EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 28.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1441 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
Accompanying document to the 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) 1440}
 
 
EN 2   EN SUMMARY  OF THE  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT 
1. INTRODUCTION  
This Impact Assessment accompanies a Commission Communication on the Space 
Component of Global Monitoring for Environmen t and Security (GMES). It was drawn up in 
consultation with a steering group of Co mmission services, following a wide-ranging 
stakeholder consultation carried out by the GM ES Bureau. The presen t report has been 
analysed by the European Commission’s Imp act Assessment Board and amended accordingly. 
GMES is an Earth observation capacity that ma kes it possible to mana ge natural resources 
more efficiently, and to monitor biodiversity and the state of the oceans and the chemical 
composition of our atmosphere — important fact ors for climate change —, to respond better 
to natural and man-made disasters an d to improve border surveillance.  
GMES comprises a service compone nt and an observation infras tructure component, the latter 
consisting of a space infrastructure and in situ infrastructure. Benefits arise from the service 
component, which in turn depends on the obser vation data coming from the infrastructure. 
GMES should therefore be viewed as a co mplete system. While  the 2008 Commission 
Communication ‘GMES: we ca re for a safer planet’1 addressed GMES as a whole, this 
present Communication zooms in on the Space com ponent, with the aim of: (i) facilitating the 
co-decision procedure on the Commission propos al for a GMES programme and its initial 
operations in 2011-20132 and (ii) preparing the ground for the decisions covering the next 
financial framework (post-2013). 
Space data constitute a key input into the GMES service component. If th e flow of space data 
is interrupted or cut off, certa in services cannot be provided. The thematic areas within the 
GMES service component will rely on access to data from existing Earth observation 
satellites owned by third parties3 and space infrastructure developed specifically for GMES. 
As the EU does not want to duplicate existing cap acities in Europe, it was examined to which 
extent the user requirements compiled by the EU could not be met by existing or planned 
infrastructure. 
This gap analysis helped to define the content of the ESA GMES Space Component 
Programme, to which the EU contributes financ ially, and which is concerned with developing 
satellite missions known as ‘the Sentinels’. The first constellations of Sentinels are currently 
being developed by ESA and include seven satellites (the first two units of  Sentinel 1 to 3, the 
first two units of Sentinel 4 and the Sentinel 5 precursor) plus two in struments to be flown 
onboard EUMETSAT satellites. 
                                                 
1 COM(2008) 748, 11.12.2008. 
2 COM(2009) 223, 20.5.2009. 
3 Including EU Member States, intergovernmental organisations such as ESA and EUMETSAT, non-EU 
countries and private entities. 
 
EN 3   EN 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Once developed, the space infrastructure will have to be exploited and, in due course, 
renewed with a view to collecting the envir onmental data for the GMES service component. 
The problem addressed here is  therefore how the following can  be managed and financed: 
• the exploitation of the initial constellations of  Sentinels developed by ESA, after the end of 
the development phase, and 
• renewing the Sentinels, many of which have a life span of around seven years, in parallel 
to the exploitation mentioned above,with a vi ew to the long-term continuity of data 
collection. 
In its proposal for a Regulation on the GMES  Programme and its initial operations 2011-
20134, the Commission proposed that the overall  financial envelope for GMES initial 
operations should be EUR 107 million, 40 million of which being for exploiting the Space 
component. 
The financing and management of the exploitati on of the Sentinels has been discussed in a 
number of documents, including the Commi ssion Communication ‘Global monitoring for 
Environment and Security (GMES) : we care for a safer planet’5. While it is expected that a 
future EU Programme should contribute to the sustainability of the space infrastructure, 
notably in terms of in-orbit availability and operations, no binding decisions on EU funding of 
Sentinels exploitation was possible, as th e period in question goes beyond the current 
financial framework. A decision on financing the space component therefore needs to be 
prepared soon, as part of work on the next multiannual financial framework. 
ESA Member States have made it clear that the Sentinel infrastructure represents their 
contribution to the GMES Space Component and th at their financial effort is made on the 
assumption that the EU will take over respon sibility for the exploitation and renewal over 
time of an equivalent infr astructure, under EU funding.6 The same position has been taken 
consistently by several EU Member States in the GMES Advisory Council, an experts’ group 
assisting the Commission in GMES development. It is thus unlikel y that, in the absence of EU 
commitment, an organisation other than the EU  would assume responsibility for the GSC 
beyond 2013. Consequently, the GMES service component as currently conceived would not be viable
7. 
3. ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
The EU contribution to the exploitation and, eventually, renewing the space infrastructure 
developed at European level is fully in line with the subsidiarity principle, for the following reason. The responsibility for the exploitation an d possibly the renewal of space infrastructure 
developed with EU and inter governmental funds cannot be sufficiently achieved by the 
                                                
 
4 COM(2009) 223, 20.5.2009. 
5 COM(2008) 748, 12.11.2008. 
6 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. 
7 See also recital 12 of the proposal for a 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. 
 
EN 4   EN Member States because of the costs incurred. It is  precisely for this reason that in the field of 
space-based observation for operational meteorology, European States have pooled their resources to develop and exploit meteorological satellites under the auspices of the European 
Organisation for the Exploitation of Mete orological Satellites (EUMETSAT). European 
States have also developed demonstrator en vironmental satellites ei ther through ESA or 
through national space agencies. They found no way, though, of cooperating on the funding of 
sustained operational environmental monitori ng programmes similar to those in meteorology. 
Nonetheless the need for such observations is becoming critical, given the increasing political 
pressure for public authorities to take informed  decisions on the environment, security and 
climate change. 
4. EU
 OBJECTIVES  
The specific objectives of EU action relating  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 Sen tinels and accompanying research activities 
through adequate governance a nd financing structures; 
– the timely definition, development and procurement 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. 
5. POLICY OPTIONS  
The available policy options are as follows: 
• Option 1 : Option 1 corresponds to the baseline scenario. The EU would not assume 
responsibility for the exploitation of the Sent inels after the GMES initial operations (2011 
– 2013). This means that the EU would not  exploit the GSC at all beyond 2013. As no 
other entity would be willing to  finance the totality of the Sentinel exploitation costs, no 
data collected through the Sentinels would be  available for the GMES service component. 
• Option 2 : The EU would finance and manage the exploitation only of the first 
constellations of Sentinels, but not their renewa l. No data from Sentinels will be available 
beyond the first constellation. 
• Option 3 : The EU would finance and manage (i) the exploitation of the initial 
constellations of Sentinels, and (ii) the renewa l of space infrastructure to ensure sustained 
observation over time, given that most of the Sentinels currently deve loped have a nominal 
lifetime of seven years and that the thematic areas in the GMES serv ice component rely on 
continuous access to the corresponding data. Deci sions on renewal will have to be taken 
while the initial constell ations are in operation. 
 
EN 5   EN The options incorporate a number of assumpti ons. First, exploitation activities will be 
accompanied by research activities. Secondly, access to data from existing Earth observation satellites owned by third parties is necessary. Thirdly, data produced by the Sentinels will be 
available under full and open access. Fourthly, no  forms of co-financi ng are assessed for the 
GSC. As in the case of Galileo
8 and other EU infrastructure programmes, ownership of the 
Sentinels could be transferred to  the EU at no cost, allowing the EU to impose for Sentinel 
data a full and open access data and informa tion policy. Nevertheless, the Commission will 
continue to explore whether th e development of market oppor tunities and cost-based user 
charges might eventually enable the proportion of public investment to be reduced in the long 
run. Generally speaking, the potential financia l effort that can be deployed under the EU 
budget is not yet known, as priorities and a llocations of funding under the new multiannual 
financial framework (beyond 2013) will come later. 
6. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
Consistent with the focus of the proposed Co mmunication, all options are based on variations 
in the Space component only, and assume that all other components do not vary. 
The options have been analys ed both qualitatively and quantitatively. For the quantitative 
part, a cost-benefit analysis was based on availa ble data. Benefits arising from GMES have 
been quantified in the st udy ‘Socio-economic benef its analysis of GMES’ by 
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (the ‘PWC study)9. It sets out in monetary  and present value terms 
the projected economic benefits (including societal, environmenta l and other economic 
benefits) with respect to a baseline scen ario without GMES. In the PWC study, GMES 
benefits have been grouped in to three high-level categories: 
• Category 1:  efficiency benefits li nked to the use of GMES -related information in 
implementing or enforcing legislation or policie s that are already in place. Nothing more 
than continuous availability of GMES services (and hence of the GSC) is needed for these benefits to materialise.  
• Category 2:  benefits linked to the availability of  more and better information during the 
policy formulation stage. The result would be better policy making at European, national 
and regional level, easier and more effi cient implementation, and ultimately improved 
delivery of policy objectives. There is however  a built-in delay between the availability of 
information and the materialisation of th e benefits, linked to  the policy cycle.  
• Category  3: as in category 2, but this time at global level, i.e. linked to the signature and 
implementation of international treaties (e .g. on climate change, desertification and 
deforestation). As a consequence, there is a much bigger time-lag before they materialise, 
but at the same time their magnitude is much greater than in the other categories. An example of this category is the contributi on that GMES will make to climate change-
related policies, through long-term data series on such parameters as sea surface temperature, sea level rise and CO
2 distribution.  
                                                 
8 See Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 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, 24.7.2008, p. 1). 
9 Available at http://esamultimedia.esa. int/docs/GMES/261006_GMES_D10_final.pdf. 
 
EN 6   EN On the cost side, the costs of  both the service component and the space component were taken 
into consideration. The latter are based on the ESA Long-term scenario, a cost assessment prepared by the ESA executive and recognised as a basis for cost estimations by the 6
th Space 
Council10.  
In quantitative terms, the options can be co mpared most easily on the strength of their 
generated Net Present Values in the peri od under consideration — see the figure below11. 
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
Taking additional account of the impacts not in cluded in the PWC study and therefore not in 
the above graph, the following comparison can be made (keeping in mind that costs refer to 
the GSC, while benefits arise from the whole GMES system):  
                                                 
10 Council Resolution on ‘The cont ribution of space innovation and comp etitiveness in the context of the 
European Economic Recovery Plan, and further steps’ — 10500/09 of 29 May 2009. 
11 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 7   EN  
 Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 
Option 1 
(baseline) Does not achieve 
any of the 
objectives. 
Impact on the EU 
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 earlier 
EU efforts to develop the GSC and with the positioning of the EU 
within the global Earth Observation 
EU over the past 10 years. 
Would be coherent only in the 
event of a major shift of policy 
priorities in the EU, i.e. relegating climate change and citizens’ 
security down 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. An EU budget contribution to the GSC 
of approximately €200m/year on average in the next financial framework 
would enable benefits of between 
€400m and 900m per year to be achieved until 2022. After 2020, 
benefits would drop to about 
€130m/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 
EU 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. An EU budget contribution to the GSC 
of approximately €430m/year on average in the next financial framework 
would enable benefits of slightly less 
than €1bn/year to be delivered until 2022, then peaking at more than 
€5bn/year as of 2027.  The longer-term investment, higher 
than in the baseline, would generate positive trade-offs in political 
priority areas, such as climate 
change. Consistent with political agenda and EU objectives. 
Potential for strategic benefits for 
the EU as global player. 
The requisite budget and 
corresponding shif t from research 
to operation would require GMES to be included among the financing 
priorities in the next EU financial 
framework and might imply 
corresponding adjustments in other 
policy areas. 
 
 
EN 8   EN 7. MONITORING AND EVALUTION  
The Communication itself will not directly result in new activities being financed through the 
EU budget over and above what has already been decided or proposed through FP7, 
preparatory actions and GMES initial opera tions up to 2013. Should the next Commission 
choose one of the options requiring the ex ploitation of the Sentinels post-2014, the 
appropriate legislative proposal wo uld be drawn up in line with applicable rules, in particular 
regarding the preparation of the next multiannual financial framework and impact 
assessments.  
In line with standard Commission practice, evalua tion will be in three phases (ex ante, interim 
and ex post). The interim and ex post evaluati on will assess whether the operational objectives 
are being / have been met. Additionally, th e Commission will evaluate the progress of 
exploitation activities before any major decision is taken, in cluding the decision on renewing 
the Sentinels. This decision may have to be ta ken before the start of one or more financial 
frameworks due to the long development cycles fo r satellites. In each policy cycle, decisions 
will have to be informed by an update of the co st-benefit case for the various options and a 
broad stakeholders’ consulta tion on the effectiveness and usefulness of the system.