Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: European Space Policy COM(2007) 212 final
Date: 2008-02-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, space policy, space research, space technology

C 162/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2008

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: European Space Policy

COM(2007) 212 final

(2008/C 162/03)

On 26 April 2007 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: European Space Policy

The Section for Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 31 January 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Van
Iersel.

At its 442nd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February 2008), the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 145 votes to 1 with 4 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1
For strategic reasons, political and economic, the EESC is
explicitly in favour of independent European access to space. It
therefore endorses policies as outlined in documents of the Joint
Space Council, the Commission and ESA (1) in April and May
2007.

A European Space policy should aim at peaceful objec-

1.2
tives, including safeguarding collective security.

level,

The EESC believes European space activities, be they
1.3
conducted at national
in an EU or an ESA frame, will
generate visible benefits in various areas, such as scientific
research, a desirable provision of infrastructure and data, and a
broad range of economic applications as a result of the integra-
tion of space-based and ground-based systems.

So far the ESA concept has proved successful. Combining
1.4
it with Commission activities is intended to, and will, release
additional potential. This should be supplemented by processes
to ensure coordination, definition of remits and calculation of
cost-sharing between the Commission and the ESA.

1.5 Worldwide developments — US, Russia,
Japan, China,
India, which are also space-faring nations — force to even
stronger action of Europe as competitor and partner in space.
This requires the elaboration of concrete programmes at short
notice and initiation of decision-making processes that can keep
pace with decision-making by other world players.

1.6
At the same time, a faster, coordinated decision-making
process would improve opportunities to define and, subse-
quently, realise missions in line with user needs.

GALILEO and GMES are European ‘flagships’. The

1.7
GALILEO programmes should be implemented without delay.

The insertion of ‘space’ into FP7 and Community policies
1.8
must lead to an integral approach of all concerned DGs. Such

(1) European Space Agency.

the base for

broadening of
strategic thinking within the
Commission will bring along a beneficiary effect on integral
approaches at national level which are often lacking. A coordi-
nated effort on this front is desirable.

All Member States, including the smaller ones and the
1.9
new Member States, must benefit from the European space
policy by creating sufficient opportunities for scientific compe-
tences as well as for highly qualified industrial capacities across
Europe in both the upstream and downstream sector.

In ESA's

industrial policy (2) of
1.10
return’ each
country gets back its own investment via subscription and
concession. As a consequence relations between governments,
ESA, private companies and research institutes reflect deep-
rooted patterns.

‘fair

fair

Up to now,

the principle of

return has been
1.11
successful
in developing European space capabilities. But the
increasing maturity of the space market will require more flex-
ibility, as fixed patterns of relationships are as a rule not condu-
cive to industrial innovation. Due to market pull, user's needs
and service developments, in particular SMEs, are expected to
respond appropriately to the new requirements and options in
European space policy.

1.12
On the other hand, sudden changes of fixed procedures
and relationships can be counter-productive, also taking into
account the large disparities between contributions to ESA.

1.13
Therefore the EESC advocates an open and transparent
analysis and a dialogue on Europe's desirable performance in
ten years time: which objectives and corresponding institutional
tools — regarding ESA, Commission and Member States — are
needed to fulfil a jointly coordinated European mission.
Amongst others, the dialogue should include the way ESA is
financed, the dynamic contribution of medium-sized companies,
and the maintenance of the highest level of competition.

(2) The ESA has its own industrial policy. Its form and content should not
be confused with the sector-based industrial policy of the Commission.

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/25

1.14
In this respect the responsibility of the Commission for
applications and the promotion of users' needs is crucial. The
EESC trusts the Commission guarantees open discussions and
involvement of the private sector, in particular SMEs.

— a growing number of (emerging) world players in this field
and the need for Europe to be a full player both as a partner
and as a competitor;

1.15
The EESC agrees with the Council on the significance of
space for defence and security. A push should be given to plan
future systems that bring European countries together.

1.16
As the boundaries between civil and military applica-
tions are blurring, full use should be made of so-called dual-use
effects.

1.17
Finally, communication is crucial. The EESC is of the
opinion that the daily-life benefits of space should be better
communicated.

A well

1.18
targeted communication on European Space
policy should foster positive incentives to youngsters regarding
this sector, and should, more generally, enhance the attractive-
ness for young people to enter into scientific and/or technical
education.

2. A new approach towards a European Space Policy

2.1
During the last decade the European Institutions and
national task forces have increasingly dealt with the debate on
new steps regarding the future of a European Space policy.

2.2
In April 2007 the Commission published in close coop-
eration with ESA (3) a Communication on space policy (4), an
accompanying impact assessment and an extensive programme
of intended actions by ESA, Commission and Member States.

On 22 May 2007 the Space Council (5) adopted a Reso-
2.3
lution on the European Space Policy, based on the Communica-
tion of the Commission.

2.4
This enhanced interest, as illustrated in abovementioned
documents, is stimulated by a wide variety of global develop-
ments and European strategic aims:

— the potential of the use of space-based services both for all
sorts of issues and as a tool for a wide range of European
policies, such as environment, security, transport, research,
development aid, cohesion and education, all these in addi-
tion to research;

— the ongoing necessity for Europe to have an independent
access to space as a prerequisite for a European Space Policy;

— space as a source of innovation, industrial competitiveness

and economic growth;

— reinforcement of scientific infrastructure; knowledge-based

society and Lisbon objectives;

— the need to link European research to applications;

— the contribution and complementary role of space-tech-

nology to earth-based technologies and applications;

— the significance of space to European defence and security;

— the blurring boundaries between civil and military applica-

tions of space technologies;

— the awareness that single Member States are not able to
meet the necessary requirements of a credible space policy;
and consequently;

— the need to clearly define tasks and mandates of European

Institutions and organisations as regards space.

2.5
In 2003 and 2004 the European Commission presented
a Green and a White Paper on Space Policy. In both papers the
outlines of a future space policy became manifest. They
contained many elements — sometimes far-reaching — which
are elaborated in the aforementioned Communication.

2.6
In its Resolution of 22 May the Council confirmed that
the space sector ‘is a strategic asset contributing to the indepen-
dence, security and prosperity of Europe and its role in the
world’. Intensifying European cooperation for the delivery of
space-based services to the benefit of citizens is a key issue. The
Council linked space policy to the Lisbon strategy and under-
lined its relevance to the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

2.7
The Council's Resolution stresses the goal of the build-up
of the European Research Area and reaffirms the cooperation
between ESA and the Commission which will foster efficiency,
increased funding of European programmes, and more cohesion
between technology and application. The ESA-Commission rela-
tionship will
evidence.
However, the question of co-financing of existing basic infra-
structure (Kourou, Darmstadt) remains open.

through experience-based

evolve

(3) The ESA (European Space Agency) is a completely independent organi-
sation. It currently has 17 Member States. Not all ESA Member States
are members of the EU, and not all EU Member States are members of
the ESA. The ESA is jointly financed by these Member States and has a
mandatory programme and optional programmes.

(4) COM(2007) 212 final.
(5) The Space Council is the Joint Space Council, a fusion between the
Competitiveness Council and the intergovernmental Space Council for
decision-making on ESA policies.

A central

2.8
issue is the cooperation and the division of
labour between ESA and the Commission. ESA is leading in
exploration and technology, the Commission will be responsible
for applications which are related to its own policies such as
transport, environment, security and relations with third coun-
tries as well as for the identification of non government users'
needs for improved services.

C 162/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2008

2.9
Cost-efficiency in public sector programmes will contri-
bute to the competitiveness of private industrial and commercial
companies. In particular SMEs and the supplier industry are
important. At the same time the Council recognises ESA's indus-
trial policy, in particular its ‘fair return’ principle, as an instru-
ment to motivate investment and enhance European competi-
tiveness.

Undeniably, the Resolution of

2.10
last May introduces a
new stage that was exuberantly welcomed by the leading
actors (6).

3. General remarks

3.1
The world of space is changing fast. During the last
decade the EESC has positively welcomed the Commission's
Green and the White Papers on space policy (7). Again, the
the
EESC strongly endorses the new steps of
Commission and ESA last May. It is symbolic that the break-
throughs regarding space policy are taking place at the begin-
ning of the 21st century. A new era starts.

the Council,

3.2 Worldwide developments in space have an increasingly
strategic and technological impact.

Space policy is unmistakably becoming more impor-
3.2.1
tant, if not indispensable, to contribute to earth-bound objec-
tives, in other words, space applications are of vital importance
to realise economic and societal goals for an integrating Europe.

and the Member States are a big step forward, when one keeps
in mind that:

— from the outset the rules of the Internal Market were not
applied to space as a consequence of national strategic
concepts, programmes, and military needs;

— there were substantial differences between national interests,
financial commitments, technological objectives and indus-
trial performances, and

— accordingly, separate national

industrial patterns are often

prevailing.

The Framework Agreement of 2003 (8) between ESA and
3.4
the European Union laid the foundation of convergent planning
and actions in the EU and ESA. Now, the Council formulates a
global approach aiming at better coordinating and enhancing
the efficiency of individual projects, be they national, intergo-
vernmental or European.

the confirmation of

3.5
In the view of the EESC, among important elements are
the growing consensus and common vision between Member
States;
the cooperation between the
Commission and ESA and a division of responsibility between
these two bodies, providing the basis for increased EU funding;
a better balance between R&D and applications, and, most
importantly, the explicit intention to put users' needs in front;
public private partnerships; and the priorities — ‘flagships’ —
of GALILEO and GMES (9) within the framework of a European
space policy.

In science and research progress on astronomy and
3.2.2
planetary research is manifest. ESA benefits
from existing
networks. It adds with focussed programmes and peer reviews.
As opposed to the scientific world the military sector is still
nation-based.

3.6
It has to be noted, though, that the intended steps are
part of a lengthy process that certainly is not yet in its final
phase. Concrete projects and funding flows have still to be
worked out.

3.2.3
Strategically, Europe has to safeguard its independence
vis-à-vis the US and Russia, and, increasingly, China and India,
and other space-faring nations, which are all at the same time
competitor and partner in space. More generally, the position of
Europe in the world should be the point of departure for any
space policy.

3.3
The Resolution of the Space Council of 22 May 2007,
and the accompanying documents such as the Commission's
Communication 2007, its impact assessment, the statement by
the Director-general of ESA, and the preliminary elements of a
common European programme covering ESA, the Commission

(6) Amongst others the Press releases of the European Commission and of
ESA regarding the results of the Space Council of 22 May are headings
as follows: ‘Space Council welcomes historic European Space Policy’,
and ‘Europe's Space Policy becomes a reality today’.

(7) EESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission ‘The
challenge’,
industry: meeting

European aerospace
(Rapporteur: Mr. Sepi), OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 11.
EESC Opinion on the Green Paper on European Space Policy
(Rapporteur: Mr. Buffetaut), OJ C 220, 16.9.2003, p. 19.
EESC Opinion on the White Paper ‘An action plan for implementing
the European Space Policy’ (Rapporteur: Mr. Buffetaut), OJ C 112,
30.4.2004, p. 9.

global

the

The total budget 2005 of

3.7
space activities of ESA,
EUMETSAT and the Member States came to EUR 4.8 bn. (excl.
the EC) (10). The EC will dedicate a guaranteed sum of over
EUR 1.4 bn (2007-2013) to space applications and activities
through its FP7 programme. Worldwide space budgets come to
EUR 50 bn. The US's budget is roughly EUR 40 bn. of which
more than 50 % is military. Moreover, American expenditure is
driven by an all-American concept which has its effects on the
cooperation between the various institutions and business (11).
Above all, the US is a closed market which is large enough to
support US space industry without having it
to compete
successfully on the international commercial market.

(8) The EC-ESA Framework Agreement, October 2003,

introduces a
working method and a closer relationship between ESA and the
Commission.

(9) Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.
(10) ESA EUR 2 485 mln, EUMETSAT EUR 330 mln, Member States
(France, Germany, Italy, Spain) EUR 1 190 mln (civil) and EUR 790
mln (military).

(11) On the other hand, the efficiency of a common American concept and
a central organisation must not be exaggerated. The individual states
and the companies, each with their own representatives on Capitol Hill
and their own lobbies and networks, influence the pattern of contracts
and objectives. NASA also suffers from bureaucracy and from being a
monopoly.

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/27

3.8
European space activities are a mix of European (intergo-
vernmental or communal) and national programmes. ESA is
doing more than just coordinating projects and has so far
proved extraordinarily successful; the ESA is an R&D Agency
developing large successful infrastructures at European level. The
large European operators of the ESA in space include: Ariane-
space, EUMETSAT, Eutelsat. Besides these programmes some
Member States have their own programmes based on national
political and technological traditions and objectives, and, accord-
ingly, on national capacities, networks and applications. The
European pattern consists of a complicated system of common
and national programmes.

3.9
It is likely that new Member States will join ESA which
would raise the number of member countries from 17 to
22 (12). Benefits should be drawn from existing scientific compe-
tences and from the potential reinforcement of economic clus-
ters.

3.10
Overlap between national programmes and ESA is quite
possible. Defence driven projects have so far remained largely
national. This can also create inefficiencies because of the blur-
ring of boundaries between technologies for military and civil
objectives. The new global approach may help to foster conver-
gence.

3.11
The budgets are related to infrastructure and data
collection. The better the relationship with business and market
forces is organised the more extensive multiplier effects through
applications and services.
respect EUMETSAT (the
In this
operator for meteorological satellites) is an illustrative example.
It may provide a very useful model for other sectors.

3.12
Given budgetary constraints it is wise that Europe is
focussing on priorities and is fully open to international coop-
eration. International cooperation has a great added value with
sometimes impressive multiplier effects. However, to step in as
equal partner with third countries Europe's capacities also need
to meet sufficient basic requirements besides the priorities. It is
desirable that such requirements are commonly agreed upon,
and that, subsequently, sufficient investments are made.

In a recently published Opinion,

the EESC fully
3.13
endorses GALILEO, a European global navigation project (13).
GALILEO will guarantee more accurate timing positioning and
timing data worldwide for civil applications in a broad field of
areas. It is comparable to the existing American GPS, but it will
also add to it.

(12) Including the participation of two non-EU countries, Switzerland and

Norway.

(13) EESC Opinion on the Green Paper on Satellite Navigation Applications
(Rapporteur: Mr Buffetaut), CESE 989/2007 (not yet published in the
Official Journal). The opinion is discussing amongst others a number
of aspects which according to the EESC should have been addressed by
the Green Paper.

3.13.1
independent player in space.

GALILEO will confirm the European position as an

the
3.13.2
There was no satisfactory business case for
the
upstream sector. The EESC welcomes the decision of
the
Council
to fund GALILEO and the definition of
implemented
programmes. These programmes
without delay in order to create favourable conditions for the
downstream sector (14).

should be

Apart from the obstacles for a viable public private
3.13.3
partnership which is generally a complicated affair anyway, there
are a number of other open questions which are urgently to be
solved in order to achieve an effective involvement of private
partners.

3.14
In addition to existing services GMES will provide an
increasingly indispensable coherent set of earth-observation
based services. It will ‘improve Europe's monitoring and assess-
ment capacity in environment and contribute to addressing
security needs’ (15). Dynamic worldwide developments show to
what extent new tools are desirable to address new challenges of
environment, climate change, health, and personal and collective
security.

3.14.1
These challenges concern a very broad range of areas,
from natural disasters and crises to climate change impacts as
gas emissions and air pollution, and to civil protection and
border control.

3.14.2
The relevant applications in this field are user' driven
— with users coming from very varying communities repre-
senting policymakers, public services, companies and citizens —
which underlines the need for increased coordination between
ESA, the Commission and the Member States, and the desir-
ability of a collection of the needs by the EC.

GMES services will benefit

the development and
3.14.3
implementation of various EU policies. Given the expected
added value of GMES, the budget (2009) must provide opera-
tional funding for services and space applications to support
EU-policies.

3.14.4
Also in the case of GMES infrastructure it is govern-
mental responsibility to collect data in a reliable and sustainable
way. Subsequently, conditions have to be created for participa-
tion of private business.

3.15
illus-
GALILEO, GMES and the other programmes all
trate that space policy is becoming operational and supportive
to ongoing technological performances and applications which
will help to use new methods of analysis, anticipation and solu-
tion of societal issues.

(14) In that perspective a new development is that the European — down-
stream — industry is bundling its views in ‘Galileo Services (GS)’ and
in the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies (EARSC).

(15) Communication on European Space Policy, page. 6.

C 162/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2008

It is important that all Member States,

3.16
including the
smaller and the new Member States, benefit from European
space policy. A commitment of all Member States is also in the
common interest of the Union as such.

3.17
The new Member States will certainly profit from appli-
cations. Moreover, opportunities should be created for them to
bring in their existing scientific competences and their highly
qualified industrial capacities in order to strengthen their poten-
tialities.

4. Governance

4.1
The Space Council met for the first time in November
2004 to discuss and to promote European convergence and
Europe-based programmes. The EESC hopes and trusts that the
last May creates the desirable
guidance given by the Council
context for a space policy which is in accordance with the Euro-
pean ambitions.

Better institutional provisions are always indispensable
4.2
for progress. In this respect the EESC welcomes the increasing
involvement of
the Council and the Commission in space
matters as well as the foreseen well defined cooperation and
division of responsibility between ESA and the Commission.

The Space Council creates the desirable platform for
community-related

4.3
discussion
intergovernmental
approaches, which will have to be connected effectively.

and

on

4.8
One of the main rationales for a European Space Policy
is that strategic thinking by the Commission will also bring
along a beneficiary effect on integral approaches at national
level which is often lacking. The involvement of DGs of the
Commission will also foster networks with (potential) users in
the national administrations.

4.9
For the same reason the establishment of a GMES-Bureau
within DG Enterprise in charge of coordination is most
welcome.

4.10
The involvement of the Commission gives space policy
a place amidst the other Community policies. This will help to
improve the image of the benefits of ‘space’ to the citizens.

communicated. Effective

Hitherto the world of ‘space’ has been too isolated and
4.11
not well
communication by the
Commission and the Council should emphasise the implications
of ‘space’ for society. A well targeted communication should
also include positive incentives to youngsters regarding space
and, more generally,
incentives to enter into scientific and/or
technical education.

the great

The EESC underlines

importance of a
4.12
systematic and overall
transparent evaluation and a correct
implementation. The complex relationship between research
centres, public authorities in the EU and the Member States, and
private business, together with the complicated financial and
organisational arrangements, requires monitoring. In a dynamic
interaction effective monitoring will lead to transparency, and
possibly to simplification and to new views and projects, as well
as their financing.

4.4
The insertion of ‘space’ into Community policies and FP7
with a special chapter Space Policy must be made visible
through the intended engagement of all concerned DGs. This
integral engagement will broaden also the base for strategic
thinking. In this regard the specific EU competence for Space in
the new Treaty will certainly be helpful.

4.5
The legal order, often overlooked, requires specific atten-
tion. In a ‘single-state’ context like the US the existing legal
order is a natural framework for concrete activities and accom-
in the complicated European
panying regulation. By contrast,
context — ESA, Commission, sovereign Member States — a
well-structured legal order is lacking which is counter-produc-
tive. Taken into account the extension of space-related activities
in the EU a coherent and logical legal/institutional framework
will become all the more indispensable.

4.6
The Commission's responsibility for applications and the
involvement of various DGs will positively influence the discus-
sion and cooperation with the private sector. It will open new
avenues for user driven projects.

A specific aspect to be mentioned is the provision in the
4.7
New Treaty concerning the link between the High Representa-
tive for Foreign Affairs in the Council and the vice-Chairman-
ship of the Commission, which will be united in one person.

5. Fair return and private sector

5.1
Strategic concepts and programmes in Member States,
specific national relationships with private companies, intergo-
vernmental cooperation in and beyond the EU, and technology-
driven ESA as an intergovernmental Agency explain the prin-
ciple ‘fair return’: each country gets back its own investment in
ESA-activities under the form of contracts to its industry via a
complicated pattern of subscription and concession. Under the
actual circumstances ESA's industrial policy is successful.

Consequently, relations between governments, research
5.2
institutes, ESA and private companies
reflect deep-rooted
patterns, also because the space sector is a circumscribed and
highly specialised market.

5.3

Decisive developments are to be taken into account:

— the need for strengthening European presence in the world;

— the use of the ‘universe’ for civil needs and peaceful objec-

tives, including collective security;

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/29

— the political and financial participation of the EU and the

Commission in a broad range of areas;

5.7
Space-based and ground-based systems should be inte-
grated as is foreseen for GMES. Intelligent sensor networks can
be further developed.

— the increased emphasis on application and users' needs, the

switch from technology push to market pull;

— the changing role of private business.

5.8
Involvement of industry requires a precise definition of
EU demand. The increased emphasis on services and users'
needs besides research, data collection and infrastructure implies
a constant fine-tuning between science and application across
Europe (17).

The Council advocates the continuation of

the ‘fair
5.4
return’ principle in the case of ESA. In this respect the interests
of the ESA-Member States do not coincide in all dimensions. It
has to be noted that
the ‘fair return’ principle has already
evolved through a more flexible approach than was usual
before, and that it is gradually modernised. In the view of the
EESC, this principle should, first and foremost, become suffi-
ciently flexible to allow (still) country-based highly qualified
medium-sized companies to become appropriately involved.

5.9
However, as noted earlier, applications require underpin-
ning technological development. Among others, the ESTP (18),
bringing together scientific and industrial actors,
is a very
promising platform for the identification of the desirable tech-
nologies. It is expected to set the long-term Strategic Research
Agenda. ESTP can also provide links with other industrial fields
and areas.

5.5
In case of participation of and funding by the Commis-
sion the EU-rules prevail, i.e. competition policy and the rules
on Public procurement. The EESC also welcomes the fact that
the Commission is developing appropriate tools and funding
rules for Community measures on space, with due consideration
for the specific nature of the space sector, allowing Member
States to have a balanced sectoral structure for space.

fair

Up to now,

the principle of

return has been
5.10
successful
in developing European space capabilities. But the
increasing maturity of the space market will require more flex-
ibility, as fixed patterns of relationships are as a rule not condu-
cive to industrial innovation. Due to market pull, user's needs
and service developments, in particular SMEs, are expected to
respond appropriately to the new requirements and options in
European space policy.

5.6
An important point of attention is the role of SMEs in
developing services. A distinction must be made between big,
often internationally operating, companies and a large number
of specialised mostly country-based medium-sized companies
looking for opportunities in European space. Consortia of SMEs
in space need support.

5.10.1
In this respect the large disparities between national
contributions to ESA, in particular in case of the new Member
States and the smaller countries, as well as non-EU countries
(belonging to the ESA), have also to be taken into account.

5.6.1
The role of specialised medium-sized companies is
increasing anyhow (16). This will probably be all the more so in
this sector due to the emphasis on market pull and users' needs
and a dynamic involvement of smaller companies in service
development. Operational planning and projects in cooperation
with medium-sized companies will become more usual.

5.11
Therefore the EESC advocates an open and transparent
analysis and a dialogue on Europe's desirable performance in
ten years time in order to preserve and improve its position in
the world: which objectives and corresponding institutional
tools — regarding ESA, Commission and Member States — are
needed to fulfil a jointly coordinated European mission,
including a dynamic contribution of medium-sized companies
and guaranteeing the highest level of competition.

5.6.2
Up till now space policy was largely separated from
other parts of the economy. The switch in emphasis, the hori-
zontal approach, and the cooperation between ESA and the
Commission will contribute to link technology, public invest-
ments and private business. The experience of EUMETSAT with
its development of operational services can be of practical value
for GMES.

5.6.3
As concerns satellites business planning, marketing and
commercialisation may introduce beneficial practices. Networks
with medium-sized companies will be intensified.

(16) See in this respect the EESC opinion on the Value and supply chain
development in a European and global context (Rapporteur: Mr van
Iersel), CESE 599/2007.

5.12
Such analysis and dialogue should also include the way
ESA is financed, in particular the effect of the optional contribu-
tions, and how procedures and progress in integrating the use
of space services in the EU internal market can be foreseen. In
the areas where the DGs of the Commission will be involved,
special funding rules and cost-sharing calculations should be
drawn up.

(17) ‘… we can no longer pursue the double monologue of industry inviting institu-
tions to define their needs and institutions inviting industry to propose services
meeting their needs.’ See letter of ASD-Europspace, 20 July 2007 to
Commissioner G. Verheugen and Mr J.J. Dordain, ESA.

(18) European Space Technology Platform, a combined platform of the
major stakeholders, including: the participating countries in EU, ESA,
European Space Industry (over 100 companies) and Eurospace,
Research Laboratories and Universities, and National Space Agencies
and 21 Organisations.

C 162/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2008

5.13 Modern sector-based industrial policy as it is developed
for various sectors by the Commission can also be of help,
taking into account the specific characteristics of space. Among
these are the need for publicly financed technologies and infra-
structure, the development of prototypes, the absence of a real
market in various segments, and the active government-led and
–financed space related industrial policy in the US and else-
where.

5.14
As a first step a concretisation of the policymakers'
views of the industrial ambitions of Europe is urgently needed
towards industry.

6. Defence and Security

6.1
The Council's Resolution underlines the significance of
space for defence and security. A common strategy concerning
European military capabilities is debated increasingly.

6.2
This debate fits in the desirable progress of a common
foreign and security policy. The EESC welcomes the gradually
accepted conclusion that security should no longer be a single
policy, but a mix of policies of and within the European Institu-
tions (19).

in mind that

It has also to be kept

6.3
the boundaries
between civil and military applications are blurring. It is recom-
mendable to highlight the possible reciprocal opportunities for
the sets of requirements in both sectors. Military systems may
profit from civil European missions due to the dual-use effect of
civil and military applications.

6.4
At the moment ownership, governance and budgets in
the field of security are strictly national. Synergic approaches

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

among different countries are rare, although some actions in the
sector defence are coordinated in a European framework. There
are several options for the future, from a ‘light’ degree of Euro-
pean cooperation to a full-fledged common European model.

6.5
The EESC is of the opinion that for security, technolo-
gical and budgetary reasons a push should be given to plan
future systems that bring European countries together.

6.6
The national logic in security is deep-rooted. But starting
with a common vision on the future, including also compelling
global developments, concrete projects can be started and
experience-based evidence may foster progress.

In order to avoid unnecessary duplications, specialisation
6.7
labour could be a part of this planning (20).
and division of
Research programmes could be set up which help to develop
technical capabilities.

In this respect EDA (21) as one of the actors can be given
6.8
room to develop special competences such as defining capabil-
ities, proposing development programmes and coordinating
national Defence and Space Agencies and ESA.

6.9
The New Treaty holds also out prospects of broadening
initiatives by the Commission and the Council to foster security
research, although any consequent overlaps or duplication
should be avoided.

6.10
Decisions of this nature require preparation and, subse-
quently, commitments by the Space Council and the General
Council.
introduced by the new
Treaty, will be supportive.

improvements,

Institutional

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(19) ‘Today, space policy for security is not a single policy, but a mix of policies
pursued by the MS, the Space Council, the Commission and eventually EDA.
This composite panorama requires a better coordination to rationalise the
governance and avoid duplications.’ See ‘The Cost of Non Europe in the
field of satellite based systems’ FRS-IAI Report, Fondation Pour la
Recherche Stratégique, Paris and Istituto Affari Internazionali, Roma,
24 May 2007.

(20) A precursor is the MUSIS six-nations agreement, i.e. Multinational
Space-based Imaging system for Surveillance, reconnaissance and
observation.

(21) European Defence Agency.