 
surfaces every 10 days. The satellite, weighing about 1 ton, is launched fits with a Vega 
class launcher and has a 7 year design lifetime. 
• The Sentinel-3 satellite carries  a Cryosat-derived microwave altimeter (incl. a microwave 
radiometer and precise orbit determination de vice) and two imagers, for ocean/land colour 
observations (MERIS-like) and for sea/la nd surface temperature observations (AATSR-
like) into an ENVISAT-like orbit. The former  imager provides also continuity to the 
VEGETATION mission. Several lessons learned from ENVISAT are used to optimise the 
system, e.g. to minimise sun-glin t impact, so enhanced continu ity is ensured. The satellite, 
weighing approx. 1.4 tons, supports the 100% inst rument duty cycle and is launched with a 
Vega class small launcher. The design lifetime is 7 years. 
• Sentinel-4 and -5 are dedicated to atmosphe re composition monitoring. According to the 
current preliminary concept, the relevant measurements are taken from the geostationary orbit and the low earth orbit respectively. 
– The rationale for the development of Se ntinel-4 is to meet the objective of 
frequent revisit, i.e. to observe rapi d changes in atmospheric composition. Thus 
far no atmospheric composition monitoring is carried out from Geostationary 
Orbit (GEO), but there is considerable experience from low earth orbit (LEO) with similar instrumentation. The baseline is to implement Sentinel-4 as payload 
on MTG missions. 
– Sentinel-5 is a component in LEO, expl oiting the advantages of such orbits, 
namely global coverage, better spatial reso lution and stronger signal to noise ratio. 
The experience with GOME, GOME- 2, AIRS, IASI, OMI, SCIAMACHY, 
MIPAS, GOMOS, ODIN, MOPPIT and ot her sensors provides a very solid 
scientific and technical basis on which Se ntinel-5 builds. The baseline is to 
implement Sentinel-5 as payload on post-EPS missions. 
– Considering the late availability of the post-EPS satellites, a small Sentinel-5 
Precursor mission to be launched in 2013/ 14 will ensure the continuity of UV-
VIS-NIR-SWIR data between ENVISAT and Sentinel-5 on post-EPS, related in 
particular to atmospheric compositi on monitoring in the troposphere. 
 
EN 42   EN Two spacecraft in orbit are needed to meet  the coverage and observation frequency 
requirements for the Sentinel-1, -2 and -3 missi ons. However, an incremental deployment of 
capabilities is assumed. 
As regards low-inclination altimetry it is envi saged to carry out study activities for a Jason-
Cryosat (Jason-CS) mission. The Jason-CS spacecr aft would be based on a platform derived 
from Cryosat-2 but adjusted to the specific re quirements of a 1,300 km orbit. The instrument 
suite could comprise a recurrent radar altime ter (Jason-2 RA or Sentinel-3 SRAL), a 
Microwave Radiometer (recurrent from Sentin el-3), a GPS device (recurrent from SWARM 
or Sentinel-3) a DORIS device (recurrent from Sentinel-3) and a Laser Reflector (recurrent 
from Cryosat). 
Two spacecraft in orbit are needed to meet  the coverage and observation frequency 
requirements for the Sentinel-1, -2 and -3 missi ons. However, an incremental deployment of 
capabilities is assumed. 
The Segment 1 of the ESA GSC Programme, as approved by the ESA Member States 
participating in the programme includes the de velopment, launch and in-orbit verification of 
the first satellite only, of a series for each  of the Sentinel-1, -2 and -3 missions. 
2.2. Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 activities 
Two parallel pre-Phase A studies of Sentinel-4 and Sentinel-5 have been initiated in 2007. 
The objective of these studies is to address the optimum allocation of space resources for 
atmospheric composition monitoring missions according to requirements expressed by user 
groups, and is supported by ad-hoc sc ience and instrument studies. 
These studies are part of  the approved Segment-1 of the ESA GSC Programme. 
2.3. Ground segment activities 
The Ground Segment comprises the Flight Opera tions Segment (FOS) and the Payload Data 
Ground Segment (PDGS). The FOS is responsible  for the monitoring and control of the 
satellites, including fl ight dynamics operations for orbit control, whereas the PDGS is 
responsible for the handling of the Sentinel mission data, its reception on the ground, processing, archiving and dissemination. 
The ground segment activities for the Sentinel missions comprise the definition of the ground 
system concept of FOS and PDGS togeth er, followed by the design, implementation, 
verification and validation of the FOS and the PDGS individua lly, and concluded with the 
participation to the integration, verification and validation of the resulting system as a whole, 
i.e. FOS and PDGS together with the sate llite and including the commissioning phase. 
2.3.1.  Flight Operations Segment (FOS) 
The principal FOS components in suppor t to the Sentinel missions are: 
• the Ground Station and Communi cations Network performing telemetry, telecommand and 
tracking operations. A primary ground station will be used throughout all mission phases, 
complemented by additional TT&C stations as backup stations or stations used during 
Launch and Early Orbit Phase (LEOP). 
• the Flight Operations Control Centre, including: 
– the Sentinels Mission Control System (M CS), for telecommanding of the satellite 
and for supporting command request recei ved from the PDGS mission planning 
system and handling of telemetry from the satellites; 
 
EN 43   EN – the specific Sentinels Spacecraft Simula tors, supporting operations procedure 
validation, operator training and the simulation campaign before each major phase of the missions; 
– the Sentinels Flight Dynamics System (F DS), supporting all activities related to 
attitude and orbit determination and pred iction, preparation of orbit manoeuvres, 
spacecraft dynamics evaluation and navigation; 
– a General Purpose Communication Ne twork, providing the services for 
exchanging data with any other extern al system during all mission phases. 
The FOS implementation includes the definitio n of the FOS architecture comprising a FOS 
Core Ground Segment used for all Sentinel s as well as including Sentinel-specific 
developments, including security relevant  implementations for telecommanding. This 
includes the completion of the design, implemen tation, verification and validation of the 
ground stations, the communication networks as  well as the MCS, Simulators and FDS. 
Developments will reuse existing core facilities su ch as the infrastructure of the MCS already 
in use for other earth observation missions. 
The FOS activities furthermore include support to the ground sy stem integration, verification 
and validation with the PDGS a nd the satellite and all operat ions preparations activities, 
simulations sessions for LEOP and simulations  in support to commissioning and routine 
operations. The activities furthermore include the FOS operations during the commissioning 
phase. 
2.3.2.  Payload Data Ground Segment (PDGS) 
The Payload Data Ground Segment (PDGS) is a di stributed ground segment, reusing existing 
facilities, infrastructure and expertise. Furthermore, the gr ound segment links and shares 
already available infrastructure developed for National missions. 
It includes the multi-mission payload data ground segment for the access to Sentinel and other 
missions and the development of this harmonise d and interoperable ground segment that will 
reuse and evolve from existing shared  facilities with different missions. 
Ground segment activities also cover the extens ion of the heterogeneous mission accessibility 
concept to cover product formats, quality repor ting and certification across different missions. 
They also include the finalisation of the archit ecture of the Sentinel payload ground segment, 
considering the GMES end-to-end security conc ept. The Sentinels’ algorithms and products 
definition studies focus on standa rdisation across similar missions. 
The multi-mission PDGS development includes the implementation and evolution of the 
generic elements (archives, inte rfaces, catalogues, networks, User  Services, etc.) for Sentinel-
1, -2 and -3. 
In addition, the PDGS includes the specification,  design and development of Sentinel-1, -2 
and -3 specific PDGS elements (e.g. algorit hms & processors, modules related to the 
customisation/adaptation of mi ssion planning, user services  and facilities for acquisition, 
archiving, dissemination and cal/v al functions). These mission- specific elements are then 
integrated into the configured multi-mission in frastructure which will be deployed in the 
operational centres. The above will be comple ted with the operational validation and the 
transfer to operations. 
Ground segment technical evolution must also be addressed to adapt to new technologies and 
evolving requirements from the GMES Services. 
 
EN 44   EN The PDGS activities for the Se ntinel missions also include support to the ground system 
integration, verification and validation with the FOS and the satelli te and all operations 
preparations activities in support to commissioni ng and routine operations. 
All ground segment activities described in this ch apter are part of the approved Segment-1 of 
the ESA GSC Programme. 
2.4. Data Access activities 
2.4.1.  Data procurement 
These activities are primarily focusing on pr oviding in a pre-operational manner, Earth 
Observation data to the GMES Services from 2008 onwards from (private and institutional) 
national missions, ESA, National, and EUMETS AT missions to GMES Services and other 
third party missions as identi fied in the programme proposal  (ESA/PB-EO(2005)54, rev.3). 
These activities concern the set up of a harmonised access to 8 to 12 missions and include the 
procurement of the actual data on the basis of individual user licenses, or multi-user licenses, or resource buy. This also includes any adju stments on the side of the operators of 
contributing missions regarding their ground segm ent and operational interfaces for the data 
use as well as the adjustments of their ground segment and opera tional interfaces to 
adequately provide data to th e GMES services and other GMES users as approved by the EC 
therefore fulfilling their observation requirements. 
All Data Access activities described in this chapter are part of the approved Segment-1 of the 
ESA GSC Programme, for the period up to mid-2010. 
Data access activities are currently financed through a dedicated EC-ESA grant agreement. 
2.4.2.  Data access management and initial operations 
This task includes the collection and critical analysis of the data requirements from the 
complete set of GMES services. The GMES  mission capacity planning activity aims at 
regularly performing a data gap analysis and de fining the sensor resources required from the 
various GMES missions to adequately fulfil these data requirements. The results of these analyses are used for the preparation of the subsequent data access agreements with the EO 
mission partners for the contribution of their mission to GMES. 
2.5. Pre-Operations 
Until the start of the GMES operations phase of the Sentinels (currently assumed in 
2012/2013) the GMES services will  be provided with Earth Observation data on a pre-
operational basis in a coherent  manner based on national, EUMETSAT and ESA missions. 
This includes, in addition to the data proc essing and access services of relevant GMES 
missions which are covered in the data procur ement budget, the coordination functions that 
ensure the coherency of the end-to-end data provision and the common ground infrastructure. 
The coordination functions cover, across all these missions: mission planning, ordering, data 
request follow-up and helpdesk interface to  services, scheduling the distributed ground 
segment resources, tools development, product/data and data access service quality management, end-to-end data flow mon itoring among data access among others pre-
operational tasks. Operations of the ground segm ent facilities supporting da ta access activities 
will start from end 2008 to perform: ingestion or collection of data, processing up to the required level, archiving and distribution of  GMES product sets as requested by GMES 
Services, starting from the Fast Track Core Services, the atmosphere and security pilot 
services and all other approved GMES services , as documented in the Data Access Portfolio 
and its future updates. This includes the op eration of archives and data distribution 
infrastructure, among others, for this specific set of products. 
 
EN 45   EN In addition, pre-operations of the ground segment f acilities will start prior to the launch of the 
Sentinels, and will cover the period from e nd 2008 to end 2010All Pre-Operations activities 
described in this chapter ar e part of the approved Segmen t-1 of the ESA GSC Programme. 
2.6. Launch schedule 
The launch schedule according to the ESA LTS is indicated in the figure below. 
 
 
EN 46   EN Annex IV  
The PWC study – methodology and limitations  
The benefit data for the cost-ben efit analysis of the various opti ons have been taken from the 
most comprehensive and recent study availa ble: the PriceWater houseCoopers "Socio-
Economic Benefits Analysis of GMES" (report of October 2006). 
This Annex summarises the methodology of the PWC Study and its main limitations, in order 
to put the findings of the cost-benefit analysis into perspective. For more information, the full 
text of the PWC Study and its annexes are available at the following URL: http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEMJZ10DU8E_LPgmes_0.html
. 
1. CONTEXT  
The European Space Agency (ESA) Member States requested the ESA executive to procure a 
study on the socio-economic impacts of GMES in  order to back their significant investment 
decisions. The study, managed by ESA in close cooperation with DG Enterprise and Industry 
of the European Commission, was concluded in October 2006. PWC worked in direct contact 
with Commission and ESA staff fo r progress and review meetings. In addition, an "Expert 
committee" nominated by the GMES Advisory Council85 provided advice and guidance on 
key elements of the analysis, in particular the methodological approach and the presentation 
of results. Four Expert Committee workshops were organised between April 2005 and May 
2006. 
The study objectives were: 
• to determine the extent of the impact resu lting from GMES with respect to a reference 
baseline of what will happen if GMES is not implemented; 
• to characterise the benefits result ing from GMES with respect to: 
– the strategic and political dimension of GMES including considerations such as 
strategic independence of Europe and suppor t to Europe playing a larger role at 
global level; 
– the economic and social dimension of GMES including more cost effective 
information gathering, better targeted  policies resulting from improved 
information and greater pressure to secu re international agreements to address 
common threats and issues  facing mankind today. 
The study focused on key benefit areas that coul d arise from GMES. Areas where the extent 
of the impact/the benefits are low or rather marginal have not been considered. The scope of the analysis excluded any costs consideration. No evaluation of  costs against the projected 
benefits was carried out  in the study itself. 
2. M
ETHODOLOGY  
As a wide range of very different impacts aris e due to GMES, a variety of different techniques 
was required to characterise the associated benefits. The broad parameters of the socio-
economic assessment are described by PWC as follows: 
                                                 
85 A Member States' group advising the Eu ropean Commission on GMES development 
 
EN 47   EN • the study focuses on reflecting the broadest rang e of societal and economic benefits which 
might be generated by GMES; 
• the method is unconstrained in nature, i.e. the analysis is not driven by any prior 
assumptions as to where the benefits and impacts may occur; 
the assessment considers and expresses potential  benefits in both quantitative and qualitative 
terms on the basis of a pragmatic user-based assessment of the bene fits, whereby a wide 
number of informed stakeholders were asked to consider the magnit ude of the contribution 
made by GMES. Thereafter, this contribution is quantified with reference to respected 
published sources in the field of economic valuation. This approach is considered  less 
subjective since it involves a pr ocess of ‘expert’ assessment; 
• benefits and impacts are characterised with re spect to a baseline (without GMES) scenario 
that is itself stakeholder informed; 
• ultimately, projected economic benefits (inclusive of societal, environmental and other 
economic benefits) are monetised and expressed in present value terms. 
2.1. Stakeholders engagement 
Stakeholder consultation is at the core of th e study. A comprehensive stakeholder consultation 
exercise was undertaken to support: 
• the development of the baseline scenario; and 
• the estimation of impacts resulting from GMES, 
This process targeted key stak eholders across the range of GMES sectors and geographical 
areas. The consultation process covered three cat egories of stakeholders reflecting the key 
policy areas affected by GMES a nd geographical areas impacted: 
• stakeholders consulted on macro level impacts:  efforts were directed towards stakeholders 
in the European Commission and agencies responsible for development and 
implementation of European policy domains affected by GMES services. As European 
level institutions work in close collabor ation with Member States, also national 
counterparts and bodies suggested by the E xpert Committee for the study were also 
consulted. 
• stakeholders consulted on micro level impact s. these stakeholders  were divided into: 
–  direct stakeholders: examples of direct  stakeholders include agencies directly 
producing and using information products on the state of the environment through 
the application of GMES services (suc h as the European Environment Agency, 
the European Maritime Safety Agency, na tional Environmental Agencies) and the 
downstream industry; 
– ─ indirect stakeholders: these included  for example, companies in production 
industries which use information about the environment to inform their strategic 
and operating decisions. 
Stakeholders were first listed by the study team, then the list was checked and consolidated by 
ESA, the European Commission and the Expert Committee to ensure notably a 
comprehensive coverage of geographic area and policy domains. After pr ioritisation using an 
 
EN 48   EN Influence/interest matrix86, 104 stakeholders were consulted (t he list is annexed to the PWC 
study). The majority of stakeholders contacted were from European level organisations to 
ensure complete coverage of policy sectors addressed by GMES. 
Stakeholders were consulted mainly through individual interviews (face-to-face, telephone, e-
mailing) or workshops. Three workshops were held (GMES and climate change, 29/09/05; GMES and aid and development, 06/10/05; GM ES and civil protection and public health, 
10/10/05). The structure of indi vidual interviews and works hops is annexed to the PWC 
study. 
When divergent views amongst members of th e same workshop were recorded, the study 
team tried to cross-check these views for intern al consistency and, when  this did not deliver 
results, maintained a range of impacts for bene fit modelling and sensitiv ity analysis purposes. 
2.2. Approach to benefits assessment 
The assessment of GMES benefits presen ted in the PWC report was based on: 
• the stakeholder consultation process referred to above; 
• the benchmarking stakeholder inputs a nd feedback with published sources; 
• desk based review of a wide variety of secondary sources; 
• comparison of impact estimates against case st udies showing what is possible today or in 
the near future. 
To the maximum extent possible, the benef it case was evidence based – reflecting what 
stakeholders said about the projected practical application of GMES services and the effects 
that these services might have on policy formula tion or practice and the different inputs have 
been cross-validated. 
Ultimately, based upon this feedback, PWC identified the economic value generated by 
GMES services (in many cases, as manifested through better, or more responsive government 
policies, made possible by GMES). 
The steps for macro economic benefit assessment are summarised below: (1) Determine the policy context  through analysis of exis ting policy documents and 
stakeholder consultations. The result is a mapping of EC priorities to GMES policy 
domains and of major issues and areas of potential wider benefits per policy domain, 
as illustrated below 
                                                
 
86 Stakeholders' groups were positioned with respect to their interest in GMES and their ability to 
influence GMES evolution. 
 
EN 49   EN 
 
 
Where stakeholders contacted did not feel su fficiently well informed to estimate this 
impact, the issue was not included in the report (examples: effectiveness of 
development aid for long term developmen t and reconstruction; detection of longer 
term environmental degradation and deve lopment of humanitarian crises; improved 
understanding of carbon and water cycles and their impacts on human well being; 
improved management of energy resources).  Given the time and budget constraints, 
not all issues could be addressed. However, as the benefits identified were extremely large, it should be taken as an indication that the benefits case presented is actually extremely conservative. 
(2) Development and validation with stakeholde rs of a counterfactua l baseline ('Without 
GMES' Scenario), essentially reflecting actions expected to arise at European or global 
level in the absence of GMES. This scenario is described in detail in the study, including assumptions for the Space component. It was derived from a range of published sources and also from the st akeholders' consultation. A number of 
assumptions regarding policy development are described in Annex 8 to the study; 
(3) Development of a 'With GMES ' Scenario. This was done us ing the services portfolio 
of GMES Initial Services and the demons tration projects under ESA (GMES Service 
 
EN 50   EN Element) and EC (GMES Integrated Projects ) frameworks. A detailed table listing the 
existing services per policy area (basel ine), the additionality of GMES, the 
beneficiaries and the benefits (macro a nd micro) is annexed to the PWC study; 
(4) Quantification of the additional impact of  GMES, through indicators developed for 
each policy area. Benefits were differentiate d over time and combined and discounted 
to reflect present value asse ssment of the total benefits (see below for limitations on 
this assessment). 
2.3. Indicators and tools for assigning value 
A number of indicators were chosen to measur e projected benefits. These were not intended 
to be exhaustive in nature and capture every conceivable GMES benefit. Rather, they were 
seen as an accepted means of expressing and va luing change against a particular social, 
environmental and economic baseline. The PWC study team considered the chosen indicators 
as appropriate, based on literature review and stakeholders' input. 
To minimise the possibility of uncontrolled assumptions in fluencing this evaluation, a 
restricted number of standard indicators were  adopted, for which extensive peer review was 
conducted. As a result, th e application of these indicators in the context of the impact and 
benefits analysed was standard practice am ong many national and international government 
organisations. 
Indicators used in all areas of the be nefit assessment are summarised below. 
 
EN 51   EN 
 
An example of the use of indicators to qua ntify projected benefits is as follows: 
In the area of marine and coastal affairs, GMES, through the provis ion of qualitatively 
improved information regarding the movement  and tracking of vessels, could reduce the 
incidence of illegal oil discharges from vessels in European waters. This effect is expressed in economic terms in the PWC study through the following process: 
• Economic costs per tonne of discharged oil ar e drawn from respected third party sources - 
these costs represent the social, economic (e.g . impact on tourism, clean-up costs) and 
environmental loss and damage which are potentially associat ed with oil spills; 
• The views of stakeholders cons ulted in the course of the study concerning the extent to 
which illegal oil discharges might be reduc ed (relative to the prevailing pattern of 
discharge in European wate r – the counterfactual baselin e) through the use of GMES 
information are considered; and finally  
 
EN 52   EN • The difference in these prevailing rates of illega l oil discharge, with and without GMES, is 
combined with the economic cost per tonne (as discussed above) to give a total economic 
benefit associated with GMES. 
2.4. Key modelling assumptions and discount rate 
There are four main components within the fram ework employed in this study to express the 
views of stakeholders in economic terms: 
(1) GMES applications, together with the asso ciated projected bene fits, are assumed to 
commence at different points in time due to the different levels of complexity through 
which particular services genera te impacts and create benefits. 
(2) In all cases, peer reviewed and accepted standard indicators were used to assign 
economic value to an impact generated as a result of information provided by GMES. 
Key assumptions and calculation processes in herent in generating these indicators 
were reviewed for consistency with the a ssumptions underlying the analysis of GMES 
benefits (in particular, the time frames ove r which benefits were being assessed and 
the geographic coverage of the services were considered with respect to the 
assumptions supporting the generation of each indicator); 
(3) The discount rate applied to express projected  benefits in present value terms is taken 
to be 4% real. This is coherent wi th the Impact Assessment Guidelines; 
(4) The timeframe over which the projected annua l benefits are appraised is 25 years and 
these are brought together and expressed in pr esent value terms. Terminal Values (the 
continued economic value of a benefit stream beyond the core appraisal period of 25 years) were also used to supplement the analysis and capture perpetual benefits. 
3. P
RESENTATION OF THE RESULTS  
The main body of the PWC study is structured  around policy areas (global environment, 
security, natural resources, European environm ental protection, risk and civil protection, 
sustainable growth). 
However, different levels of effort are inhere nt in realising particular impacts by GMES and 
the subsequent benefits. For example, a fore st change monitoring service impacts on the 
formulation of new agreements where states subject to heavy illegal deforestation implement effective control measures to reduce the leve l of forest loss, while maritime surveillance 
integrating satellite and conventio nal techniques improves the cost efficiencies for current oil 
spill monitoring practices within an existing well defined legal framework. 
Clearly it is significantly more straightforward to realise bene fits in the second. To better 
represent the substantial variat ion over different benefit area s in the effort implied for 
successful implementation of the underlying policie s, benefits realised under individual policy 
areas were aggregated into three higher level categories. This categorisation is based on the 
inherent difficulty in effectively implementing the underlying policies including the extent to 
which an appropriate legal and operational framework already exis ts, the degree of 
institutional reform required, the difficulty  in securing agreement on new European 
environmental legislation, the agreement of stat es to implement effective policies etc. The 
three categories are summarised below: 
• Category 1: (Efficiency benefits)  – these benefits relate to improved cost effectiveness in 
responding to the implementation or enforcement of policies currently in place. In these 
cases, access to GMES information readily ava ilable from precursor GMES services or 
 
EN 53   EN from services that are planned in the near futu re directly generates the benefits cited. These 
benefits are analogous to the benefits of da ta continuity that GM ES will bring. Category 
One benefits are assumed to be delive red through existing in stitutional and policy 
channels, and as a result these benefits c ould be achieved in a more timely manner; 
• Category 2: (European policy formulation benefits)  – these benefits relate to improved 
definition, structuring and im plementation of European policies as a result of GMES 
information being available during the polic y formulation process. Their realisation 
depends upon policy developments at Europ ean level, or significant changes in the 
working practices of target user institutions with a view to making operational use of GMES information. In these cases the benefits  will be realised once the policies begin to 
achieve their objectives. Implementing such policies usually requires investment on the 
part of Member States while the benefits take  longer to accrue. Thes e considerations imply 
that the benefits stream will begin later in the a ppraisal period, to refl ect the extent of 
policy and institutional change required for the benefits to be realised; 
• Category 3: (Global action benefits)  – these relate to the use of GMES information in 
setting up or improving the implementation of global agreements (e.g. for climate change, 
desertification, deforestation). In these cases , realisation of the be nefits is critically 
dependent on international agreements and cooperative actions, which are successfully 
implemented and lead to behavioural change s. Such international agreements take 
considerable time to set up and to make an impact. Implementing these agreements also 
implies considerable investment  by the signatory states (e.g. in transfer payments, income 
foregone or investing in alternative technologi es). Given these issues, it was assumed that 
these benefits are realised from 2025. 
On this basis, the table below summarises th e phasing of each benefit category and shows that 
whilst Category One benefits are assumed to accrue in the near-term, Category Three benefits are assumed to arise only in the period from 2025. 
 
4. LIMITATIONS OF THE PWC  BENEFITS ASSESSMENT  
The assessment of GMES benefits in sp ecific policy areas was limited by access to 
stakeholders within the time constraints of the study period. In particular, many of the 
stakeholders consulted were wo rking within European or inte rnational organisations or in 
research and policy development in stitutes in order to ensure as wide an overview as possible. 
Although more than 120 stakeholders were contacted (approximately double the number 
usually considered for an assessment of this type), there were gaps in the contributions received. These included: 
• Stakeholders from southern Europe working at  national and regional level in sectors where 
GMES may impact; 
• Stakeholders from industry sectors wher e GMES may be expected to impact; 
 
EN 54   EN • Stakeholders working in policy sectors where there is low level of policy focus or limited 
experience within the European Union (e.g. polar issues, security issues). 
Throughout the study stakeholders pr ovided valuable input but ofte n the diversity of interests 
represented (for example during the climate ch ange workshop there was representation from 
specialists in forests, urba n planning, emissions trading)  limited the ease with which 
consensus could be achieved on the magnitude of  potential benefits. Where appropriate, the 
consultants filtered information provided by the st akeholders in order to reach a consensus in 
their views. 
Other inherent limitations existed in rela tion to the level of understanding and hence 
availability of information on the value of poten tial benefits, and in the ability to assess the 
benefits of GMES information in the context of  other dependencies for benefit realisation. In 
particular: 
• Where prototype services exist (e.g. under the ESA GMES Services Element) and 
stakeholders had experience in using the information provided, th e impact and benefit 
characterisation was significantly easier and more  explicit than for stak eholders who as yet 
have had no direct exposure to the products  and services presently being provided. 
• For areas where new policies are about to be  implemented or updated (e.g. air pollution, 
marine environment) or where the full impact  is yet to be seen (e.g. water framework 
directive, soils thematic strategy), stakehol ders were less certain about impacts and 
benefits due to ambiguity w ith respect to the precise content of the baseline " Without 
GMES " situation. 
The baseline scenario does not include any ra dical change in stake holder responsibilities or 
organisational structure over the time period be ing considered (2005-2030). The benefits and 
impacts are estimated by stakeholders on the assumption that their operational roles and 
responsibilities will evolve gradually over the next 25 years and that the impacts made by 
GMES will be a gradual part of this evolution process. 
Moreover, it is important to note that the understanding of what is  included in GMES has 
evolved since the study (and even  during the course of it). However, it is fair to say that 
assumptions documented in Annex 4 to the PWC study on the definition of the different scenarios used are still largely valid today. 
Finally, it is important to reiterate that the value of the information provided by GMES and 
the value of the benefits identified does not mate rialise unless the information is actually used. 
It has been assumed throughout the PWC study that  this effective utilis ation would occur. In 
some cases, the resulting economic benefits can be  considerable. In gene ral, for the benefits 
assessed in the PWC report, benefits that can be realised in a straightforward manner are 
much smaller in magnitude (i.e. below € 5bn discounted over the total 25 year timeframe under consideration) while benefits that relate  to the implementation of new policies arise 
only when these policies begin to achieve thei r objectives. Clearly this is a more complex 
process and requires significant additional inve stment, political commitment and time for the 
benefit realisation. However these benefits are mu ch larger in magnitude (of the order of tens 
of billion of Euros). 
These processes leading to Category two and Category Three benefits will result in costs 
being incurred by the signatory states (e.g. cons ider the implementation of the Montreal or 
Kyoto Protocols). However, the resulting benefits are very large. In these cases, the impact 
estimated by the stakeholders refers to the to tal impact of GMES on the process to set these 
 
EN 55   EN agreements up while the estimates of the benefits  refer to the benefits from the successful 
implementation of the resulting policy or internat ional agreement. This means that the benefit 
assessment assumed that the required investments necessary for these benefits to be realised 
would be effectively be made. 
An alternative approach, more related to th e contingent valuation (willingness to pay) 
methodology, would address only th e value represented by the in formation and not count the 
total value of the resu lting benefits. After extensive c onsultation, this approach was not 
adopted in the PWC study. 
 
EN 56   EN ANNEX V  
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  
AR: Acceptance Review 
CDR: Critical Design Review DAP: Data Access Portfolio DRS: Data Relay System ECSS: European Cooperation for Space Standardisation EGNOS: European Geostationary  Navigation overlay System 
EM: Engineering Model EPS: Eumetsat Polar System ESA: European Space Agency EUMETSAT: European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 
EUTELSAT: European Telecommunica tions Satellite Organization 
FAR: Flight Acceptance Review FM: Flight Model FOS: Flight Operations Segment FP6: 6
th Framework Programme for Research, re search, technological development  
 and demonstration activities  
FP7: 7th Framework Programme for Research, re search, technological development  
 and demonstration activities GEO: Group on Earth observation GEOSS: Global Earth Observation System of Systems GMES: Global Monitoring for Environment and Security GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System GSC: GMES Space Component INSPIRE: Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community IOCR: In-Orbit Commissioning Review IOV: In-Orbit Validation IR: Implementation Review LEOP: Launch and Early Orbit Phase LTDN: Local time at descending node LTS: ESA Long term Scenario MTG: Meteosat Third Generation NPV: Net Present Value OLCI: Ocean Land Colour Instrument 
 
EN 57   EN PDGS: Payload Data Ground Segment 
PDR: Preliminary Design Review PPP: Public-private partnership PRR: Preliminary Requirements Review QR: Qualification Review R&D: Research and development ROM: Rough Order of Magnitude RR: Requirements Review (for Data Access) SEIS: Shared Environmental Information System SRR: System Requirement Review or (for Data Access) System Readiness Review  
SLST: Sea and Land Surface Temperature SME: Small and medium-sized enterprise TT&C: Telemetry, Tracking & Command UVNS: UV/VIS/NIR/SWIR (Ult raviolet/Visible/Near Infrared/Short Wave Infrared)