REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Interim Evaluation of the European Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011-2013)
Date: 2013-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, database management system, satellite, security services, space research













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0805 - EN











|



52013DC0805

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the Interim Evaluation of the European Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011-2013) /* COM/2013/0805 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
on the Interim Evaluation of the European
Earth Monitoring Programme (GMES) and its Initial Operations (2011-2013)
1.           Introduction
This report sets out the main findings and
recommendations of the interim evaluation of the GMES Initial Operations
Programme (hereinafter “the Programme”), presents the Commission's response to
the evaluation and lists the measures to be taken in light of the findings. 
The Commission complies with Article 14(2)
of the Regulation on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its
initial operations (2011-2013)[1]
to communicate an interim evaluation to the European Parliament, the Council
and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions. Being the report of an interim nature, it does not deliver the
complete information requested by a full ex-post evaluation, which, in
accordance with the GIO Regulation, will be addressed by the end of 2015. For
this reason the report has mainly adopted a qualitative approach to the
evaluation and just proposed a set of possible indicators for future
evaluations.
The delay in dealing with this action was
due to the overwhelming drain on resources due to the urgent drafting of the
Copernicus Regulation for the operational phase of the Programme and also the
Delegated Act to define the Copernicus data policy. This was considered a
priority to ensure the maximum continuity and stability of the regulatory
framework for the users' to take-up. The full interim evaluation report has
been published on Copernicus website[2]
and it is always available there to ensure the information source for deepening
the issues summarised hereafter. 
2.           Background
2.1.        From GMES to Copernicus
Following the 1998 Baveno Manifesto, the EU
made a strategic decision to develop an independent European space-based Earth Observation
capacity at the 2000 Gothenburg Council to deliver services in the environmental
and security fields through GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and
Security). The intention was that this capacity would be firmly built on, and
strengthened by existing research capacities in the Earth Observation field led
by the European Space Agency (ESA), EUMETSAT and individual Member States. From 1998 to 2013, the EU and ESA funded the initial development of GMES, i.e. investing
in the development of pre-operational services, in GMES Initial Operations and in
the space component.
In July 2013, the European Commission
adopted the Proposal for a Regulation on establishing the European Earth
Observation Programme, Copernicus[3].
The name change to Copernicus marked the transition from the research and
pre-operational phase to fully operational.
The primary aim of the programme is to
provide, under the Union’s control, a set of autonomous services which give
access to accurate environmental and security data and information and which
are tailored to the needs of users, primarily those in charge of making,
implementing and monitoring policy in the EU and its Member States. The EU investment aims at filling observation gaps, providing access to existing assets
and developing operational services. Copernicus also has a key role in
delivering the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Copernicus has six operational services: Marine
Monitoring, Atmosphere Monitoring, Land Monitoring, and Climate Change Monitoring
as well as providing Emergency Management and Security support. A combination
of data from satellites and in-situ sensors (such as buoys, balloons and air
sensors) provide timely and reliable added-value information and forecasts to
support, for example, agriculture and fisheries, land use, urban planning disaster
response, maritime transport and air pollution monitoring.
2.2.        GMES Initial Operations
The Programme was set up as an interim
instrument to bridge the transition from
GMES pre-operational services developed during the ‘build up’ phase financed
through FP7 Space funds, to the full exploitation of GMES post-2013. , The GIO Programme
officially started on 1st January 2011, and the first GMES operational
services commenced in April 2012.The two services which have reached a fully
operational status are the Emergency Management Service (EMS) and the Land Monitoring
service. The Programme focuses on the full service chain for emergency response
and land monitoring: infrastructure operations, data access and product
development. The rationale for providing funding to these areas was to: (i)
ensure continuity with the GMES Preparatory Actions[4], (ii) address the urgent need
for emergency maps and services and (iii) recognise that private service
providers would cease their activities without continuity.
2.3.        The Programme Interim
Evaluation
The interim evaluation was commissioned by
the Commission and undertaken by the Centre for Strategy and Evaluation
Services, which drew on data collected through research and interviews carried
out in 2012.
The aim was to provide an assessment of the
implementation of the Programme to date and in particular to:
·                        
Assess the relevance (and coherence),
efficiency, effectiveness (and impacts), added value and sustainability of the Programme
implementation.
·                        
Assess the progress made with respect to the
specific aims of GMES-related policies: data and information policy, security
policy, the GMES User Forum, GMES Committee and the Security Board, etc.
·                        
Provide information in preparation for the GMES
programme beyond 2013. 
At the time of the evaluation services were
at an early stage and therefore, the focus has also been on assessing progress
more broadly, e.g. the extent to which the Commission has played an effective
overall coordination role, and to what degree the
newly established GMES User Forum has achieved its aims.
3.           Main findings of the evaluation
The present report builds on the structure
of the external interim evaluation report. The main focus of the latter has
been on the operational aspects of the Programme, namely the Emergency Management
Service and the Land Monitoring Service. The remaining services were either
pre-operational, i.e. based on research projects financed under FP7 funds, or
in the design phase. This is the case of the MyOcean2 and MACCII FP7 projects
for the Marine and Atmosphere components respectively. The Security Service and
the Climate Change Service do not have a single reference project but can build
on the results of a panoply of research projects and national initiatives. The
space component has been analysed in the report just from the point of view of
data buy from contributing missions, based on requirements expressed through
the Data Warehouse (DWH) mechanism agreed with ESA (since the dedicated Sentinel
satellites were still under construction). 
3.1.        The operational services
3.1.1.     Emergency Management Service
(EMS)
The EMS-Mapping Service, launched in April
2012, is highly important to the needs of national civil protection agencies
and wider users. Therefore, users’ needs were taken into account in the design,
testing and validation phases of EMS. 
Lessons learned
through the linkER[5]
service under the GMES Preparatory Action and SAFER[6] pre-operational project were
highlighted in deliverables submitted to the Commission. The service has been
effective in incorporating the cumulative practical experience and knowledge
built up over several years about user needs in the emergency response field
through dedicated thematic workshops, working groups and user meetings organised
through previous projects. Data products developed through EMS-Mapping indicate
strong continuity with those developed through the pre-operational FP7 SAFER
project, although some changes have been made, which are linked to the
specifications for the new operational service.
An important
achievement of EMS-Mapping is the availability of a fully operational service
capable of delivering data products in both rush and non-rush modes from the
outset of the service’s launch. However, since the non-rush mode had not yet
been activated at the time of the evaluation, it seemed likely that the rush
mode service would have a greater impact on assisting the user community
particularly in the civil protection field. There
were high levels of satisfaction among service users with final image products.
However, some civil protection users of EMS-Mapping data products stated that
they would like to have access to primary datasets through ESA’s Data Warehouse
(DWH) – providing access to contributing mission satellite data – to be able to
integrate these into operational workflows. The EMS-Mapping Service could be
made more effective, if the space component were to be supplemented, where
appropriate, in rush mode with very high resolution in-situ data for specific
types of emergencies (e.g. airborne remote sensing data for earthquakes). Continuous
efforts are needed within EMS-Mapping (rush mode) to improve the timeliness of EMS data availability following service activation. 
The
network of National Focal Points (NFPs) set up through the linkER Preparatory
Action and coordinated by DG ECHO’s Monitoring and Information Centre has
played a core role in disseminating EMS-Mapping data products to relevant players
at regional and sub-regional levels. These actions have proved to be very
important to structure the user community response, but in some Member States
more work is required in this area.
3.1.2.     Land Monitoring service
The data products of the pan-European
component of the Land Monitoring service are highly relevant to the identified
needs of European and national environmental policy makers and public
authorities responsible for environmental monitoring and reporting. The
products envisaged under the global component of the Land Monitoring service
are also extremely relevant since it is important to be able to monitor
vegetation and various other bio-parameters on a frequent basis so as to inform
EU policy areas such as agriculture and international development, where the EU
has global commitments, and to be able to provide input to global spatial
information sharing initiatives, such as the Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS).
The streamlining phase in the development
of specific products has been essential in ensuring that the outputs are as homogeneous
as possible. However, it is important for full operation that detailed product
specifications are published very early on in the lifetime of the service contracts. In this regard the evaluation underlines the need for a more
accurate specification of observational requirements (e.g. through the
specification of the vegetation seasonal issues in the Data Warehouse for
satellite data requirements).
Although the future Copernicus Sentinels will
produce mid-resolution data, there was evidence of a growing need within the services
for higher volumes of high resolution data. The data procurement scheme based
upon the Data Warehouse requirements which is currently in place under ESA
coordination will be maintained and improved in the future for this type of
data.
The Land Monitoring service had a longer
than expected definition phase for the development of thematic products and the
streamlining process required aligning outputs produced by the different
service contractors across different geographic domains. Issues remain regarding
the timeliness of pan-European land data products availability
The global land component of the service has
the potential to support evidence-based policy making, especially for external
EU policies in domains such as agriculture, food security, environment,
desertification, drought monitoring and tackling climate change at the international
level. The service should also help the EU to meet its existing European
commitments under international treaties and conventions by contributing to
GEOSS, thereby fulfilling the EU’s international commitments regarding Earth
observational systems. Initiatives such as the EEA’s Corine Land Cover User
Application Database are a good example of the different ways in which
Copernicus core products are being used further downstream.
3.2.        User involvement, downstream
development and data access
The Programme was found to be of paramount importance
to the needs of users, especially at European and national level.
Pan-European data products are needed for evidence-based policy making through space-based
observation, monitoring and reporting activities in critical areas such as
meeting key European environmental targets and monitoring the impact of climate
change.
There was general consensus that the Programme
delivers added value because it provides European level data products that are
consistent and comparable, albeit GMES could still be improved in certain areas
(e.g. clear data policy, easier access to data),There is the need to ensure
appropriate engagement with local and regional authorities, who are not as clear
(especially in some new Member States) on how GMES products could be applied to
meet their needs in developing localised services for citizens. A generally
positive picture has emerged in the evaluation with regard to users’ involvement:
they seem to be very interested in the outcomes and in obtaining data products from
the two operational services funded through the Programme.
Despite short term challenges, there is potential
for Copernicus to create employment and to support economic growth through the
development of Earth Observation services, over the medium and long-term There
is also a need to harness this potential more effectively by using feedback on
the potential use of data received from public authorities (especially at local
and regional level). In addition, there is a need for further customisation of
data (and the incorporation of additional thematic datasets) before the
products can be said to meet user needs at local and regional level. Arguably,
this development stage can be undertaken by new players entering the data
provision value-chain and developing value-added downstream services.
A potential for the development of the
downstream market has been recognised, together with the recommendation of
ensuring continuity in the programme development and in the services provision.
Figures from the EEA suggest that making data products which integrate GMES
data with data from other sources (e.g. Corine Land Cover Image 2006[7] and the Urban Atlas[8]) freely available online has already
stimulated the development of downstream services by the public sector. The
availability of quality and timely reference data and in situ data has been
identified as critical to the success. Progress has been made through the framework
of INSPIRE[9]
to remove outstanding technical barriers to the harmonisation of national
reference data, but work still remains to be done. 
Obstacles to downstream development have
been identified as: a lack of knowledge and awareness among SMEs on accessing data,
uncertainty regarding the potential size and scope of public markets for
services using data, routes to market and whether there is sufficient demand
(and ability to pay) to generate economies of scale. What were identified as
risky funding uncertainties have now been removed despite the fact that the
Copernicus budget approved in the MFF is lower than the Commission’s original
proposal, the new Copernicus Regulation and future management of the Programme are
being designed to adapt to this situation
and to ensure the continuity necessary for stakeholder investment in Copernicus
data exploitation.
3.3.        Overall results of the
evaluation
In general, the evaluation confirmed the
relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the Programme. It is clear that the
objective of establishing the first operational services has already been
achieved.
With regard to coherence, although the
Programme Regulation was adopted before the Europe 2020 strategy the programme
is coherent with the strategy’s aims of promoting smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, for instance, through the development of downstream services,
which will contribute to growth and jobs. However there are barriers to maximising
potential due to a lack of awareness among enterprises and a there is also a demand
for higher resolution data. 
Overall, although it may be premature to
provide a full assessment, the two main operational services developed through
the Programme are expected to deliver good value for money; other impacts will
need to be assessed at the ex-post evaluation, which will take place in 2015. 
Stakeholders were very satisfied with the overall
management and implementation arrangements within the Programme. Among the
results of the interviews, it is worth noticing that most users declared to be
interested both in already operational Services and in the transversal products
to come from the full set of operational Services. The evaluation showed the
existence of alternatives to GMES for a part of the users: those may be at a
national level, losing the European perspective of the Programme under
scrutiny, or not for free as the products from the Services and the data from
the Sentinels will be. The users were satisfied with the delegation of specific
functions to the JRC, the EEA and DG ECHO’s Monitoring and Information Centre relating
to the development of two GMES services. For instance, appropriate technical
expertise has been made available by the JRC and the EEA to steer the
development of the EMS-Mapping and land services, and to ensure adequate
coordination in defining data and imagery needs to ESA. However, further
cooperation is needed to ensure that the Data Warehouse managed by ESA procures
data that is ‘fit for purpose’.
The work of the responsible Commission Unit
has been positively evaluated and the existence of continuity between research
projects and pre-operational services has been recognised. Nonetheless, the
need for better prioritisation was underlined. Overall, the Programme has been
judged as an effective mechanism for developing fully operational services. Due
to budgetary limitations only two services out of the intended possible six
could be developed at this early stage; this choice was
considered appropriate since it provided the
scope to continue funding other services in a pre-operational environment. 
The European added value of the Programme was
clearly identified as addressing users’ cross-border Earth Observation monitoring
needs in the emergency management and land sectors. Many Earth Observation
needs for policy makers and public users are inherently cross-border in nature
due to Member States having shared responsibility for monitoring border areas
and the inter-connectedness of various regions. Different countries also share similar environmental or urban
characteristics, e.g. bio-diversity monitoring in riparian zones, urban
planning challenges between cities of a similar size.
Over time, through a ‘phase in, phase out’
approach, European datasets could incorporate contributions from National
Mapping, Land Registry and Cadastral Agencies. This is however dependent on
resolving outstanding problems related to insufficient data harmonisation In
the interim period, both types of dataset need to co-exist, with proper
linkages and interoperability between the two, also thanks to the INSPIRE
process.
4.           Main recommendations and
planned follow-up actions 
The Commission has learned valuable lessons
from the evaluation. It endeavours to continuously improve its implementation
of the Programme and take into account the recommendations in the design and implementation
of the fully operational phase. The evaluation has also provided important practical
guidance for the preparation of the Proposal for the new Copernicus Regulation
(COM(2013) 312 final/2 of 12 July 2013) for data policy development and for
data requirements identification (i.e. Data
Warehouse).
To answer the need to a better data buy
scheme, both for the Emergency Management and the Land Monitoring Services, a
new version of the Data Warehouse is currently under discussion between the
European Commission and the European Space Agency. The need to improve
timeliness, resolutions and acquisition windows has been clearly outlined in
the document. Moreover, as far as the timeliness of EMS service, meetings are
held between the Service provider, ESA and the EC, to understand
responsibilities and narrow possible bottlenecks, improving the overall
performance.
Questions arose in the evaluation regarding
the future role of the User Forum which must be separated from that of the GMES
Committee, so as not to undermine the User Forum’s role in providing the link
in governance arrangements between the Commission, Member States and ‘real’
end-users. The User Forum is not mentioned in the current proposal for the
Copernicus Regulation, because it does not follow standard comitology rules; however
regular stakeholders' involvement will be maintained[10], in particular at the service
level and with more specialised user groups.
With regard to administrative and reporting
burdens on stakeholders, there did not appear to be particularly arduous
requirements. The service operators did not raise any specific issues on the
amount of information required during the implementation of service contracts.
However, the monitoring framework and indicator set for GMES had not been fully
agreed and implemented when the evaluation took place. A review of indicators
to measure the future contribution of the Programme in achieving Copernicus-related
policy objectives has been carried out by the evaluator; this will prove
important in measuring the performance of a fully operational programme such as
Copernicus and will be included in future service agreements.
As services and data are already being used
across a diverse range of policy areas, the evaluation results are of interest
to wider Commission services, especially the following DGs: AGRI, CLIMA, EEAS,
ECHO, ENV, MARE and REGIO. In addition, the European Environment Agency (EEA)
and the JRC may draw on the evaluation findings in their present capacity as technical
coordinators for the GMES Emergency Management Service and the Land Monitoring
service.
Following the recommendation, services development
has been designed to exploit synergies and avoid duplications. In the evaluator’s
view, up to now there has been a tendency to focus more on the space component
to the detriment of the in-situ and services components. Greater policy
attention was considered crucial in ensuring services are sufficiently well
resourced and in closing data gaps, since these components are critical to the
ultimate success of the programme. At the Commission there has recently been a
re-organisation to ensure that both the infrastructure component and services
get due attention: there are now two Units, each one dealing with one Copernicus
area. Moreover, the draft Copernicus Regulation responds to the recommendation
by foreseeing a considerable increase in the funding for services.
The evaluator stressed the need to finalise
the data and information policy. Copernicus stakeholders and in particular the
private sector, who are less well informed, need clarity on how the concept of
‘full and open data access’ will operate in practice. The Commission has
recently adopted the Delegated Regulation[11]
on data policy which clarifies these issues.
[1]               Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the European Earth
monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011-2013). OJ L. 276,
20.10.2010, p.1.
[2]               http://www.copernicus.eu/pages-principales/library/study-reports/
[3]               COM(2013) 312 final/2 of 12 July 2013.
[4]               The GMES Preparatory Actions were allocated a budget
of EUR 10.2 million during the 2008-2010 period. Three annual calls for tenders
of 3 years duration were supported which led to the award of five preparatory
projects. 
[5]               linkER is the Preparatory Action intended to support
the operational use of GMES Emergency Management service products across the
whole European Union.
[6]               The SAFER project aims at implementing preoperational
versions of the Emergency Management service.
[7]               In 1985 the Corine programme was initiated in the
European Union. Corine means 'Coordination of Information on the Environment'.
It was a prototype project working on many different environmental issues. The
Corine databases and several of its programmes have been taken over by the EEA.
[8]               The Urban Atlas is providing pan-European comparable
land use and land cover data for Large Urban Zones with more than 100.000
inhabitants as defined by the Urban Audit. The Geographic Information Systems
data can be downloaded together with a map for each urban area covered and a
report with the metadata.
[9]               Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information
in the European Community. 
[10]             COM(2013) 312 final/2 of 12 July 2013, Art 2(2), Art
2(3).
[11]             Commission Delegated Regulation of 12 July 2013,
Document C(2013)4311 final.