Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper on Satellite Navigation Applications COM(2006) 769 final
Date: 2007-07-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: data protection, intellectual property, international cooperation, liability, satellite navigation, service, technical standard

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/47

The proposal

2.17
the Commission's
programme for the gradual revision and simplification of the
EU acquis and of its legislative and work programme.

forms part of

3. Specific comments

The Committee wishes to draw attention to a number of issues,
about which it has reservations:

3.1
Firstly: in the proposal entitled Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the inland transport of dangerous
goods the section on definitions provides detailed definitions of
individual words or terms (e.g. ADR, RID, AND, vehicle, wagon,
vessel) explaining their meaning for the purposes of the direc-
tive. However, no information is provided as to what we should
understand by the concept of ‘dangerous goods’. Doubtless, this
is no simple matter given the number of dangerous goods that
already exist and the advances in technology, which continually
add new items to the list of such goods. The Committee none-
theless believes that information should be provided on what
should be understood by the term ‘dangerous goods’
in the
context of this directive.

3.2
right

Secondly: the draft directive gives Member States the
introduce bans on the transport of
to regulate or

Brussels, 11 July 2007.

dangerous goods across their territory for reasons other than
transport safety only. Whilst the Committee understands the
reasons for which the Member States were granted the right to
it fails to
regulate or ban the transport of dangerous goods,
comprehend the reasoning behind according the right to act ‘for
reasons other than safety only’. The Committee believes that, in
the context of this proposal, whose aim is to increase the safety
of dangerous goods, the proposed wording means that Member
States would not be able to ban the transport of dangerous
goods on their territory for safety reasons, which would seem to
be rather illogical. Moreover, the Committee is unclear about
how it would be possible to ensure the coordination of such
bans applying to cross-border transport should the Member
States introduce different bans.

(Inland
Thirdly: Points III.2 and III.3 of Appendix III
3.3
transport) do not contain any information on any planned addi-
tional transitory provisions or additional national regulations.
Accordingly, the Committee asks for more information as to
whether it
is indeed the case that no such provisions are
planned or whether they are simply in the process of being
drawn up.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Green Paper on Satellite
Navigation Applications’

COM(2006) 769 final

(2007/C 256/10)

On 8 December 2006 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the Green Paper on
Satellite Navigation Applications.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Buffetaut.

At its 437th plenary session, held on 11 and 12 July 2007 (meeting of 11 July), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 134 votes nem con with five abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1
GALILEO is the flagship programme of European space
policy. The project's scope and strategic nature have led the
to work jointly with the
European Space Agency (ESA)
intergovernmental and
European Union. Thus, a culture of
Community cooperation should ensure the success of
this
venture. In the same spirit of cooperation, the project should be
implemented as a public-private partnership.

1.2
The first test satellite, precursor of future satellites that
will ultimately form a constellation of 30, was launched into
orbit towards the end of 2005. The development of this project
is therefore on course, but has not been without its difficulties
and delays.

1.3
GALILEO will be a global navigation satellite system,
which will provide a set of positioning, navigation and timing
services.

C 256/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

information searches, etc.),

1.4
GALILEO, with its 30 satellites and its ground stations,
will make it possible to provide information on their geogra-
phical positions to users in several economic sectors including
transport (locating vehicles, ships, aircraft, guidance systems,
travel
justice, police and customs
(border control), public works (topography, geodesy and geogra-
leisure (maritime and mountain
phical
navigation),
(e.g. assistance to people with
disabilities and the elderly), government security and safety
services,
through emergency beacon location
services, rescue at sea or in remote parts of the world.

information systems),
services

and finally,

social

The market in products and services derived from navi-
1.5
gation applications has been forecast to reach EUR 400 billion
by 2025.

Disagreement among the partners with regard to the
1.6
business model for GALILEO and governance of the industrial
consortium is so profound that concession negotiations have
now stalled. The delays accumulated so far and the absence of
any sign of progress on the concession negotiation is a risk for
the delivery of the project itself.

1.7
Faced with these difficulties, the Transport Council of
March had asked the European Commission to take stock of
progress in negotiations on the concession contract and look
into alternative solutions. Faced with this deadlock, the Commis-
sion,
in its Communication entitled ‘Galileo at a cross-road’,
asked the Council and the European Parliament to take note of
the current concession negotiation and to
the failure of
conclude that it should be ended. However, at the same time, it
also asked them to reaffirm their commitment to the continua-
tion of the Galileo programme. The Commission put forward
an alternative scenario whereby the development and deploy-
ment phases would be supported and financed by the public
sector and the concession contract would only concern the
operational phase. The European Space Agency would be the
procurement agent and design authority on behalf of
the
European Union.

2. The gist of the Green Paper

2.1
The Commission document provides (a) a swift overview
of the system in place and its foreseeable development and
(b) an assessment of the possible innovatory applications. In so
doing, it recalls the five proposed types of services (the open
access service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service,
the search and rescue service, and a government service with
restricted access: the public regulated service). The Green Paper
does not address the applications covered by the latter service
— it is up to the Member States to decide whether they wish to
use it or not. For this reason, the Commission will approach
each Member State directly on this subject and will
then
compile and summarise the answers.

The Commission lists the following sectors as affected by,

2.2
and potentially interested in, the system.

— Information on geographical
public) and emergency calls

location (for

the general

— Rail

— Maritime, inland waterways and fisheries

— Aviation

— Civil protection, emergency management and humanitarian

aid

— Tracking dangerous goods

— Livestock transport

— Agriculture, parcel measurements, geodesy and cadastral

survey

— Energy, oil and gas

— Search and rescue

— Logistics

— Environment

— Sport and tourism

— Law enforcement.

The length of this list of possible applications highlights

2.3
the scope and broad range of potential applications.

2.4
As usual, the Green Paper concludes with a list of ques-
tions to stakeholders. It is not for the EESC to provide specific
answers to these questions, but rather to stress those which it
considers particularly important, and raise questions that should
have been asked but were not.

The Commission is analysing the feedback on the Green
2.5
Paper received from interested parties. Feedback is quite scant
and sometimes too general to draw conclusions. As a result, the
Commission intends to complete the process by undertaking
further in-depth consultations with a view to publishing an
action plan in October 2007. To date, no major economic
sector has shown any real interest in the paid services. This is a
good illustration of
involved in competing
against a service that is available to the public free of charge,
even if the latter is not guaranteed. This therefore raises the
question of
the
European system, a civilian service that does not benefit from
the same level of public backing (in this case from the military)
as the American GPS.

the economic and financial equilibrium of

the difficulties

3. Key questions

Question 2 (1) on the protection of privacy is a matter of
3.1
particular importance, to which the EESC has already given
special attention by calling for the stringent protection of the
right to privacy. This raises the question of striking a balance
between the right to privacy and the possibilities offered by this
technology. It should however be emphasised that the satellite
positioning and navigation systems enable users to establish
their position, but this position is only known to themselves
and is not available to third parties unless the user decides to
pass on the information, for instance via a form of mobile tele-
communication like GSM. Since they are one-way systems, the

— Road

(1) COM(2006) 769, Section 4.

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/49

operator of a navigation system — be it GPS, GALILEO, or the
Russian system GLONASS — does not know who the users are
and has no way of finding out who is using the navigation
let alone their geographical position. As a result, the
signals,
issue of protecting the right to privacy has to be studied on the
basis of the individual applications offered to users. Many of
these services require the user's geographical position to be
instantly re-sent to a server, which will then be able to provide
the information requested by the latter (e.g. information about
road traffic).

Question 5 (2) on international cooperation raises a
3.2
number of issues. The European Union has signed cooperation
agreements with China,
Israel, South Korea, Morocco and
Ukraine, and other agreements are being considered with India,
Brazil, Argentina and Australia. Although these cooperation
agreements are clearly desirable to strengthen GALILEO's inter-
national scope, mainly in connection with such issues as stan-
dardisation, the opening of markets, certification, frequencies
and intellectual property rights, we should nevertheless exercise
caution because the main motive of some partners is the acqui-
sition of knowledge and European know-how in order to gain
time in developing their own technologies, which would then
compete against GALILEO. It has now become abundantly clear
that this was China's primary intention when it signed a coop-
eration agreement on GALILEO with the EU in 2003. Further-
more,
surprising to note that neither Norway nor
Switzerland have as yet concluded an agreement with the EU
covering their cooperation in the GALILEO programme, despite
the fact that they are financing its development/validation phase
through their participation in the European Space Agency. As a
result,
their potential access to GALILEO's public regulated
service has yet to be determined.

is

it

3.3
In any event, and in general, the cooperation undertaken
did not involve the public regulated service. Moreover, negotia-
tions for international cooperation have slowed down because
the
the main priority is
European satellite navigation project, a phenomenon that
is
symptomatic of the difficulties encountered.

the effective implementation of

Questions 6 and 7 (3) on standards and certification raise
3.4
the problem of certification for the equipment and the system
itself and onboard navigation terminals. This is a particularly
sensitive issue for aviation and rail transport, two sectors where
safety and signalling equipment are subject to rigorous interna-
tionally recognised certification procedures. The certification of
the GALILEO system itself only makes sense in the context of a
specific sector of application, e.g. civil aviation, which lays down
applicable rules and procedures for certification. The certifica-
tion of terminals and equipment on board mobile machinery
using the GALILEO services involves more than just the posi-
tioning terminal. It also involves all the other equipment that
uses the position information and finally delivers the informa-
tion gathered to the pilot or captain. The usual certification
procedures for that specific application therefore apply. Thus,
the issue has to be dealt with separately for each specific appli-
cation.

to deal with.

3.5
Another aspect of the matter, liability, is barely touched
upon, whereas it is of considerable importance. Its exceptional
complexity has to be acknowledged. The relatively straightfor-
ward issues of contractual liability must be considered, but so
must those relating to extra-contractual liability, which are far
more difficult
should be
remembered that the degree of liability may vary depending on
whether it concerns the open access service, the commercial
service or the public regulated service. The European Commis-
sion is considering a system similar to the one applied in civil
aviation, i.e. a fixed amount to be covered by insurance and the
rest by the public authorities. In this case, the key question
would be to establish the threshold at which the liability of the
authorities would be triggered. The threshold currently being
considered is high — approximately a billion euros.

Furthermore,

it

3.6
To what extent does the signal provider guarantee perfor-
mance? This question is of acute importance in the aviation, rail
and even maritime sectors.

3.7
If, for instance, a bad quality signal results in a plane
crash or shipwreck, possibly causing an oil spill: who would be
liable and to what extent? A distinction would have to be drawn
here between contractual liability and extra-contractual liability.

3.8 Would the GALILEO operator be wholly liable or would
liability be shared with States? And if so, which States: the
launching State, the European Union, or the States participating
in the GALILEO project? These issues must be addressed and
settled in order to ensure that GALILEO's commercial applica-
tions can be developed in a satisfactory and reliable legal frame-
work.

There are precedents, e.g. Ariane. The risk of damage to
3.9
third parties caused by launches is carried by Arianespace for up
to EUR 100 million. Anything in excess of
this amount is
covered by the French State. There are similar risk sharing
arrangements between commercial operators and States in the
civil aviation sector, which might perhaps be applied to
GALILEO. Nevertheless, the sensitive issue remains the need to
agree where to draw the dividing line: what is the appropriate
share of liability to be borne by the public authorities and the
operator, especially for new services?

3.10
A system based on the latter, if applied to the GALILEO
programme, would obviously involve clearly specifying which
public authority would be in a position to share liability with
the GALILEO operator.

Question 9 (4) on intellectual property is important.
3.11
Even if public institutions finance initial research, it is important
that
intellectual property rights to the applications should
belong to the companies, especially the SMEs, that develop and
implement them.

(2) COM(2006) 769, Section 5.3.
(3) COM(2006) 769, Section 5.4.

(4) COM(2006) 769, Section 5.6.

C 256/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.10.2007

3.12
The military uses of GALILEO also have to be consi-
dered. Unlike GPS, a military system made available for civilian
purposes on a discretionary basis, GALILEO is a civilian system.
As is the case with the GPS civilian signal, there is nothing to
prevent the armed forces of any country from using GALILEO's
open access service for a military purpose, even though the
public regulated service, which is specifically regulated by the
EU Member States, offers more advantages than other GALILEO
services in that it is more powerful in terms of scrambling and
independence (different bands and frequencies are used).

3.13 Without entering into a discussion of the various mili-
tary uses of GALILEO's public regulated service, which lie well
outside the scope of this opinion and are not dealt with in the
Green Paper, the fact remains that GALILEO's financial equili-
brium partly depends on this service. This point will undoubt-
edly continue to be discussed in the new configuration for the
GALILEO programme proposed by the Commission. Moreover,
in its Communication, the Commission states that ‘whilst main-
taining the system as a civil system significant revenues could
also come from military users’.

4. Conclusion

4.1
The Green Paper on satellite navigation applications
provides an overview of many of the sectors for which satellite
navigation would indeed be relevant. It needs to be completed
in a number of very important areas such as intellectual prop-
erty rights in processes that could open the way to new fields of
application, and certification and liability arrangements.

4.2
The matter of government or even military use of
GALILEO by EU Member States, which is handled through

Brussels, 11 July 2007

direct dialogue between the Commission and the Member
States, and among the Member States themselves within the
GALILEO security board, is very important insofar as it has a
significant impact on GALILEO's financial model. It seems clear
that this matter needs to be re-examined, particularly since the
public sector contribution looks set to increase substantially as a
result of
the first public-private partnership
scenario.

the failure of

4.3
It is extremely useful and interesting to consider satellite
navigation applications. However, it is also necessary to be sure
the constellation is completed. The Commission's new
that
proposals are the GALILEO programme's last chance. The EESC
is well aware of the financial effort they require of Member
States. However, at a time when the EU is dealing with its citi-
zens' scepticism, and a certain ‘disenchantment’ revealed by
debates on the draft Constitutional Treaty, the impact of aban-
doning the GALILEO programme would be disastrous in Europe
and abroad. Its failure would show the world that the European
Union was unable to rally round an ambitious scientific, tech-
nical and business project.
to complete the
It
GALILEO programme in order to demonstrate the European
Union's ability to bounce back and successfully complete major
forward thinking projects.

is essential

4.4
The truth is that, for these reasons, the GALILEO project
is going through a difficult period. The EESC cannot but note
that if this EU flagship project fails, it would seriously under-
mine people's confidence in European integration. Every effort
must be made to ensure that this does not happen.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS