COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a space surveillance and tracking support programme
Date: 2013-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European Union Satellite Centre, environmental impact, exchange of information, security services, space navigation, space research, waste, waste management

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.2.2013  
SWD(2013) 54 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 

establishing a space surveillance and tracking support programme 

{COM(2013) 107 final} 
{SWD(2013) 55 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council 

establishing a space surveillance and tracking support programme 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In the last few years, the development of a European Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) 
service  has  been  the  subject  of  political  debate  among  EU  Ministers  responsible  for  space. 
The outcome of those debates, reflected in several Council conclusions, reveal that there is a 
consensus  among  Member  States,  satellite  operators  and  other  stakeholders  on  the  need  to 
protect space infrastructure, that the establishment of a European SST service to protect such 
infrastructure should be done under the leadership of the EU (with the technical R&D support 
of the European Space Agency) and should build on existing capacities to be complemented 
by new assets. Moreover, public opinion is aware of and supports the need to protect space 
infrastructure (two consultations of the broad public have been carried out over the past three 
years). 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Security of critical European space infrastructures is not ensured 

Space-based systems enable a wide spectrum of applications which play a fundamental role in 
everyday  reality  (TV,  Internet,  GPS  etc).  They  have  also  become  critical  for  the 
implementation  of  EU  policies.  With  Galileo  and  EGNOS,  the  EU  itself  will  soon  become 
one  of  the  largest  satellite  operators  in  Europe.  However,  space  infrastructures  are 
increasingly  threatened  by  the  risk  of  collision  between  spacecraft  and,  more  importantly, 
between spacecraft and space debris. Space debris has become the most serious threat to the 
sustainability of space activities.  

In order to mitigate the risk of collision it is necessary to identify and monitor satellites and 
space  debris  so  that  satellite  operators  can  be  alerted  to  move  their  satellites.  This  activity, 
which is highly sensitive with regard to national security, is known as space surveillance and 
tracking (SST). SST is also a dual use activity that can serve both civil and military users. A 
SST service comprises three basic functions: 

–  Sensor function: radars and telescopes to identify and track spacecraft and debris; 

–  Processing function: to determine the probability of collision or to determine the re-entry 

path of space objects; 

–  Front  desk  function:  to  handle  the  dissemination  of  SST  information  (e.  g.  collision  risk 

alerts, re-entry warnings) to satellite operators and relevant authorities. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Europe  has  today  no  SST  service:  the  exisiting  sencor  capacity  is  insufficient  and 
disconnected, the processing capacity is very limited and there is no front desk function at all. 
Furthermore, there is no suitable alternative at international level, including the system of the 
United  States,  which  is  not  accurate  enough,  or  other  systems  which  are  not  open  to 
international cooperation.  

2.2. 

Increased collision risks due to space debris 

During  the  last  half  century,  objects  have  been  launched  in  space  regularly.  This  material, 
orbiting the Earth at very high speed and in an uncontrolled manner, poses an ever increasing 
potential risk for the launch of spacecrafts and of their exploitation due to collision with other 
debris or other spacecrafts in orbit. 

According to latest estimates, there are 16 000 objects orbiting Earth larger than 10 cm, which 
are  catalogued  and  between  300  000  and  600  000  objects  larger  than  1  cm,  not  catalogued. 
According to ESA, the population of objects larger than 1 cm will continue to grow, and will 
reach a total of approximately 1 million debris in 2020. Furthermore, it is estimated that there 
are more than 300 million objects larger than 1 mm. The vast majority of these space objects 
are  in  the  commercially  most  exploitable  areas  of  the  outer  space  region.  According  to  the 
most conservative estimates (based in partially traceable objects), there is at present a risk of 1 
collision every three years. 

2.3. 

Collision avoidance manoeuvre shorten the lifetime of satellites 

As collision risks for potentially traceable or untraceable debris is difficult to predict, satellite 
operators tend to carry out avoidance manoeuvres on the basis of alerts of close approaches of 
space debris. 

Each  avoidance  manoeuvre  requires  fuel,  which  shortens  the  active  life  of  satellites,  or 
requires  additional  fuel  to  be  carried  into  orbit  thus  increasing  the  cost  of  launch. 
Furthermore, due to the inaccuracy of data related to the position of the objects in question, it 
can be assumed that a good number of manoeuvres may not be indispensible but have to be 
made as a precaution generating extra costs.  

2.4. 

Re-entry of debris or uncontrolled spacecraft to Earth threaten the security of 
EU citizens 

Re-entries  of  spacecraft  and  debris  to  Earth  form  an  increasing  hazard  for  the  security  and 
health  of  the  Earth  population.  Whilst  active  spacecraft  re-entries  into  the  atmosphere  are 
controlled  (e.g.  the  US  Space  Shuttle,  the  Russian  Soyuz,  and  the  European  Automated 
Transfer  Vehicle),  inactive  satellites  and  debris  regularly  re-enter  the  atmosphere  in  an 
uncontrolled manner. 

The ability to predict the trajectory of an object (which is highly dependant on the survey and 
tracking capability of a space surveillance system) is essential to mitigate risks related to re-
entries.  With  an  increasing  population  of  satellites  in  orbit,  the  number  of  uncontrolled  re-
entry events can be assumed to increase over the coming years. 

2.5. 

Overview of estimated annualised losses due to hazards from space debris  

On the basis of available data and the estimates on market growth, the annualised quantifiable 
estimated  loss  due  to  collision  and  collision  avoidance  manoeuvres  (e.g.  due  to  loss  of 
satellites,  satellite  lifetime  shortening,  loss  of  revenues  generated  by  the  satellite)  was 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
estimated at a total of 140 M€. As the number of  active satellites in orbit is expected to grow 
by 50 % in the next 10 years, annualised estimated losses can be expected to increase to 210 
M€ in the next decade 

These costs are almost certainly just a small fraction of possible non-quantified costs and, to 
some  extent,  the  non-quantifiable  consequences  that  may  result  from  the  absence  of  a 
European space surveillance and tracking capability. For example, the loss of a satellite may 
result  in  the  loss  of  critical  satellite  communication  capacity  in  an  emergency  situation 
resulting in loss of life.  

3. 

THE EU'S RIGHT TO ACT AND ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

Article 189 TFEU introduces a right for the EU to act in drawing up a European Space Policy, 
while building on past achievements at the level of the European Space Agency and Member 
States, and gives the European Commission a clear mandate to exercise its right of initiative. 
Space policy is defined as a shared competence between the EU and its Member States. 

From discussions with stakeholders over the past years, it became clear that the setting up of 
operational European SST services will require the intervention of the EU. This stems from a 
consensus  among  EU  and  ESA  Ministers  responsible  for  space.  In  this  regard,  a  European 
SST service will have a security dimension with which the EU, unlike ESA (a R&D agency), 
has competence to deal with. 

The  EU  does  not  seek  to  replace  initiatives  taken  by  Member  States  individually  or  in  the 
framework  of  ESA.  It  seeks  to  complement  actions  taken  at  their  level  (in  particular  in  the 
framework of the ESA SSA preparatory programme) and reinforce coordination where such 
coordination is necessary to achieve common objectives. 

The EU involvement would be necessary to aggregate the investment required to fund certain 
space  projects,  set  in  place  governance  arrangements,  define  a  data  policy  and  ensure  that 
existing  and  future  capacities  are  broguht  to  work  in  a  coordianted  and  efficient  manner 
ensuring a robust and interoperable system benefiting all relevant European stakeholders. 

Furthermore, the proposed EU action does not seek to replace or duplicate existing mitigation 
measures  at  international  or  multi-lateral  level,  since  these  measures  will  not  solve  the 
problem at hand, but will only reduce the growth of space debris in the long-term. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES 

The general objective of the proposed initiative is to safeguard the long-term availability and 
security of European and national space infrastructures and services essential for the smooth 
running of Europe’s economies and societies and for European citizens’ security. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Specific Objectives 

Operational Objectives 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Reduce  the  risks  related  to  the  launch  of 
European spacecrafts; 

(a) 

Assess  and  reduce  the  risks  to  in-orbit 
operations of European spacecrafts in terms 
of  collisions,  and 
to  enable  spacecraft 
operators  to  more  efficiently  plan  and  carry 
out mitigation measures (e.g. more accurate 
collision  avoidance  manoeuvres;  avoidance 
of unnecessary manoeuvres which are risky 
in itself and reduce a satellite’s lifetime); 

Survey  uncontrolled  re-entries  of  spacecraft 
or  their  debris  into  the  Earth’s  atmosphere 
and  provide  more  accurate  and  efficient 
early  warnings  to  national  security  and  civil 
management 
protection/disaster 
administrations  with  the  aim  to  reduce  the 
potential  risks  to  the  security  and  health  of 
European  citizens  and  mitigate  potential 
damage to critical terrestrial infrastructure. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

set up an operational space surveillance and 
tracking capability at European level building 
on  existing  European  +  national  assets  and 
capable of integrating future new assets; 

implement  an  appropriate  governance 
structure; 

define  and  implement  data  policy  principles 
for  the  handling  of  SST  information  through 
the European SST capability; 

define and deliver the SST services open to 
all European and national public and private/ 
commercial actors; 

ensure 
the  necessary  quality  of  SST 
services  and  their  efficient  and  sustainable 
operational provision; 

supervise  the  implementation  and  efficient 
functioning of the proposed operational SST 
capability  and  the  operational  SST  services 
and  by  ensuring  a  sustainable  EU  funding 
contribution. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

5.1. 

Option 1: Baseline: No EU financial involvement in SST 

Under  the  baseline  scenario  the  EU  would  not  engage  in  any  action  or  provide  any  support 
(legal or financial) to the setting up and operational provision of European SST services  

Due  to  lack  of  an  organisational  framework,  the  development  of  a  broader  cooperation 
between  Member  States  with  a  view  to  providing  a  veritable  European  SST  capability  and 
operational European SST services is unlikely. 

In addition, taking into account the fact that Member States do not see the development of a 
European SST service as a mission to be entrusted to ESA, the setting up of operational SST 
services at European level under the baseline scenario cannot be expected.  

Cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  and  third  countries  is  expected  to  remain  at  its 
current status. 

There  are  debris  mitigation  initiatives  at  international  level  which  seek  to  prevent  the 
exponential  growth  of  debris.  These  initiatives  may  only  be  effective  in  the  long-term, 
although  these  actions  cannot  replace  short-term  mitigation  measures  such  as  collision 
avoidance manoeuvres.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
5.2. 

Option 2: Partnership approach – EU Funding for the European SST front desk 
function 

This option would seek a reduction of the collition risk by a factor of 3 to 5 and therefore a 
reduction of economic loss due to satellite failure or destructions by the same factor. There is 
convergence among experts that in order to achieve such reduction the sensor function must 
be developped linking and operating as a netwok existing assets and adding to this network 1 
tracking  radar,  1  surveillance  radar,  8  telescopes  and  a  data  center.  These  assets  should  be 
linked by secure lines. The processing function must be set up to determine the probability of 
collision or to determine the re-entry path of space objects. A front desk must also be set up to 
deliver alerts and handle request from SST users. 

This would require an overall investement, coming from EU and Member States, of some 60 
M€  per  annum  (for  details  see  annex  V  on  th e  calculation  method).  According  to  the  most 
conservative  estimate  the  current  anualised  estimated  loss  of  140  M€  would  be  reduced  to 
between 28 to 46 M€. 

In  this  option,  operational  European  SST  services  would  be  set  up  in  partnership  with  EU 
Member  States  owning  relevant  assets.  The  EU  would  define  the  legal  framework  for  the 
setting  up  and  operations  of  European  SST  services  (on  the  basis  of  existing  sensors  and 
capacities as well as those Member States may decide to develop), inlcuding the data policy.  

A  consortium  of  Member  States  would  be  responsible  for  the  sensor  function  and  the 
processing  function  of  the  European  SST  capability.  The  front  desk  function  would  be 
entrusted to an existing operational entity/agency with proven security credentials to handle 
SST information (for example the EU Satellite Centre). The European Commission would not 
engage in any day to day operational activity, but would ensure the overall coordination of the 
SST functional elements. 

The overall costs of the setting up and operation of the European SST capability would be co-
funded by the Member States constituting the consortium and the EU. While the consortium 
would  fund  all  capital  investsments  related  to  the  sensor  (including  the  development  of  the 
new  assets)  and  the  processing  functions  (estimated  at  58  M€  per  anuum),  the  EU  would 
provide funding for the setting up and operation of the front desk function (an estimated total 
of 2 M€ per annum). The introductio n of service fees could be examined in the context of the 
evaluation of the initative's implemementation.  

5.3. 

Option  3:  Partnership  approach  –  EU  Funding  for  the  networking  and 
operation of sensor, processing and front desk function 

This option is identical to option 2 in all respects except as regards the distribution of funding 
provided by the consortium of Member States and the EU. Under this option, Member States 
participating in the consortium would again fund all capital investments related to the sensor 
(including  the  development  of  new  assets:  1  surveillance  radar  and  1  tracking  radar,  8 
telescopes and a data center) and the processing functions. However, in addition to what it is 
in charge of in accordance with option 2, the EU would fund the maintenance and operational 
costs of the sensors and processing functions necessary for the Europan SST service. 

As  in  option  2,  the  acquisition  of  new  assets  by  Member  States  necessary  to  guarantee  the 
target  collision  risk  reduction  factor  of  3  to  5  is  estimated  at  50  M€  per  annum.  The  EU 
funding contribution would amount to 10 M€ per  annum. As in option 2, the introduction of 
service fees could be examined. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
5.4. 

Option 4: EU-led SST development and exploitation (risk reduction factor of 3 
to 5) 

Under this option, the risk reduction factor would be identical to that under options 2 & 3 but 
there would be potentially some differences in terms of governance and funding because the 
EU would be the system owner and would fund the totality of the costs.The EU defines the 
related  legal  framework  (including  data  policy),  and  takes  the  responsibility  for  the 
development of the structures needed to federate existing national and European sensors and 
capacities and to ensure the provision of SST services. 

The Commission would become owner of new SST infrastructure elements. This option also 
assumes the development of 1 surveillance radar and 1 tracking radar, 8 telescopes and a data 
center and the required equipment to network existing assets. The total contribution from the 
EU would amount to some 60 M€ per annum. 

5.5. 

Option  5:  EU-led  SST  development  and  exploitation  (risk  reduction  factor  of 
10) 

Option  5  follows  the  same  logic  as  option  4,  but  seeks  to  reduce  the  risk  of  collision  by  a 
factor  of  10  and  consequently  of  the  estimated  losses  above  a  factor  of  10.  This  option 
requires the acquisition of 2 surveillance radars, 2 tracking radars and 14 telescopes and a data 
centre, thereby improving the quality and accuracy of the services provided to the various user 
groups and would also leverage on existing sensors in Europe. 

Funding would follow the same logic as in option 4 but with double the number of new assets 
as described above. EU funding can be estimated at some 120 M€ per annum for the period 
2014-2020.  

5.6. 

Summary of stakeholder views on the options 

Both  the  manufacturing  industry  and  the  satellite  operators  are  strongly  in  favour  of  the 
setting up of a European SST capability. While the manufacturing industry is clearly in favour 
of the option that guarantees the highest investment and therefore industrial return, operators 
are concerned with the performance of the system and that high performance would not result 
in any additional costs imposed on them. The industry has not expressed a particular view on 
governance or data policy. 

As  regards  Member  States,  they  all  agree  on  the  need  of  a  SST  system  and  that  the  system 
should build on existing assets. All Member States agree on the governance model in options 
2 to 5. One of them has indicated on a number of occasions that it would prefer a European 
entity  to  be  set  up  to  deal  with  the  sensor  and  processing  functions,  although  it  accepts  the 
proposed governance scheme on the condition that it ensures the participation of all Member 
States willing to be part of the consortium. Furthermore, they all agree on the proposed data 
policy and are open to the idea of a European entity acting as a Front Desk. Member States 
owning SST sensors and capacities under military control highlighted the importance for the 
data policy and governance to take account of national security concerns. All options respect 
these concerns. 

As  regards  performance,  Member  States  are  in  favour  of  an  improved  performance  of  the 
order  suggested  in  options  2  to  4.  When  it  comes  to  funding,  some  Member  States  are 
concerned that if the EU completely funded the system, geographical return of investments in 
the  way  ESA  guarantees  it  would  be  affected.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  Member  States 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
understand budgetary constraints and while potentially open to any of the options proposed, 
their most favoured options are 3 and 4. 

6. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

6.1. 

Impacts of option 1: baseline scenario 

6.1.1. 

Strategic impact 

Under the baseline scenario, the EU would not invest in the setting up and operations of SST 
services  at  European  level.  This  would  not  affect  the  implementation  of  the  EU  flagship 
programmes Galileo and Copernicus (new name for GMES), but their long-term security and 
sustainable exploitation could be affected. 

6.1.2.  Economic impact 

The problems identified would not be addressed and are likely to aggravate over the coming 
years.  With  increasing  space  activity  and  increasing  space  debris,  economic  losses  due  to 
launch  failures,  satellite  loss  or  damage,  and  service  outages  are  expected  to  increase. 
Industrial activity in SST in Europe would stay at current limited level.  

6.1.3. 

Social impact 

In absence of EU action and the fact that Member States do not seem to be ready to engage in 
major SST development activities in the framework of ESA, the impact on job creation of this 
option  is  negligible.  Security  threats  from  uncontrolled  re-entries  of  space  debris  into  the 
Earth's atmosphere as explained in the problem definition section would not be addressed or 
mitigated.  With  increasing  space  activity,  the  risks  to  the  security  of  European  citizens  or 
critical ground-based infrastructure risks to increase. 

6.1.4.  Environmental impact 

All  estimates  agree  on  the  constant  and  significant  growth  of  the  debris  population  in  the 
future  (in  fact  each  collision  between  space  objects  leads  to  an  exponential  growth  of  the 
debris population) and the need for action to preserve the space environment. In the absence 
of EU intervention none of these premises will be affected. 

6.2. 

Impacts of option 2, 3 and 4:  

6.2.1. 

Strategic impact 

The  proposed  governance  and  data  policy  schemes  will  allow  Member  States  to  actively 
contribute  and  safeguard  their  national  security  interests.  These  options  would  build  on 
existing international cooperation with the US. In general terms, the setting up of a European 
SST capability would allow the EU to collaborate with and influence developments in the US 
as an equal partner with a view to mutually enhancing SST performance. Furthermore, these 
options  would  strengthen  Europe's  independent  access  to  space  and  its  capacity  to  make 
independent  decisions  concerning  the  safety  of  spacecraft  operations.  Finally,  these  options 
offer a pragmatic framework for European cooperation in SST which can be extended to plug 
in further sensors should it be needed in the future. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
6.2.2.  Economic impact 

The  proposed  initiative  would  improve  the  European  SST's  ability  to  detect  hazardous 
situations and provide more accurate SST information for the launch and in-orbit operation of 
satellites. It would imply a reduction of the risk of satellite losses and the number of collision 
avoidance  manoeuvres  leading  to  a  reduction  of  economic  losses.  The  current  anualised 
estimated  loss  of  140  M€  would  be   reduced  by  a  factor  of  3  to  5  to  between  28  to  46  M€. 
These  options  would  build  on  existing  SST  sensors  and  human  expertise  and  foresee  the 
development  of  new  SST  sensors.  The  development  of  new  sensors  as  suggested  in  these 
options is likely to have a multiplier effect in terms of industrial activity of 2.3. Considering 
only that the investment in new assets would amount to roughly 50 M€ per annum, i.e. 350 
M€ over the seven year period 2014-2020, the total 
industrial return can be estimated at 805 
M€. 

6.2.3. 

Social impact 

The proposed action would generate a minimum of 50 permanent staff positions. 

Moreover, it will lead to an improvement of Europe's ability to predict the trajectory of space 
objects, and will as a consequence improve its capacity to control re-entries of space debris 
into  the  Earth’s  atmosphere.  Due  to  lack  of  any  quantitative  data  and  studies  on  material 
damage caused by un-controlled re-entries it is not possible at this point of time to quantify 
this positive impact. 

6.2.4.  Environmental impact 

These  options  would  increase  Europe's  capacity  to  monitor  uncontrolled  re-entries  of  space 
debris  and  to  put  in  place  a  coherent  and  clear  procedure  to  issue  meaningful  and  timely 
warnings to national security authorities.  

6.3. 

Impacts of option 5: EU-led SST development and exploitation (risk reduction 
factor of 10) 

6.3.1. 

Strategic and governance impact 

In addition to the strategic impacts outlined for the previous options, option 5 could clearly 
increase the EU's strategic potential to strengthen and intensify cooperation in SST with other 
space-faring  nations  (notably  the  US)  through  established  political  channels.  In  this  option, 
the EU would have the full control over the setting up of the European SST capability, and 
would ensure that the initiative is open to all EU Member States that wish to participate.  

6.3.2.  Economic impact 

The  EU  SST  programme  proposed  in  this  option  implies  the  development/procurement  of 
new  SST  assets  for  the  amount  of  810  M€
  during  the  period  2014-2020.  Investments  are 
likely to have a multiplier effect in terms of industrial activity of 2.3. This would result in a 
direct  and  indirect  industrial  turnover  of  1.863  billion  €.  A pplying  the  same  approach  to 
estimate the reduction of economic losses likely to be brought about by option 3, it could be 
estimated that option 5 could reduce the risks identified in the problem definition by a factor 
of  10  or  above.  This  would  imply  a  possible  reduction  of  estimated  annual  losses  due  to 
collisions to 14 M€ from the current es timate annualised economic loss of 140 M€. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
6.3.3. 

Social impact 

In  accordance  with  this  option,  the  potential  for  the  creation  of  permanent  jobs  in  the 
engineering and data analyst domain would be around 100 new jobs across Europe. As option 
2, 3 and 4, this option would lead to an improvement of Europe's ability to predict re-entries 
of space debris into the Earth’s atmosphere. Option 5 provides a potential to reduce risks to 
the security of European citizens and critical terrestrial infrastructure even further. 

6.3.4.  Environmental impact 

As  in  option  2  to  4,  this  option  would  strengthen  Europe's  capacity  to  monitor  the  debris 
population,  avoid  collisions,  and  thus  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  further  space  debris  creation. 
Option 5 would allow the detection of debris up to 3 to 5 cm which are today not catalogued. 
This would significantly increase Europe's capacity the risk of debris clouds and their long-
term proliferation in Low Earth Orbit. 

Comparing the options and conclusions: 

Strengths 

Weakness 

Option 1: 
Baseline 

A limited service is provided by the US at no 
cost.  Public  funds  may  be  diverted  to  other 
priorities. 

Option 2 

A collision risk reduction of 3 to 5 is targeted. 
Positive  strategic,  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts. 

have 

Several  Member  States 
given 
indications  of  their  willingness  to  develop 
additional SST assets in the framework of an 
EU-led  SST  initiative.  This  option  comforts 
Member  States'  perception  that  developing 
their  own  assets  guarantees 
their 
investment benefits national industry. 

that 

Option 3 

As in option 2, a collision risk reduction of 3 to 
5  is  targeted.  Positive  strategic,  economic, 
social and environmental impacts. 

have 

Several  Member  States 
given 
indications  of  their  willingness  to  develop 
additional SST assets in the framework of an 
EU-led  SST  initiative.  This  option  comforts 
Member  States'  perception  that  developing 
their  own  assets  guarantees 
their 
investment benefits national industry. 

that 

The  risk  of  collision  remains  and  will  get 
worse.  EU  unable  to  protect  critical  space 
infrastructure.  Negative  strategic,  economic, 
social and environmental impacts.  

It  does  not  meet  either  Member  States  or 
industry expectations. 

This  option  requires  significant  funding  from 
both  the  EU  and  from  Member  States  willing 
to  develop  new  assets.  Although  there  is 
evidence 
that  some  Member  States  are 
indeed  supportive  of  this  idea  and  willing  to 
develop  new  assets,  the  EU  does  not  have 
full control over the funding required to set up 
a European SST service. 

The  EU 
investment  does  not  cover  an 
important part of the costs directly linked with 
the  setting  up  of  a  European  SST;  i.e.  the 
operations  of  the  sensor  and  processing 
function.  It  does  not  meet  Member  States' 
expectations that as a minimum the EU would 
cover  the  operational  costs  of  the  European 
SST  service  and  therefore  may  not  provide 
sufficient  incentive  for  Member  States  to 
invest. 

As in option 2, this option requires significant 
funding  from  both  the  EU  and  from  Member 
to  develop  new  assets. 
States  willing 
Although 
that  some 
Member  States  are  indeed  supportive  of  this 
idea  and  willing  to  develop  new  assets,  the 
EU does not have full control over the funding 
required to set up a European SST service. 

is  evidence 

there 

This 
States 
option  meets  Member 
expectation that as a minimum the EU would 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
cover  the  operational  costs  of  the  European 
SST service. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Option 4 

A collision risk reduction of 3 to 5 is targeted. 
Positive  strategic,  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts. 

As  sole  contributor,  the  EU  has  a  higher 
responsibility  for  the  overall  system  and  in 
particular it has to supervise the acquisition of 
new assets.  

It gives the EU practically full control over the 
funding  required  to  set  up  a  European  SST 
service. 

Some Member States  would welcome higher 
funding  from  the  EU  as  this  guarantees  the 
setting  up  of  an  EU  SST  service  and  would 
give tem the choice of either invest further in 
SST or in other space projects. 

funding 

the  EU 

As 
to  be 
redeployed  from  other  sources,  the  amount 
required  under  this  option  would  impose  a 
non-negligible burden on those sources. 

for  SST 

is 

Option 5 

A  collision  risk  reduction  of  10  is  targeted. 
This  option  provides 
the  most  positive 
strategic, economic, social and environmental 
impacts. 

As  sole  contributor,  the  EU  has  a  higher 
responsibility  for  the  overall  system  and  in 
particular it has to supervise the acquisition of 
new assets.  

It gives the EU practically full control over the 
funding  required  to  set  up  a  European  SST 
service. 

Some Member States  would welcome higher 
funding  from  the  EU  as  this  guarantees  the 
setting  up  of  an  EU  SST  service  and  would 
give tem the choice of either invest further in 
SST or in other space projects. 

is 

funding 

the  EU 

for  SST 

As 
to  be 
redeployed  from  other  sources,  the  amount 
required  under  this  option  can  only  be  made 
available through very significant cuts in other 
programmes  and  would  require  very  difficult 
trade offs. 

A further comparison on the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the different options is 
provided in the IA report. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

A mid-term and ex-post evaluation will be carried out. As far as monitoring is concerned, the 
Commission  will  ensure  that  grant  agreements  or  contracts  under  the  framework  of  the 
proposed  initiative  provide  for  supervision  and  financial  control  by  the  Commission,  if 
necessary  by  means  of  on-the-spot  checks,  sample  checks,  and  audits  by  the  Court  of 
Auditors.  

In  addition  to  the  financial  supervision,  the  Commission  will  put  in  place  mechanisms  to 
ensure  the  continuous  quality  of  the  SST  services  provided.  This  will  be  realised  by 
measuring  users'  satisfaction  on  one  side  and  by  technical  audits  on  the  other  side.  The  IA 
report  presents  a  table  with  objectives  and  their  corresponding  indicators.  As  regards  anti-
fraud,  the  EU  funding  contribution  is  proposed  to  be  provided  through  grant  agreements 
which will allow for appropriate financial control through the Commission.  

EN 

12 

   EN