Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): we Care for a safer planet" - Summary of the impact assessment {COM(2008) 748 final} {SEC(2008) 2808}
Date: 2008-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, European Environment Agency, environmental policy, environmental protection, observation, space research

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.11.2008 
SEC(2008) 2809 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

"Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): 
 we Care for a safer planet" 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 748 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2808} 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  Impact  Assessment  has  been  prepared  by  the  Commission  services  to  support  the 
Communication  entitled  “  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES):  we 
Care for a safer Planet.  

Substantial  R&D  effort  has  been  invested  on  Earth  observation  by  the  EU,  the  European 
Space  Agency  (ESA)  and  their  respective  Member States  to  develop  infrastructure  and  pre-
operational services. It is now time to guarantee their sustainability, to bring together actors 
from different institutional nature, to ensure proper representation of the EU Member States 
and to associate other countries involved.  

To  achieve  this  goal,  the  initiative  for  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security 
(GMES)  should  be  implemented  operationally  through  the  establishment  of  an  EU-led 
programme,  GMES.  The  objective  of  GMES  is  to  provide  services  allowing  access  to 
accurate  environmental  and  security  data  and  information,  tailored  to  the  needs  of  a  wide 
range of users.  

An  extensive  stakeholder  consultation,  which  started  with  the  2005  Communication  "From 
concept to reality", has indicated that the following major problems are hindering the progress 
towards the realisation of the political and operational goals of GMES: 

•  despite the user-driven character of GMES and the establishment of expert groups (known 
as service implementation groups), there is currently no formal process to involve the users 
in the definition of the scope and architecture of the services;  

•  equally, there is no process to consolidate the contributions of the various partners in the 
development  of  GMES,  which  could  result  in  a  duplication  of  efforts  in  Europe.  In  this 
context,  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  Member  States  and  intergovernmental 
organisations, in particular ESA, have been investing significant sums in earth monitoring 
activities. Nevertheless, a common approach is still missing among co-existing frameworks 
at EC, intergovernmental and national level which all have separate decision and financing 
mechanisms;  

•  GMES is currently a set of research projects financed by the EU, ESA and Member States 
budgets. These projects aim at developing services and infrastructure, but cannot ensure a 
continuous and sustainable flow of information in an operational environment.  

This  baseline  would  undermine  users'  and  industrial  confidence  in  GMES.  GMES  would 
continue in the form of research projects, without an overarching governance framework for 
the coordination of the contributions from different GMES partners.  

The main objectives of the 2008 Communication are therefore to 

•  make proposals for the overall programmatic approach and the governance of GMES as a 

whole and of its service and infrastructure components; and 

•  indicate  the  willingness  of  the  Commission  to  propose  a  Basic  Act  establishing  the  EU 

GMES programme, without prejudging future financial decisions. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
This two step approach, consisting of a Communication published in 2008 and a proposal for 
a basic legal act published in 2009, is considered of paramount importance for the success of 
GMES  for  strategic  reasons,  as  it  is  essential  to  use  the  current  momentum  created  by  the 
French presidency to convey the political messages contained in the Communication already 
in 2008, with a view towards a providing the (political) grounds for a comprehensive legal act 
for the initiative in 2009. Further, the Communication will constitute a decisive input for ESA 
Ministers that will have to make their decision concerning the continuation of GMES space 
infrastructure development in November 2008. 

The specific objectives of the Communication are to: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

define  a  transparent  and  sustainable  governance  framework  that  contains  a  clear 
division of the roles of the partners in the GMES partnership, based on the principle 
that GMES should use to the largest extent possible existing capacities; 

guarantee  user  uptake,  in  particular  through  constant  involvement  of  users  so  that 
GMES remains user driven; 

reassure  stakeholders  about  the  EU  commitment  to  GMES  in  the  sensitive  phase  of 
demonstration which precedes the move to operation;  

outline  how  the  governance  and  financing  framework  can  be  implemented  in  a 
reasonable timeframe. 

In  addition  to  the  baseline  described  above,  the  Impact  Assessment  defines  the  following 
options concerning the sustainability of financing (S) of service provision and contribution to 
infrastructure development and operations beyond research: 

•  No  action,  S0-option:  The  EU  continues  to  limit  its  financial  contribution  to  GMES  to 

research funds; 

•  Option  S1:  same  as  the  previous  option  until  2013,  but  a  programme  is  proposed  in  the 
context  of  the  preparation  of  the  next  financial  framework.  A  gap  is  left  between  the 
preparatory action (2008-2010) and 2014; 

•  Option  S2:  a  Community  programme  is  proposed  in  due  time  to  bridge  the  gap  between 

2011 and 2014. 

Concerning the roles and responsibilities of different actors (governance scheme- G), policy 
options at hand are: 

•  No  action  G0  option:  No  specific  governance  structure  is  maintained  within  the 

Commission in addition to the structures for the management of research funds. 

•  Option G1: The Commission takes strong political and managerial control and is in charge 
of the management of the GMES programme, a formal process for the compilation of user 
requirements and of the coordination of the contributions of various GMES partners which 
continue to act according to their mandate and own governance scheme.  

•  Option  G2:  The  Commission  could  propose  to  create  a  new  external  entity  (e.g.  a 
Community agency, or to extend the mandate of an existing Community entity) to manage 
the programme on its behalf. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
•  Option G3: A single governance body managing all GMES elements and representing all 

stakeholders is established. 

•  Option G4. The responsibility for overall programme management is delegated to the ESA. 

The baseline scenario described above would correspond to a combination of the no change 
S0-G0  options.  It  serves  as  the  benchmark  for  the  impacts  of  the  other  scenarios.  The 
combination of options on Sustainable funding and Governance can be summarised as follows 
and leads to the further analysis of four scenarios. 

G0 

G1 

G2 

G3 

G4 

S0 

S1 

S2 

Base line 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Discarded 

Scenario 3 

Scenario 4 

Discarded 

Discarded 

All  combinations  involving  options  S0  and  G0  are  discarded  because  they  correspond  to  a 
large  extent  to  the  baseline  described  above.  Finally,  all  combinations  involving  option  G4 
have been discarded for two main reasons. First, the governance framework must respect the 
role  of  the  Commission  as  defined  in  the  EC  Treaty  and  the  jurisprudence  of  the  European 
Court  of  Justice  concerning  the  institutional  balance  within  the  EC.  Consequently,  it  is  not 
possible  that  the  Commission  delegates  the  political  responsibility  for  coordinating  and 
managing  the  GMES  programme  to  an  external  entity,  such  as  ESA.  Additionally,  the 
implementation  of  GMES  extends  beyond  the  technical  capacity  and  mandate  of  ESA.  In 
particular,  although  ESA  is  assigned  a  key  coordination  role  for  the  space  component,  for 
political, practical and legal reasons, it cannot be delegated the management of the in situ and 
service components. 

The  combination  of  options  that  are  not  discarded  are  analysed  in  the  light  of  the  specific 
objectives of the Communication as set out in the table below. 

Transparent 
and 
sustainable 
governance 
framework 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

Objectives 

Users buy-in 

Stabilisation 
of industrial 
base 
(upstream and 
downstream) 

Feasibility in 
needed 
timeframe 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

- 

- 

++ 

++ 

+ 

-- 

+ 

-- 

Scenario 1 

Scenario 2 

Scenario 3 

Scenario 4 

The timely submission of a proposal for a Community programme to ensure continuity after 
the  preparatory  actions,  as  foreseen  in  Scenario  3,  seems  to  best  fit  the  Communication 
objectives and best respond to stakeholders' concerns expressed so far. Its combination with 
an internal Commission management structure would minimise implementation obstacles.  

EN 

4 

   EN