Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘the White Paper — Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union. An action plan for implementing the European Space policy’ (COM(2003) 673 final)
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU research policy, space policy, space science, use of outer space

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘the White Paper — Space: a new
European frontier for an expanding Union. An action plan for implementing the European Space
policy’

(COM(2003) 673 final)

(2004/C 112/03)

On 12 November 2003, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the White Paper —
Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union. An action plan for implementing the European
Space policy.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 March 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Buffe-
taut.

At its 407th plenary session of 31 March and 1 April 2004 (meeting of 31 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 97 votes to none with two abstentions:

1.

Introduction

1.1
The White Paper submitted to the EESC is a logical
follow-up to the Green Paper on European Space Policy, on
which the Committee adopted an opinion in June 2003.

1.2 On that occasion the Committee essentially asked the
question: does Europe have a strong political and ongoing
commitment to the space sector, together with the necessary
financial resources and an adequate institutional architecture?

1.3
The Committee concluded that: ‘Europe's position in the
space sector will depend on the strength of its political commit-
ment and the clarity of its budget decisions. The introduction
of a shared and/or parallel competence for the space sector in
the future European constitutional treaty would provide the
European Union with the political,
legislative and financial
means to define and implement a strong space policy, which
will have to, inter alia:

— guarantee autonomous access to space for Europe;

— contribute to Europe's strategic autonomy;

— develop a programme of scientific excellence;

— promote applications benefiting EU citizens and sectoral

policies;

— coordinate a dual research programme in space technolo-
gies in order to ensure our independence in civil, commer-
cial, security and defence activities’.

It is in the light of this clear position that the Committee
1.4
should assess the White Paper which has been referred to it for
an opinion.

— decline of its leading space companies because of weak
commercial markets and lack of public investment in new
programmes.

Against this background and noting that ‘standing still is
2.2
not an option’, the Commission proposes a series of initiatives
to prevent the weakening of Europe's position in the space
sector.

2.3

The document is organised into the following sections:

— policy challenges;

— space initiatives to support key EU policies;

— challenges to be met in order to secure and build upon
Europe's scientific and technological capabilities in the
space field;

— issues relating to governance and resources.

In each section, the challenges are identified and propo-

2.4
sals made for responding to them.

a) Policy challenges

The Commission stresses that space is a horizontal policy
which is especially relevant for supporting Europe's economic
including the Lisbon objectives, agriculture policy
prospects,
goals, levels of employment, its management of the environ-
ment and its foreign and security policies.

2. Gist of the document

b) Support for key EU policies

The Commission sets out the dangers facing Europe in

2.1
the space sector:

— decline in its capacities as key space player, if its growth
does not keep pace with the global evolution of the space
sector;

A number of major initiatives are listed, together with recom-
mended actions. These initiatives cover the following areas:
implementation of the GALILEO programme and Global Moni-
toring for the Environment and Security (GMES); bridging the
digital divide; the contribution of space to European security
and defence policy; and developing international partnerships,

C 112/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

c) Maintaining scientific and technological capabilities

This refers to the elements which are essential if Europe is to
remain a space power: guaranteed independent access to space;
optimisation and coordination of R&D resources; human space
flight and space exploration; a suitably large and rejuvenated
scientific population; strengthening Europe's position in space
science; promoting an innovative and competitive European
space industry.

d) Governance and resources

The aim is to better identify and share tasks and responsibilities
between the European Union, ESA, Member States, national
agencies and industry in order to maximise efficiency and
harness the benefits of space activities for Europe and its citi-
zens. But this will only be possible if extra resources are made
available for the space sector.

2.5
The conclusion of the White Paper is that Europe must
progressively increase its space budget as part of a long-term
vision aimed at creating more effective European space policies
and more opportunities for a revitalised space industry to
expand Europe's share of the market in space-based services.

2.6
In the resources assessment in Annex 2, the Commission
presents three scenarios for increased expenditure on space,
corresponding to three degrees of political will.

3. General comments

In addition,

3.1
The White Paper is, above all, a policy document the
primary objective of which is to define a space policy for
Europe. In this respect, it represents an important step forward
in a field where Europe has been very active and scored major
successes, but without ever having really made a coherent
expression of political will.
the White Paper
outlines areas for specific action in the main sectors, where
mastery of space-based resources involves strategic, economic
and industrial challenges. The way that the document is struc-
tured according to the various challenges to be met is inter-
esting in that it highlights the scale and urgency of the commit-
ments that need to be made if Europe wishes to retain its posi-
its scientific and technological
tion as a major space power,
strength, its community of scientists and engineers, its cutting-
edge industry and a competitive market presence.

3.2
The initiatives, measures and proposals put forward by
the Commission seem to be consistent with the ideas aired in
the consultations on the Green Paper. As such, the White Paper
represents a solid platform for the implementation of a Euro-
pean space project that is embedded in a political vision of the
future. But clearly the crucial factor here is the real political
and financial will of the Member States and the Union to
support and develop an independent European space sector.

3.3
Finally, with the failure of the Intergovernmental Confer-
ence a problem has arisen regarding a solid legal basis for the
European Union in the space field in that Article 13(3) of the
Treaty will remain unchanged until the draft treaty establishing
a constitution for Europe has been ratified. The European
Economic and Social Committee therefore recommends that
the framework agreement
signed between ESA and the
Commission be used to the full in a pro-active way because
action in the space field cannot wait for the ratification of the
future treaty at some indefinite point in time. The adverse
repercussions
strategic
autonomy, space industry and its partners, and research teams
and capacities could open up an unbridgeable gap between
Europe and its competitors in this field.

this would have for Europe's

that

In fact, Member States have reached unanimous agree-
3.3.1
ment on providing the EU with shared competence in space
policy, an agreement which no-one has called into question.

3.3.2
Consequently, the EESC stresses the need to consider
ways and means of supporting this clearly stated political will,
pending the creation of a solid legal basis.

Firstly, the ESA-EU Space Council provided for in the frame-
work agreement between the Commission and ESA must be set
up immediately. Secondly, consideration could be given to
appointing a high official for Space (along the lines of the high
official for the CFSP), or to including space policy in the port-
folio of the President of the European Commission, without
ruling out the possibility of creating the post of Commissioner
for Space in the future. All three options imply a strong endor-
sement of the importance of space policy.

4. Specific comments

4.1 Space contributions to policy challenges

4.1.1
Space technologies are a tool for fundamental research,
on account of both the complexity of the technologies applied
and the fields of research involved, which include not only
astrophysics and planetology but also seismology, oceano-
graphy, meteorology, epidemiology, etc. The EESC regrets that
the White Paper does not make specific mention of their key
role and hopes that this aspect will be given some kind of
legitimacy by European space policy, even if ESA's mandatory
programme responds to this need mainly as regards the
sciences of the universe.

4.1.2 Moreover, it must be emphasised that in the field of
observation and knowledge of the planet there is close interde-
pendence between operational
those
conducted by Eumetsat) and pure research.

(such as

activities

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/11

4.1.3
Finally, it is essential to stress the duality of space tech-
nology at the research and development stage; the difference
between civil and military usage emerges mainly during the
practical application of research findings. Upstream research
and development activity should therefore bring together all
civil and military stakeholders in a concerted effort to optimise
the use of facilities and reduce costs.

the rest of the document. It is surprising – to say the least – to
note that,
in the box entitled ‘The Way Forward’, satellite
communications are only mentioned in passing in parentheses
when it is asserted that full use should be made of the potential
offered by all available broadband technologies to bridge the
digital divide.

4.2 Space actions in support of the enlarged Union

4.3.2
The Committee fears that, as far as this issue is
concerned, the text is based on a number of misinterpretations
or misjudgements.

4.2.1 N a v i g a t i on

The EESC fully endorses the idea that the GALILEO programme
is the symbol of the European Union's recognition of the poli-
tical, strategic and economic challenges of space. It believes
that everything must be done to bring this project, which is
essential
to a
successful conclusion.

for Europe's autonomy and independence,

4.2.2 G loba l moni t or i n g for

th e e nvi r onme nt a nd

se c u r i ty (G ME S)

4.2.2.1
space systems as they can have different origins.

Priority must be given to the interoperability of

4.2.2.2
given enough emphasis and are not sufficiently understood:

two specific aspects are not

The EESC feels that

— no provision is made for the continuity of orbital observa-

tion in some fields, particularly radar observation;

— and in particular, the existence of European operational
activity in the field of meteorology, climatology and ocea-
nography is largely ignored. Significantly, Eumetsat is only
mentioned as one of the ‘stakeholders’ and the fact that
certain space activities are organised at European level
seems to have been forgotten or ignored.

4.2.2.3
The EESC considers this to be a shortcoming of the
document as EU space policy must be built on what already
exists, not by duplicating what the space agencies do but by
complementing their activities and structuring demand.

that

4.2.2.4
the
The Committee therefore recommends
Commission adopt a constructive attitude towards Eumetsat,
that
which is a key European partner, along the lines of
adopted with regard to ESA. Equally, the Committee believes
that better use should be made of the Madrid-based Torrejón
satellite centre for gathering satellite information by creating a
true space database, along the lines of that under development
in the United States.

4.3 Bridging the ‘digital divide’

4.3.1
The EESC feels that this section is regrettably weak, in
terms of both form and content. It stands in stark contrast to

In the

first place,

concept of

4.3.3
technological
the
neutrality cannot mean that all technologies are equivalent as
regards solving a given problem. Clearly, choices have to be
made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis along the lines of
that drawn up by the Commission (working document
SEC(2003) 895). It is important in this context that use of the
Structural Funds is not at variance with these principles and
that local authorities have a clear idea of the complementarity
of terrestrial and space systems in terms of geographic data and
population density

4.3.4 While there can no be question of promoting space-
based solutions to the detriment of more effective terrestrial
solutions, there can be no denying that the former are particu-
larly appropriate for regions with a low population density or
which are geographically remote or access to which is difficult.
Space-based solutions and terrestrial solutions are complemen-
tary and offer different areas of excellence.

4.3.5 What the text overlooks is the fact that the role of
space-based solutions in resolving the problem of the ‘digital
divide’ must derive from the intrinsic complementarity of
terrestrial and space-based solutions.

The crucial factor for the development of space-based
4.3.6
solutions is equal access to the advantages of broadband tele-
communications regardless of where an activity is located.

4.3.7
To be specific, today in many countries 80 % of the
population but only 20 % of the territory is covered or in the
process of being covered by terrestrial solutions. This situation
can only change for the better by exploiting the complemen-
tarity of space and terrestrial technologies.

4.3.8
The sheer size of the urban market favours terrestrial
solutions and the importance of terrestrial operators can only
accentuate the imbalance between urban and rural regions.
This raises the following question:
is it acceptable that the
information society is evolving in a direction which favours
urban concentration at
the expense of rural depopulation?
Clearly, this cannot be the socio-political choice of the Euro-
pean Union or of Member States.

C 112/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

4.3.9
In stating that the market is characterised by ‘intense
competition between operators and technologies’, the White
Paper confuses two very different elements: commercial compe-
tition between operators and the balance between technologies,
which ultimately depends on their respective qualities.

4.3.10
Therefore the EESC feels that the European institu-
tions should make a more accurate assessment of the specific
role of space-based solutions so as not to lose the initiative in
this key area of space policy. Consequently, it would be useful
to promote pilot operations based on joint initiatives between
ESA and the Commission in order to demonstrate the cost-
benefit advantages of satellite-based solutions in comparison
with the investment that would be necessary to bring about
equivalent fixed network solutions in areas where there is no
coverage. Similarly, the pooling of public contracts should be
to enable satellite-based solutions with
encouraged so as
Europe-wide coverage to benefit
from economies of scale,
leading to lower costs, both in terms of terminals and service
provision. This would also help pave the way for the emer-
gence of a European standard, enabling the various companies
involved to establish a global presence.

4.3.11
The role of space policy is not to promote space
policy at any price but to see to it that space-based solutions
are not overlooked to the detriment of the interests of certain
users and certain regions and the people who live in them.

4.4 Space as a contribution to the CFSP and the ESDP, the develop-
ment of international partnerships, strategic independence and
common assets for common actions

4.4.4
paid to a possible revision of US space policy in this area.

As regards space flights, careful attention needs to be

4.4.5
The EESC considers it desirable to maintain this type
of activity for reasons which have to do with both humankind's
deeply rooted desire for adventure and discovery and the need
for symbols that can stimulate and maintain public interest.
Consequently, realistic programmes should be devised which
respond intelligently to European interests but which at the
same time are based on global cooperation.

4.4.6
In this context, the idea of a lunar station certainly
needs to be given serious consideration, with the greatest
regard for Europe's interests.

4.5 Strengthen European excellence in space science

The Committee would recall that ESA, national agen-
4.5.1
cies,
scientific institutes and industry have succeeded in
elevating Europe to a level of scientific excellence which is
recognised worldwide. Moreover, as the Commission points
out, this has been done subject to strict budget constraints that
have required efficiency and competitiveness, which deserves to
be applauded.

This is all the more reason to support the White Paper
4.5.2
proposal
to progressively increase ESA and Member State
funding for space research, not only to promote research as
such but also to avoid the break-up of our research capacities
and to offer attractive career opportunities to young scientists;
otherwise there is a real risk that the ‘brain drain’ will accel-
erate, particularly to the United States.

4.4.1
The EESC does not have any major comments to make
on these sections but it would strongly emphasise that, insofar
as space is considered by our main partners to be an important
power issue (in 2004, NASA Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, will
present a new road map which, significantly, deals with the
subject of renewed US space domination), international coop-
eration must be based on an approach which realistically
reflects European interests.

4.5.3
The Committee considers that just as much emphasis
should be put on the earth sciences in space research as on the
sciences of the universe. What sets the earth sciences apart
from the sciences of the universe is the fact that they are intrin-
sically bound up with practical applications (meteorology,
surveillance, environmental management, etc.). A distinction
therefore needs to be drawn between these two branches of
science, without favouring one at the expense of the other.

4.4.2
The Committee would therefore reiterate that, insofar
as free access to space is essential for Europe's autonomy and it
cannot be achieved through a commercial approach, public
funds must be allocated to maintaining freedom of access,
which is of major strategic importance.

4.6 Establish a new approach to the governance of space activities

4.6.1
At this stage, the White Paper can only provide some
pointers to the way forward, including how to organise space
responsibilities within the Commission.

4.4.3
As concerns the ESDP, the Committee recalls that the
presidency report on European Security and Defence Policy,
approved by the Thessaloniki European Council of 19 and 20
June 2003, recognised the importance of space applications
and activities in this area. Here the Committee would highlight
the dual nature of space sciences and technologies, which is
not sufficiently exploited in Europe.

4.6.2 Despite the failure of the Intergovernmental Confer-
ence, no-one has called into question the agreement to provide
the European Union with shared competence in the space field.
However, the absence of a clearly established legal base for EU
action in the space sector will inevitably give rise to a certain
caution.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

4.6.3 Nevertheless, as regards internal organisation within
the Commission, it seems to the Committee that there are two
pitfalls that must be avoided:

— on the one hand, spreading space responsibilities too
widely would prevent the Commission from working and
acting in a coherent fashion;

— on the other hand, excessive centralisation would sever
policy from the various directorates involved and be to the
detriment of demand-driven policy.

4.6.4
The EESC believes that a single, dedicated body of
modest size, attached to a high level of the Commission, for
the example the presidency, would offer an appropriate
response.

4.6.5 Of course, the Commission will have to have resources
of its own, augmenting those which Member States devote to
If there is a genuine desire to
ESA and national agencies.
develop EU space activity, the ‘game’ cannot be played without
staking some money.

4.7 Annex 2: resources assessment

4.7.1

The White Paper presents three scenarios:

— scenario A is the ‘ambitious’ scenario, which would require
a firm political commitment anda high level of economic
growth, allowing a sustained budgetary effort;

— scenario B is the ‘political’ scenario, denoting a readiness for

a new departure for space inthe European Union;

— scenario C is the ‘linear’ scenario, which would not guar-
antee full independence as regardstechnology and access to
space.

Its scientific,

Space activity is of major strategic importance for the
4.7.2
European Union.
technological, economic and
human implications are considerable. It is therefore an integral
part of the Lisbon strategy and there is a need to ensure that
the means are made available for achieving the stated objectives
in this area. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the EESC
can only reject the possibility of scenario C. It regards scenario
B as the minimum working hypothesis, whilst hoping that it
will be possible to move closer to scenario A.

In fact, some wonder whether

4.7.2.1
it might not be
possible, in the light of the requirements of the Stability Pact,
to insulate strategic investment spending, such as that on
space, from budgetary considerations so that the future is not
compromised by budgetary restrictions, which all too often are
targeted at investment spending rather than current expendi-
ture.

4.7.3
It is equally clear that nothing should be put in the
way of enhanced cooperation in the space sector, although it
has to be recognised that the Nice Treaty provides little scope
for such cooperation.

Brussels, 31 March 2004.

5. Conclusions

5.1
The European Economic and Social Committee considers
the White Paper to be a high-quality document which has the
great merit of being an expression of political will which is
formulated in a strong and coherent manner.

5.2 Nevertheless, the Committee deplores the weakness of
the section on the ‘digital divide’ and broadband technologies.
It therefore urges the Commission to review and expand this
section by considering the complementarity between space-
based and terrestrial solutions.

The Committee would again stress the key strategic
5.3
importance of space activities for the European Union. It calls
for the Union's policy approach, particularly as regards interna-
tional cooperation, to be underpinned by a realistic vision that
is free of all trace of naivety, especially in view of the dual
nature (civil/military) of the technologies which space activities
are based on.

5.4
The Committee emphasises that the space sector, which
has been restructured and taken the necessary steps to improve
competitiveness in order to be able to compete internationally,
employs directly some 30,000 people, many of them highly
skilled, and that it is essential to maintain and enrich this vast
human potential, which is the source of European excellence in
this field. In particular, it would point out that greater attention
should be paid to training, both initial and continuing,
in a
sector based on high technologies which are evolving along
with progress in scientific research.

5.5 Despite the failure of the Intergovernmental Conference,
the Committee recommends that the European Union, building
on the framework agreement between the Commission and
ESA, press ahead resolutely with its efforts to shape and stimu-
late demand and with space initiatives, without duplicating the
programmes of Member States, their national agencies or ESA
and without standing in the way of enhanced cooperation or
strong partnerships between certain Member States. The
Committee recommends the incorporation of space policy
within the remit of a high-level EU body or official.

that

The Committee urges

5.6
the budgetary resources
granted for space policy be equivalent, at a minimum, to the
level of funding envisaged in scenario B of Annex 2 and to
avoid any chance that investment by the EU might result in a
corresponding decline in investment by Member States.

5.7
Space policy, because of the human, scientific and stra-
tegic challenges it involves, touches at the very heart of the
human adventure. As a result, Europe is again on the road to a
date with history, in a geopolitical context where other leading
continental powers are key protagonists. We do not have the
right to miss this encounter.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH